Massachusetts Senate Race: Election Day

NOTE: I’ll be updating this post throughout the day.

I’ve been up here for only a day, but it’s hard to detect anything that looks good for Democratic nominee Martha Coakley, the state’s Attorney General.

Her election-eve rally at a gym in a Framingham middle school was three-quarters empty; someone on the campaign had pulled a curtain across the midpoint of the gym, so that it wouldn’t look even worse. (This “packed house” photo of the event by the campaign nothwithstanding.) The candidate came onstage to the “Rocky” theme–an extraordinary choice, given that she at one point had been sitting on a 30-point lead in some polls.

What worries long-time Democrats in the state even more, they tell me, are the other omens they are seeing–not just an accelerating deterioration in the polls, but also yard signs for her opponent, state Senator Scott Brown, in neighborhoods where they had never seen even a stirring of life for the GOP.

All that said, this is a special election, which makes it notoriously unpredictable–and unpollable. The national Democratic party is going full-stop with a get-out-the-vote operation that officials say rivals what they did in the swing states during the presidential contest. It is not out of the question that her party could still pull Coakley over the finish line.

Nonetheless, the recriminations have already begun. Washington blames Coakley, and the deficiencies both in her candidacy and her campaign. But she was not the only one who seemed asleep at the switch here; her defenders tell me that it had been difficult for her to raise money, because no one believed this was much of a race.

I’m convinced that a Democratic loss, if it happens, is a sign of something much larger than the failings of one candidate. In talking to Brown voters, you come away with a sense that this is more about Washington than anything else. Sure, Brown has been a terrific campaigner. But no one I talked to seemed particularly aware of any position he had taken–except that he would be the 41st vote in the Senate to stop the Obama agenda. “Right now, people just don’t want to hear anything the Democrats have to say,” one veteran strategist from the Kennedy operation told me. “They think there is a lot coming out of Washington, and none of it is for them.”

UPDATE: The view from Blue Hill Avenue.

8 a.m. UPDATE: Swampland commenters: I am going to try something that some of you have begged for in situations like this in the past. Instead of writing multiple posts, I am going to just update this one as the day goes on. That way, you too can continue your conversations in one place.

Unless circumstances (or the High Sheriffs) warrant something else…

Meanwhile, I’ve been checking around, and can’t find anyone doing exit polls. That means not only a long night is possible, but also, that we will not have as much data as we might like right away on who voted and why.

Also, you can keep an eye on the Boston weather (an important election day consideration) here. At the moment, there’s what one local weatherman is calling a “fine, steady snow.”

8:23 a.m. UPDATE: Yes, I know it’s early, but so far, my candidate for Most Audacious Spin of the Day is this from Organizing for America:

THE OBAMA MACHINE — A Democratic official says the DNC’s Organizing for America, at least, is a winner today: “It’s clear, win or lose, OFA has flexed the muscle of the president’s grassroots army. One of the primary reasons the race is even close going into Election Day is the work OFA has done which has brought much of the base home and increased Democratic participation according to polls by double digits. The lesson here is that an engaged Organizing for America can help put a campaign in a position to win. Whether a particular campaign has an infrastructure, the talent and the candidate to put it over the top is another story.” From Saturday through last night, OFA vols across the country made 1.2 million calls into Massachusetts on behalf of Coakley.

So what were they doing while Coakley was blowing a 30-point lead?

UPDATE 12:45 p.m.: Cartoonist Sage Stossel captures the feel of this place.

UPDATE 1 p.m.: Nasty weather. Special election. Should be a formula for low turnout. Instead, the Boston Globe tells us:

Light snow has not discouraged heavy traffic at polling places as more than 55,000 people cast ballots by noon in Boston, an early turnout more than double that of the primary last month. Other cities and towns experience similar waves of voters. Lines formed at a polling place in Somerville, and traffic backed up out Bates Elementary School in Wellesley, with cars spilling onto Elmwood Road.

UPDATE 1:28 p.m.: Turnout in the Boston suburbs looks like it could be huge. Democrats do not view that as a good sign.

UPDATE 3:30 p.m.: Random sighting: Scott Brown and entourage just got on the hotel elevator ahead of me.

UPDATE 3:37 p.m.: Also, people–including a guy dressed like Uncle Sam–are already gathering in the lobby.

UPDATE 3:52 p.m.: I’m heading out now to do “Hardball.” I’ll check back in here in a few hours.

UPDATE 6:02 p.m.: Pelosi, following leadership meeting:

Regardless of what happens in Massachusetts, we still have to resolve the difference between our two bills.

This does not sound like they are preparing to pass the Senate bill in the House.

Related Topics: martha coakley, massachusetts senate race, scott brown, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • Paul-no not that one

    one veteran strategist from the Kennedy operation told me. “They think there is a lot coming out of Washington, and none of it is for them.”
    .
    The Libertarian’s strategist is anti-DC?

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    :)
    .
    Actually, as best i can tell, THAT kennedy’s “operation” seems to consist of … being named kennedy.

  • znanab

    So the “Brown voters” you have talked to are not particulary aware of his positions but they plan on voting for him anyway. Well, good luck to them. Let’s hope Brown wins, so we can all go back to where we were in September 2008. Things were just great in this country, weren’t they?

    I bet these are the same people who probably think Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC), Senator Vitter (R-LA) and Senator Ensign (R-NV) all deserve to be in office regardless of their “moral failings” because they are all against the “Obama agenda” whatever that is.

    A question I have for this so-called “veteran strategist for the Kennedy operation” is, if these people don’t want to hear anything from the Democrats, what exactly do they believe they heard from the Republicans during the last decade? We all did just great, didn’t we? Suckers!

  • Paul-no not that one

    Your observation made me think of this lady-
    .
    Those who followed St. Paul politics in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s will surely recall Mary Jane Rachner, who officially changed her name in 1994 to Maryjane Reagan.
    .
    http://www.minnpost.com/joekimball/2009/01/06/5633/st_pauls_colorful_–_and_longtime_–_political_candidate_maryjane_reagan_dies_at_87
    .
    Completely off-topic. Apologies.

  • Paul-no not that one

    From the Blue Hill update-
    .
    “All my friends voted for Obama. A lot of them were like me. It was the first time we voted. Even older people in my family, it was the first time they voted. Everybody thought things would get better. But they haven’t. I know a lot of people who have lost their houses this year. It’s sad. All my friends are saying Obama promised a lot but he’s doing nothing. I don’t know if that’s true. But that’s what my friends are saying.’’
    .
    That pretty well sums up the feelings of a lot of people I would imagine.
    .
    It’s not that BHO and the Democratic majorities have done nothing it’s that there is very little sense that they have done anything for the people who got them elected.
    .
    Ignore the base and pay a price, it really is that simple.
    .
    I wonder if leading centrist Joe K will still feel so triumphant that the Left doesn’t matter, which has been his position on HCR, after a depressed turnout gives Ted Kennedy’s old seat to the republicans.

  • foodog1

    Agreed! The Republicans screwed up Pre-Obama, I don’t think there is a single Republican out there in the country that will deny that. But, the burning questions is: Why do the Democrats have to screw up five times as much in less than a year? This is not a game which Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama seem to be playing behind closed doors. It is the survival of our great nation which the Democrats, (uh pardon, progressives, there is a difference), seem hell bent to destroy. It is obvious to Democrats Republicans and Independents, who go to work every day, (if they have a job), that the promise of the 2009 election was broken by a bunch of people who have no respect for the Constitution of the United States. It becomes even more interesting when you ask one of these elected “Missionaries” what is the 10th or the 2nd or any other amendment to the Constitution and they stammer and stumble. All they want to do is ignore the very existence if the Constitution, write their own laws, Obama included, and trample our rights as citizens.
    The Republicans spent too much money, granted. The progressives intend to eliminate money as we know it. Just go back and listen to Obama’s speeches about “Redistribution” That is your dollars they are taking away, not just the “Rich.
    “I’m convinced that a Democratic loss, if it happens, is a sign of something much larger than the failings of one candidate.” Boy you said a mouthful!

    WR

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    I don’t understand why ordinary people don’t understand that the moderates, that Obama exclusively surrounded himself with after he was elected, only gave the banks 100 cents on the dollar, to cover their gambling, for them. They did it all for them.

    My prediction is the Village will still find a way to blame the loss in Mass., if it happens, on the dirty hippie Leftists.

  • Paul-no not that one

    And the Village will be right.
    .
    Treating a not small segment of your voters in a (this is the gentlest word I can choose) paternalistic manner is a sure way to ensure they sit on their hands.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    I have no idea what you are talking about. This administration has ruled solely from your side of the party, the right. I guess your preference would be for the Left to just shut up, so we don’t hurt your feelings.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Um you read my comment in the exact opposite way it was written.
    .
    Let me be clearer. BHO and the Democratic leadership has blown off the Left. The Left will stay home. The Democrats will lose elections.
    .
    Thus the DFH will will be “to blame”.
    .
    IF the Democrats are smart they will understand the Left gets them elected not the moderates or independents.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    Swampland commenters: I am going to try something that some of you have begged for in situations like this in the past. Instead of writing multiple posts, I am going to just update this one as the day goes on. That way, you too can continue your conversations in one place.
    .
    Unless circumstances (or the High Sheriffs) warrant something else…
    .
    Meanwhile, I’ve been checking around, and can’t find anyone doing exit polls. That means not only a long night is possible, but also, that we will not have as much data as we might like right away on who voted and why.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    My mistake. I’m sure we will see Obama bump up his populist rhetoric, as he breaks even more of his campaign promises over the next year. Meanwhile, the Village already has decided this whole thing has to do with the watered down, “left wing” health reform bill and has nothing to do with the fact that Obama’s centrist economic team has done nothing about jobs on Main street.

  • freeinpa

    This commentary is amusing on several levels; first I wonder if the MSM will go on and on about the great divide in the Democratic party as they have pretended to exist in the Republican party since the election of 2008. Or how it would be much better for Republicans if they would only act more like Democrats.

    Second it is even more amusing to read from folks on the left on how Obama has governed from the “right”. I keep thinking it is a punch line to some inside joke. The only conclusion is that the base supporters of Obama are leftists in the extreme in order to have any belief that is what has happened.

    Third, we are hearing that voters for Brown know nothing about his positions. That seems to disturb them. These are the same folks who had no issue with folks not knowing anything about Obama in the 2008 election as the MSM took the guided tour of his campaign offering nothing but drool and tingles up their legs about the candidate.

    What is going on in MA is becoming more clear by the day. The American people like big government and entitlements, at least in the abstract, until they get a peak as to what happens to their freedoms, taxes and future of this country. They are rising up against this type of government as it is becoming clear that Obama during the campaign and since has lied to them. While the extreme left and the MSM tried to obfuscate and ignore what Obama was really about, it has become clear. The “tea party” movement is not just conservatives but moderate Democrats and Independents as well. The election of MA is a bell weather for the tin-eared left, the people do not belief they know what is best for the country and certainly not for them.

    Now if the left can only figure out a way to blame this election on Bush.

  • vjclancy

    Paul…………., In reference to your remark:

    “IF the Democrats are smart they will understand the Left gets them elected not the moderates or independents”.

    Obviously, the Democrats are not smart, nor are the Republicans! This country, generally, would love to work together as individuals in rebuilding a country that has been destroyed by the constant partisan bickering that has been going on for decades. What we need is to clean house and rid ourselves of the ones who have filled their pockets at the expense of the common American. There is no room for a “Kennedy seat” nor politics behind closed doors; there should be no “reds” and “blues”; and, definitely, there should be no triumvirate thinking that their ideas override those of a whole country.

  • kevin

    Maybe the pundits will start wondering why the rules of Washington work so that Republicans always have a mandate and Democrats never do.
    .
    George W. Bush came in as the loser of the popular vote, but acted like he had a mandate. Having only 50 Senators wasn’t a problem for him, and he pushed through his major initiatives like the first tax cut through reconciliation, no problem. But Obama wins by an 8.5 million vote margin, and has a soft 60 Senators, and yet that’s not enough?
    .
    Of course, Bush found plenty of Democratic allies during his term — Kennedy on NCLB, for instance — but Obama keeps getting his outstretched hand smacked back. Republicans have staked everything on complete and total opposition, staging a sit-down strike in Congress and trying to stop anything and everything.
    .
    The problem, of course, is the record use of the filibuster (or threat thereof) by the Republican minority. At what point does the media start reminding people that these are not, as they keep insisting, “the normal rules” of Washington? The Republicans in the 110th Congress engaged in twice as many filibusters as any previous Congress, and this year, they’re likely to smash the record again.
    .
    This isn’t about right or left. This is about whether or not American democracy is going to function, and whether this country is going to become a failed state, with one of the major parties clapping gleefully the entire way to ruin.
    .
    I know Washington reporters are firmly ensconced in the Beltway mindset, and completely invested in the cocktail party circuit. But this needs to be addressed, and now.

  • progressto

    When I voted for Obama, I did so with the understanding he would not and could not do everything I wanted him to do. The politics of the last year indicate it is worse than I feared; the big tent of Democrats have a diversity of opinion about what is the right thing to do. Obama is leading from the middle because to do anything else would be political suicide.

    If the country was not in such a mess, it is possible that more could be done. Eight years of Bush’s tax cuts and an unnecessary war have emptied our treasury. Saving our financial system has been the first priority. Ignoring that problem would have been a disaster. It has been disaster enough.

    I would have liked a single payer health care system, but there no appetite for that in the Senate and who knows about the House. With the Tea Parties, it has become unclear if the US population is ready for that concept. So we will be lucky to get some healthcare insurance reform.

    I am thankful that we have a rational, compassionate, and thoughtful person as our current President. I will stop here; I have much more that I wish for and will not receive.

  • sacredh

    I feel much the same way. It’s like making out your Christmas wish list and adding a pair of socks at the bottom as an afterthought. Then you wake up and find only the pair of socks under the tree.

  • newfreedomblog

    “So what were they doing while Coakley was blowing a 30-point lead?”

    .
    One would think if they have been following this race closely as I have since right after Christmas, this is nothing but pure spin at the last minute. A feeble attempt at garnering a few votes.
    .
    With that said Ms Tumulty, are you planning on also reporting on the Brown campaign? Or, will you be simply reporting on why Coakley is losing?
    .
    Do you have any information as to why Patrick Kennedy, younger son of Ted, kept calling Martha Coakley, “Marsha” instead of Martha? Perhaps this is a key point that despite their best efforts, Democrats did not have a clue as to who they nominated as their candidate. If so, that speaks volumes. This apparently happened at the MLK breakfast. You were there right?

  • michaelfury

    “If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal.”

    - Emma Goldman

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/coke-or-pepsi/

  • freeinpa

    Sorry Sacredh, the problem is not the Christmas list, its that you expect the government to be Santa Claus.

    Have the icicles melted yet?

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    newfreedom: have you been following my tweets? also, please read my story at the first link in this blog post. i was at a couple of brown events yesterday, and will be at his election-night rally tonight.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    Also, I was at the MLK breakfast, but as best I could tell, Patrick Kennedy was not.

  • freeinpa

    “Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?”
    That’s Chris Van Hollen, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, meaning to help Coakley win Teddy Kennedy’s seat.

    You can’t make this stuff up!

  • maurice2u

    This will likely be somewhat unpopular, and I have my reservations about it within myself, but a strong part of me hopes the Republicans win in Mass.
    .
    I hope it is not just the cynical part of me pushing it’s way around, but I cannot help but feel that as a collective society we have not grown up enough yet. As terrible as some of the events of the last 10, 20, or even 100 years have been, America (particularly the post WW2 America) just hasn’t really matured any. We quite possibly have actually taken a step backwards in social maturity, becoming a fan-based group, widdling everything down to simplistic forms and sides like football fans.
    .
    I think the famous quote is “people get the government they deserve”, and I have to say it remains accurate as ever to me. This is not to say that every individual deserves every thing that happens to them, or that every “bad person” (whatever that means) is always punished in the end. That’s not how life works. But when you pull back all the “me” emotions, and look on a long-term macro level, we did this to ourselves. No foreign super-power forced any of our current conditions on us, no planetary disasters, no aliens …. just … us.
    .
    I sympathize, and dare say anguish at what potential negatives come from us potentially just continuing to go along as we have for so long, but if history tells us anything it is that human beings require dire emergency (real or precieved) to act. Prior knowledge of bad outcomes does not often spur proactive behavior. We are a reactionary species, for better or worse. Kinda sad that comic books and hero movies point this out more often than our media or daily discourse and irregardless we still can’t seem to “grow up”.
    .
    The President doesn’t really have a lot of power on this issue. He can veto something, and outside of that he can make speeches and try to persuade, but ultimately it is what Congress puts forth. Even with that, with our fundamental priorities and motivations unchanged, any and everything is up for avoidance and/or exploitation by all parties: politicians, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and yes even patients alike. Most likely the public will do what it normally does afterward and vote out those who “hurt their feelings” only to put in “those who they knew from the start didn’t support their desires” to replace them, and the cycle goes on with little differnce. A process more akin to getting a new car every few years than actually changing modes of transportation. No matter what party affiliation.
    .
    If I’m fortunate to live another 50 years, it will be interesting to see how the youth of now reacts to the culture of today as they become the leadership of the country. Do they become perpetuators of the same trends, or do they reject the me first, short term gain mentality of today? Will it be a proactive or reactive choice? And of course the big question: why?
    .
    In other news, it’s a beautiful morning outside. Time for a jog. :)

  • newfreedomblog

    “Maybe the pundits will start wondering why the rules of Washington work so that Republicans always have a mandate and Democrats never do.”

    .
    Part of the answer is in your own statement. You indicate that during the Bush term, Democrats and Republicans did work together to pass legislation. NCLB as being an example. Bipartisianship.
    .
    You also mention the tax cuts and it’s 51 vote passage.
    All budget related votes are done with a 51 vote passage. Major legislation like HCR and Cap and Trade due to their scope requires a 60 vote majority. It is written in the Constitution as Senate Rule 22. Prior to the time this rule was put into place, ANY Senator could filibuster a bill. Perhaps this Op-Ed article will assist in explaining to you. I found it very helpful to understand it all myself.
    .
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11geoghegan.html
    .
    Now the quagmire this potentially creates if Scott Brown is elected, will the Democrat Party controlled Senate vote for a “nuclear” option to change rule 22, and make it a simple majority to pass legislation? This would be in fact a major change to the constitution, and why so many people say it would have a major impact. The Republicans considered doing so when many of Bush’s nominees were filibustered, and it was nearly impossible to get a yes or no vote.
    .
    It could mean getting legislation passed quickly, but at what expense to the other party when they are in power at any given time? A very treacherous path in my mind.
    .
    Yes you could then pass this very bad bill called Health Care Reform. But, as we know people are fully against this bill. Elections will be determined because of it, and Republicans may have total control once again. If that is the case then a bad bill could be repealed. Other bills that you may not like at all will be passed. An on-going pass / repeal situation in the Senate, or complete gridlock and nothing gets passed.
    .
    It could set up the senario that for the next 4 years you have health care insurance that you like. Then the next 4 years you don’t because it is repealed. Back and forth with nothing being done. I believe a better solution is for the American people to demand term limits for their representatives. The people can decide what is best.

  • newfreedomblog

    That’s ok Karen. Reports I have seen said it happened during the MLK breakfast. This report shows it as “Kennedy went to Boston”, but doesn’t clarify where it happened. Other than to say he was in front of a gaggle of reporters at the time speaking about “Marsha”.

  • newfreedomblog

    Very well said.

  • sacredh

    Maybe not Santa Claus, but certainly not the Grinch either. We hit 51 just a couple of days ago and other than some snowbanks, the ice and snow are gone. It’s been staying in the mid to upper 30′s.

  • allthingsinaname

    It comes down to two extremes, right and left, and most of the people be damned. Unfortunately the GOP has gone completely to the extreme right, and there is nothing to work with. The Democrats, in the meantime focused on health care, instead of the economy, and put forth a bill with mandates, and the people say huh? How do I pay for it?
    .
    Blame the voters if you want, but it really comes down to the two parties. What choice do we have? Can’t vote none of the above. Big money and the power system controls, the voter only gets to choose between what we are given.

  • diecash1

    “I believe a better solution is for the American people to demand term limits for their representatives. The people can decide what is best.”
    ..
    A device to limit the terms served by any elected official already exists — It’s called an election.

  • deconstructiva

    KT, with your busy work I don’t know if you’ll have time to read this (or if anyone will), but how much “outside” out-of-state / national involvement (or interference) are YOU seeing there in person today vs. state / local people only? Is this becoming a MA version of NY-23 (as Kate reported on heavy outside influence on that race)? Or is most coordination from afar and most outsiders are from the media? thanks for your thoughts

  • kbanginmotown

    Santa W. Claus got me:
    - a tax cut that I didn’t want (at least for my wealthy neighbors),
    - a war in Iraq that I didn’t want,
    - a run-up of oil prices that crippled the Big3 that I didn’t want,
    - and a financial crisis that I didn’t want.
    .
    The money invested in HRC would do more and cost less than the items above.
    .
    Reid, Pelosi and Obama can keep the socks.

  • sacredh

    deconstructiva: The republicans are pouring huge sums of money into this race from outside the state and it may very well payoff. If there’s ANY silver lining in this debacle at all, it’s that it’s hard to imagine them having the financial resources to duplicate this on a national level. I do agree with KT that this race does have national implications though. The political winds have shifted but there’s no reason they can’t shift again. November should be a thrill ride.

  • tedvz7

    Let me point out a simple observation. If Brown is campaigning that a vote for him is a vote against healthcare in its present state and the mockery associated with the closed door deals, i.e., Louisianna, Nebraska, etc., why is it that I don’t hear Coakley endorsing these items as part of her platform?

  • newfreedomblog

    I gave Scott Brown $100.00. Does that count as “how much “outside” out-of-state / national involvement (or interference) are YOU seeing there in person today vs. state / local people only?”
    .
    Oh and I also urged my readers on my blog to do the same, plus tons of tweets as well. :D
    .
    http://www.newfreedomblog.com
    .
    “Astro-turf” indeed.

  • trifecta55

    Zogby is being contrary and predicting a Coakley win. I trust Nate Silver though. I seriously doubt it.
    .
    I do wonder though if Brown was a woman, would he have survived the nudie pictures.

  • newfreedomblog

    Martha Coakley did run her campaign on “continuing the fight for health care reform”. She campaigned to align herself with the Obama Administration and their policies vowing to vote in favor of the current health care reform legislation.
    .
    She is also in favor of more taxes, more spending, and more of the same policies that Obama is pressing to put through Congress. Cap and Trade and the Union backed bill, “Card Check”.
    .
    This election is a referendum on the Obama policies and pledges Obama has proposed. People across this great Nation are saying “No”. People are saying “the direction you are taking this country Mr President is the wrong direction”.
    .
    A year ago, people pronounced the Republican Party as “dead”, that the Republican Party would not be seen or heard from for at least 30 years.
    .
    The answer is the Democrat Party and their elected representatives are completely out of touch with what the vast majority of people want right now.
    .
    They want jobs. They want stability in the economy. They want to see effect leadership, and not a move towards socialism. We want a smaller government, not a huge over burdened gluttonous tax dollar sucking machine.
    .
    The people are simply saying “No”.

  • square1

    I’m not going to lie. I haven’t been following the coverage of this race that closely, particularly over the weekend, when I was under the weather.

    But I keep hearing that this race is a “referendum” on the health care reform bills that are pending. But what I haven’t heard anyone mention (and maybe I just missed it) is that, because Massachusetts already has a quasi-universal health care system, this is an asymmetric referendum. If you are opposed to federal HCR, voting for Brown is a no-brainer.

    But if you are a Mass liberal who supports HCR, where is the personal incentive to fight for federal HCR legislation? If you want near-universal health coverage, imposed by legislative mandate, well, you’ve already got that in Mass. If you want lower insurance premiums, the federal bills aren’t going to deliver that. If you want cheaper drugs, the federal bills wont deliver that. In fact, Mass liberals are basically fighting to pick up the Nebraska’s Medicaid bills.
    .
    There are plenty of reasons for Mass voters to go vote against Brown, but HCR is not a big one.

  • sacredh

    I think I have to go with Nate too. Not the outcome I want, but the one I think will happen. Thankfully we’ll be out this evening and I can wait until tomorrow for the results.

  • deconstructiva

    sacred, I also wonder about R fundraising. The official RNC funding will flow like wine from usual corporate sponsors, but whither the tea parties, Sarah Palin, etc.? She’ll be busy with tea party speeches this year. I’ll be watching how the two R factions align or not in later races.
    .
    newfreedom (aka rustyblog?), only $100? You’re too cheap …or do you have that little faith in your own party?

  • diecash1

    According to Jonathon Cohn of TNR, the Senate bill included additional funding for Mass. Medicaid.
    ..
    “It’s worth mentioning, though, that the Senate bill actually gave Massachusetts extra Medicaid funding precisely to avoid this problem–that is, in order to make sure it’s not punished for having expanded insurance coverage on its own, some time ago. Vermont would get similar treatment for the same reason, thanks in no small part to the efforts of Senator Bernie Sanders.”
    ..
    See it here:
    ..
    http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/the-political-case-reform-courtesy-scott-brown

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    Look, what is happening with voters is that this past twelve months has been a reality check. All of the promises that were made by Obama and his acolytes in the presidential campaign were accepted at face value by an adoring public (and many in the media) who were reacting to a simple, powerful marketing message of “change”.

    The phenomenon is certainly not new, and was most effectively used prior to this by Ronald Reagan…the difference being that Reagan’s philosophy was well-known while Obama and his philosophy was (and still is) engmatic. What has happened along the way, however, is that the chickens are coming home to roost. People are finally beginning to question how you spend your way to prosperity. After all, on an individual level, isn’t that partly to blame for uour current mess?

  • Art Pepper

    OK, so Obama didn’t put a chicken in every pot or magically reverse years of economic decline in this country. But I still don’t understand the calculus that we’ll get better health-care reform after the Dems lose the Senate.

    So we scrap the current bill and …

    Obama starts again in 2012 when he’s a lame duck?

    Obama is a 1-term president and a Republican president pushes through sweeping progressive legislation in 2012? (In Bizarro world?)

    The Dems take back the White House in 2020 and the new president thinks, “I know, let’s gamble my whole administration on something that burned to the ground the last 2 times we tried it”?

  • diecash1

    Quite the giant pile of tripe you spewed forth. How about this one: “They want jobs. They want stability in the economy. They want to see effect leadership, and not a move towards socialism.”
    ..
    First, there is no move toward “Socialism.” That only exists in your mind.
    ..
    Second, if people want jobs they certainly can’t count on Republicans to deliver them. In 8 years W delivered the worst job growth since WWII and he and the Repubs absolutely wrecked the economy. These are demonstrable facts. Why would any thinking person want to return to that?
    ..
    Another gem: “We want a smaller government, not a huge over burdened gluttonous tax dollar sucking machine.”
    ..
    You mean like the Repubs have failed to deliver during every Repub administration since 1980? This is just another bogus Repub talking point. They don’t actually intend to deliver a smaller government; they just intend to shift their the flow to military spending and the wealthiest among us yet no one calls this “socialism.”

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    BOTH parties have a lot of people/resources here from out of state.

  • freeinpa

    You nailed it. The federal version of “HRC” delivers none of the promised benefits of the much ballyhooed reform. Premiums rise, drug prices rise, it does not cover all and taxes are rising and will skyrocket from here.

    The bill is being touted as historic. If by historic it means that HC and solvency as a way of life for this country are over, then yes it is historic.

    There have been complaints of the deficits created by the Iraq war but these same folks are sanguine about the enormous amounts of graft being paid to special interest groups (unions, drug companies etc) to pass this fiscal time bomb.

    Both Republicans and Democrats are too focused on the short-term skewering of the opposing party in order to maintain or regain power while giving short-shrift to the long-term soundness of the country.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    square: every brown voter i talked to yesterday brought up health care, and it was the major issue mentioned at the coakley rally i went to as well. v kennedy, markey and coakley herself all put this race in terms of carrying on teddy’s fight.
    .
    meanwhile, note this in today’s washington post:
    .
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/18/AR2010011803450.html?hpid=topnews
    .
    A new Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 44 percent of Americans support the proposed changes in the health-care system being debated in Congress, while 51 percent oppose them. Opposition is more intense than support, with 39 percent saying they strongly oppose the legislation and 22 percent saying they strongly favor it.

    Fifty-three percent said the changes would mean higher personal costs, and 50 percent said the quality of their health care would be better if the measure did not pass. Fifty-six percent said the overall cost of the initiative nationally would be higher under the plan advanced by the president and the Democrats.

  • mcconservative

    I always am amazed when I hear or read someones comments regarding the Bush years, either negatively or positively. The real power a President has is the Bully Pulpit, a President really has not terribly much to do with whether or not the Economy or anything else works well, that is for the most part a function of the House of Representatives and the Senate. So in blaming or Praising Bush for our woes economically or whatever, you really are talking about what the Congress did, and in this case it was primarily a Democrat Congress. I really wish people would educate themselves about the roles of Government, what a President does, what the Congress does, and what the judiciary does. Thee would be less ignorant (I don’t mean this as a slam, I really mean they are ignorant of facts) regarding their stance. If they are simply Liberal and no matter what that is what they will vote, that is fine, but don’t talk about the Bush years and the Economy like he had much to do with that. What is happening in the economy has much to do with policies enacted under Democrats, i.e. Barney Frank and friends, it also has to do with the loss of massive amounts of real capital on 9/11, you don’t wipe out billions of dollars and not expect some fall out. You can no more blame Bush for that than you can blame Obama.

  • 3xfire3

    I totally agree. We need elected officials who work for the American citizens and not special interests. Becoming a Senator or a Congressman has become too cushy of a job with way too many benefits. We need people willing to work hard not for themselves but for the American people.

  • http://usspost.wordpress.com usspost
  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    “I would have liked a single payer health care system”

    I’m curious how supporters of this notion reconcile it with the results of other “universal” services provded by the federal government like, say, the US Postal Service? Now, if they were not under a mandate to NOT go to the taxpayer well as their costs continued to escalate, we would be supporting them with a hefty subsidy. Instead, they must continue to cut services to control costs, and raise fees charged to the consumer. It’s reasonable to assume a similar fate would await government health care, only writ large.

  • newfreedomblog

    Absolutely 3x3fire. I just wrote a new blog post on my blog site. I called it “So help me God”: The People are now demanding change, not a lying political candidate.
    .
    They make this pledge when they take their office. But once they sit in the seat it is no longer for the People that they legislate.
    .
    See more here: http://www.newfreedomblog.com
    .
    Maybe Scott Brown will prove to be the exception, and not the rule. Maybe our other elected officials will be taken back by this, and do what they promised when they were elected. “By the People, for the People, so help me God”.

  • Jim, Foolish Literalist

    KT: “square: every brown voter i talked to yesterday brought up health care”

    How many of them pointed out that the national bill Brown is opposing is very like the one he supported and supports at the state level?

    Republicans have succeeded in making the HCR bill a proxy for general economic anxiety.

  • diecash1

    “So in blaming or Praising Bush for our woes economically or whatever, you really are talking about what the Congress did, and in this case it was primarily a Democrat Congress.
    ..
    Perhaps you were asleep a la Rip Van Winkle during W’s tenure in office, perhaps you’re just ignorant of the facts. W, with the aid of a REPUBLICAN Congress, rammed through his entire agenda from 2001-2007 and it is what wrecked our economy. Do you also work for “Faux” News? Perhaps you’re the guy that puts the (D) after a Republican’s name when a scandal breaks.

  • newfreedomblog

    Cheap? *Gasp*. Easy maybe, but I have never been called cheap.
    .
    How much did you give to Coakley, decon?

  • sjberke

    The problem with polls like the one you cite, KT, is that they do not distinguish right-wing opposition (because the bill goes too far) from left-wing opposition (because the bill does not go far enough). From the one or two polls I’ve seen that do, the former group is far greater than the latter, but the latter is not insignificant, perhaps 10-15% of the total. That is important in noting that not all opponents would favor the status quo or minor tinkering with it, and that the political aftermath of passage might not be what it would be if that were the case.

  • Art Pepper
  • Jim, Foolish Literalist

    “you really are talking about what the Congress did, and in this case it was primarily a Democrat Congress.”

    I think before you start lecturing people on their political ignorance, you should go back and research which party controlled the House from 1995 to 2007, and which party controlled the Senate from 2003 to 2007. I’ll give you a couple of hints: “Newt Gingrich/Denny Hastert” and “Trent Lott/Bill Frist”.

    Then you can look up the word “primarily.”

  • newfreedomblog

    “Fifty-six percent said the overall cost of the initiative nationally would be higher under the plan advanced by the president and the Democrats.”

    .
    Bingo!! I do believe we have a winner here!!

  • progressto

    Even if Brown wins this election, HC insurance reform is not dead. The following options are available:

    1) The certification of the election can drag out for a few days and the conference bill can be passed by the current members.
    2) Effort can be made to persuade Ms. Snow to vote for it.
    3) The House can pass the Senate’s version of the bill.

    Actually, Brown’s winning could speed up the Senate’s process.

  • deconstructiva

    KT, thanks for the info. Good luck with the coverage; hopefully you’ll be well fed today, maybe even crash some parties.
    .
    newfreedom (rustyblog), yeah, touche; I gave zip to Coakley. No curling irons either. My budget’s probably waaaay tighter than yours so I chose to donate $200 to the Red Cross for Haiti relief instead.

  • Art Pepper

    Fifty-six percent said the overall cost of the initiative nationally would be higher under the plan advanced by the president and the Democrats

    If I recall, it would be almost deficit neutral and would raise average premiums slightly because people would be getting more coverage.

    But I suppose the fact that people still believe Republican talking points shows the criminal ineptitude of the Democrats, so point taken.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    “I believe a better solution is for the American people to demand term limits for their representatives. The people can decide what is best.”

    Here in Califonia, we have term limits for state representatives. Given that we are the laughing stock of the nation, bankrupt, and universally declared ungovernable, how do you suppose term limits is going to work out at the federal level? As was stated before, we have term limits (elections). BTW, I’m a political conservative.

  • Art Pepper

    My guess: Snowe won’t vote for it. She played coy just long enough to drag the bill into 2010. Mission accomplished.
    .
    An item posted on washingtonmonthly suggested that (3) is a live option.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    they think costs here are out of control.

  • newfreedomblog

    Yes mcconservative they are correct in who controlled things in Congress while Bush was President.
    .
    However what they also neglect to point out is that the economy grew, jobs created from 1995 to 2007. It wasn’t until the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 we saw the economic collaspe. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took things over in 2007. Just ask yourself were you better off in 2007 than you are today? If your answer is “I was better off in 2007 than I am today”, then you would then thank the Republicans, and blame the Democrats. Even with an unstopable 60 vote majority in the Senate, and a President who is also a Democrat. They still cannot do anything.
    .
    What they try to attempt to blame it on is some fairytale senario of a “liberal” and “centrist” split as to the reason they cannot get anything done. Again, a pure figment of their poor little brains, and delusions from the many years from psychedelic and hallucinagenic drugs they have consumed.
    .
    The facts are clear. They set out at the beginning of 2009, with Obama at the head of the helm. They were heading fast into a government which is the most liberal in history. Bigger government programs. Higher taxes and more spending. The economy has collasped under the Congressional control of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and other Democrat names too numerous to mention.
    .
    Americans know who is at fault, and despite the lies here in the swamp, they know it is the Democrats. Hands down.

  • square1

    square: every brown voter i talked to yesterday brought up health care,

    Of this, I have no doubt.

    and it was the major issue mentioned at the coakley rally i went to as well. v kennedy, markey and coakley herself all put this race in terms of carrying on teddy’s fight.

    Call me crazy, but I am not convinced that Coakley has her finger on the pulse of the electorate. She can rally on the issue until the cows come home (or for another couple of hours), but I do not believe that pro-HCR Mass. liberals are going to be motivated to vote on this issue.

  • deconstructiva

    There are more long-shot options (I’ll be looking forward to KT and Kate exploring these if needed) –
    1. HCR gets scaled down or carved into pieces goes thru reconciliation.
    2. Reid grows a pair (ha!), forces a real filibuster, and then kills it. Example: Schumer, Rockefeller, or other raises pt. of order, Biden shows up with a smile to approve, appeal, and then table the appeal with simple majority – is this correct? Is the process on paper really this easy?

  • tjoyce994

    “I totally agree. We need elected officials who work for the American citizens and not special interests.”
    -
    The people don’t know what they want. As a nation we aren’t interested in truly understanding the issues that affect us. Its easier to quote sound bites (and not necessarily smart ones either). This is illustrated by the fact that Brown’s supporters don’t even know what he stands for — except he wants to stop health care. That would make sense, if they understood the bill, which they don’t. This is illustrated by the fact that that sane adults actually thought the health care bill would actually have death panels. I can understand some one not having a full grasp of the bill. But there is absolutely no excuse for such stupidity. All the talk about America becoming a socialist nation — despite the fact that insurance companies are extremely profit oriented — is another example of our desire for form over substance. It would be appalling, if it made any sense. It doesn’t make any sense.
    -
    We not only don’t know what we want, but we have this need for instant gratification. Was it realistic to expect Obama to “fix” the country in one year? Can we elect anyone – Democrat or Republican that can do better in such a short time span?
    -
    The special interests will always prevail because they are definitive about what they want, and the American people don’t know. We just know we want to feel good, and we want to blame some one — any one when we don’t.

  • daraghmcdowell

    What are you talking about? What specifically in the Constitution have the Democrats sought to violate or change? Has there been ANY significant debate about gun-ownership in the Capitol? What are they trying to take away from the states?

    The Bush years were a never-ending series of ACTUAL infringements upon ACTUAL constitutional rights. Now the Republicans are suddenly up in arms about the Constitution at precisely the time it isn’t being threatened…

  • stuartzechman

    Costs are out of control.
    .
    They know it, everybody knows it.
    .
    The price of a hospital stay is insane.
    .
    The price of prescription drugs is three times as high as it is in Canada, and there’s a million sites on the internet advertising Canadian prices for US buyers.
    .
    Anybody who has ever had blood tests done, had insurance delay and contest the bill, and then had the lab bill them directly (and immediately turn over the bill to a collector) knows how ridiculously expensive tests are.
    .
    When specialists’ offices make patients sign legal documents that make them personally liable in the event that insurers delay payment for any reason, people know they’re getting screwed.
    .
    Everybody who doesn’t have a six figure income starting with a “2″ and up knows this, because it’s a part of everyday life.
    .
    People know that there’s crazy inflation going on, we’re not subject to the “Money Illusion” that economists theorize about.
    .
    Costs are out of control, everybody knows it, and the Democrats we just elected to change this have taken a year to fail to do anything about it. We didn’t get change we could believe in. We got another industry bailout at our expense. That’s the miserable story of health care reform –it exposed the Democrats in Washington for who they really are, pretty speeches aside. Now we’re in deep crap, and the people who are in charge aren’t working for us, they’re working for industry.
    .
    Everybody knows that, too.

  • http://twitter.com/ktumulty Karen Tumulty

    i think you guys are a tad too far down in the weeds with regard to what i am seeing here.
    .
    people are mad–really, really mad. and scared. it’s not some manufactured thing. they talk of the obama administration as representing “business as usual”–which is pretty remarkable, given what he ran on and how short a time he has been in office.
    .
    and the details they are focused on are not the ones being mentioned here. i’m surprised, for instance, how many people are mentioning the deal that labor got on the health care bill. they are furious that tens of millions of other people would have to pay a tax, but the unions get a five-year pass.
    .
    that’s what i’m seeing on the ground, as i go around and talk to people. maybe not representative, but it’s what i’ve heard.

  • centfan

    And in ten years there will be a health care Pearl Harbor. The Republicans will lash together a desperate bill that contains everything in the current bill and it will cost three trillion instead of one trillion. General Practitioners will have long since given up and gone into real estate and after waiting three weeks to see your “doctor” you will get a ten minute infomercial on the latest snake oil. Next?

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    If its true that Brown supporters are only voting for him because of a misunderstanding about health care reform legislation (a Democrat euphamism) and they are thus “stupid”, does that explain the votes for Obama and his “chamge” agenda? Or were voters a lot smarter a year ago?

  • vjclancy

    Good, “tjoyce994″! I would say a good majority don’t know what they want, and, yes, those special interests know perfectly well what THEY want. It’s always at our expense; yet we have no one to take an honest stand to offset the special self-interests! That’s a major part of the problem, since the ones minding the “cookie jar” greedily line their pockets so that the special interests get first choice at the “cookies”. It’s politics without ethics! It’s a shame that ethics was tossed by the roadside so very long ago and replaced by greed and self-interest!

  • tjoyce994

    Well said, art pepper

  • diecash1

    Newfreedomrusty — The lies in the Swamp are suspiciously emanating from your posts.
    ..
    “However what they also neglect to point out is that the economy grew, jobs created from 1995 to 2007″
    ..
    I realize you’re fact-challenged but job growth under W was the worst in the post-WWII era. Attempting to give Repubs undue credit for job growth in the Clinton era is also ridiculous.
    ..
    “Just ask yourself were you better off in 2007 than you are today”
    ..
    The proper question is: Was I better off in 2000 or in 2007? For 98% of Americans, the answer is obvious, 2000 hands down.
    ..
    “They were heading fast into a government which is the most liberal in history”
    ..
    Only a liar or a fool could make such a statement. Which are you?
    ..
    “Higher taxes and more spending.”
    ..
    An appropriate description of conditions under Republican governance from 2001-2007.
    ..
    Given the absolute idiocy of your post(s), you shouldn’t chide anyone about “little brains” as you are the Swamp’s shining example of such.

  • freeinpa

    KT:
    “they talk of the obama administration as representing “business as usual”–which is pretty remarkable, given what he ran on and how short a time he has been in office.”

    Remarkable in what respect? Do you mean surprise that Obama is operating at 180 degress from which he campaigned? That is not a surprise to conservatives. And it should not be a surprise to you and others in the MSM. During the campaign the Obama campaign with a helping hand from the media managed to go through the entire election without asking or pressing Obama on anything.

    What we have seen is lies on health care, special favors and giveaways to special interest groups, closed door meetings for the Transparency Team, give aways to corporate America and just a general tone-deafness to the American people.

    The anger is well-founded.

  • Art Pepper

    people are mad–really, really mad. and scared. it’s not some manufactured thing

    I don’t doubt that at all.

  • foodog1

    Can I quote you on that 2 years from now verbatum? In front of God and country? for all to see how wrong you are?

  • freeinpa

    SZ:
    “Costs are out of control, everybody knows it, and the Democrats we just elected to change this have taken a year to fail to do anything about it. We didn’t get change we could believe in. We got another industry bailout at our expense. That’s the miserable story of health care reform –it exposed the Democrats in Washington for who they really are, pretty speeches aside. Now we’re in deep crap, and the people who are in charge aren’t working for us, they’re working for industry.”

    ===
    Try not to have your head explode, but the efforts you made electing Democrats in 2008 is not different from the Tea-party folks we see now. The only true difference is you believed that government can truly solve the problem. The Tea party folks are suspicious of government and politicians and believe the only real way to control them is to minimize not expand their power and reach. Otherwise you will be continually disappointed. —-And everybody knows that.

  • stuartzechman

    freeinpa:

    Do you mean surprise that Obama is operating at 180 degress from which he campaigned? That is not a surprise to conservatives.

    It’s a surprise to liberals, which is a problem.
    .
    It’s also surprising to the political media that Obama and the Democrats can’t seem to sell with the same effectiveness now that folks have seen what they elected. It’s surprising to them because there’s a premise amongst savvy journalists that ordinary people are stupid and naive. How else do you explain the fact that advertising works?

    What we have seen is lies on health care, special favors and giveaways to special interest groups, closed door meetings for the Transparency Team, give aways to corporate America and just a general tone-deafness to the American people.
    .
    The anger is well-founded.

    Yes.
    .
    This guy specifically said during the campaign that electing him meant that we wouldn’t have to operate this way to get half- or quarter-measures accomplished. He told us not to fall prey to the peddlers of cynicism (Hillary) who warned that the prospects for change in Washington were limited at best.
    .
    We expected better, and we got the Democrats we always hated (but held our noses and voted for).
    .
    Yes, the anger on the left is well-founded. Yes, the anger from ordinary Democratic voters is well-founded.

  • centfan

    Sure foodog1. And when you lose your source of health insurance because your company drops it and you see the real cost of health care if you can even get a quote with your pre-existing condition then you can apologize to me in public.

  • Ike Jakson

    What the Democrats are not saying is that this election is all about the myth of one man called Obama and that the myth has largely evaporated. It is one year tomorrow; and tomorrow will tell how much of the myth is left, if anything at all.

  • freeinpa

    SZ:

    “He told us not to fall prey to the peddlers of cynicism (Hillary) who warned that the prospects for change in Washington were limited at best.”

    I was never a big Hillary fan but she did fire the exact warnings shots to liberals if you were paying attention. Not just on change but his ability to respond in a crisis. This tale that his delayed responses to everything is a sign of intellectual inquiry and depth of examination is nonsense. It is an inability to understand many subjects and an inability to decide.

    The big clue that liberals missed and the media ignored is that Obama was a candidate that voted “present” on every controversial and difficult position. This was not a smoking gun but a solar flare of his capacity to be nothing but a hack politician.
    ===

    BTW: He is using that same “don’t believe the..” with the new bank tax. Leaving aside the level of blame you want to place on the banks, they have repaid TARP with interest (even those that wewre forced to take TARP money) and are now being punished. And yet Fannie and Freddie and the auot companies who have not repaid and probably won’t are exempt from paying this. Once again payment to political friends and punish the successful–typical politics. And who will pay? The consumer through higher fees or squeezed lending (meaning lower growth and jobs).

  • kbanginmotown

    Don’t despair, sacredh! The next best result is the “Son of Al Franken(-stein)” outcome where a recount takes until the summer (or at least a month), giving the Dems a chance to wrap up HRC before Brown is seated.
    .
    (Provided Reid can find his @ss with two hands…)

  • daraghmcdowell

    Well Randomkirk, you spend your way to prosperity by running budget deficits during recessions to replace falling demand for labour, thus ensuring that the consumer spending doesn’t collapse, spurring renewed demand in the economy and leading to recovery. During the recovery, you pay down the deficit.

    Of course the US public went crazy on easy credit and under-saved. That’s partially the fault of the Fed and predatory lenders. But it doesn’t change the fact government deficits are a completely different beast from government ones. ALL of our experience with economic recession shows its better to run up big short term deficits to spur faster recovery. An analogy – you have no job. You can get a job if you have a car. You borrow to buy the car, you get your job, and use part of your income to pay off the loan.

    And if you’re really concerned about spending, you should be a massive supporter of healthcare reform. The US pours roughly DOUBLE the amount of money into healthcare per capita than any other industrialised nation, with objectively worse results. Medical Insurance companies in the US have become a classic case of a ‘rent-seeking’ industry, that is one that extracts profits from an economic activity without adding anything to the value chain. Single-payer systems offer qualitatively superior results at significantly lower cost – but because the Insurance industry is able to use its rents to hire armies of lobbyists and funnel a lot of green into campaign coffers, we have the ridiculous sight of ‘deficit hawks’ arguing for the maintenance of a financially unsustainable status quo.

    This is not to mention that leaving over 20% of the population without access to health care in the wealthiest and most advanced state on the planet is morally reprehensible.

  • stuartzechman

    freeinpa:

    Try not to have your head explode, but the efforts you made electing Democrats in 2008 is not different from the Tea-party folks we see now.

    I know that, but it’s hard for lots of liberals to see themselves in the people that they’ve been accusing of racism and fascism and Talibanism and all sorts of ultimate human wrongness for so many years. It doesn’t help that the center-left wing of the political media makes Tea Partiers out to be the next coming of the Klan.

    The only true difference is you believed that government can truly solve the problem.

    Yes, we think that the government needs to get back to Teddy Roosevelt-style trust-busting and robber-baron squelching. We need to get the government back on to Ike’s task of building the next generation Interstate Highway System infrastructure. We need the government to stand up against the powerful financial interests that have gambled our wealth away, like FDR did, and get back to the system of capital investment that made us the most productive nation on earth.
    .
    That said, we’re not into big government for its own sake like the centrist technocrats. We’re not into nanny-statism. There’s a big contingent of us called “Libertarian Dems” who are more concerned with individual rights than “social justice” (whatever that is). We support 2nd Amendment rights, for example.
    .
    In theory, if we didn’t hate each other so much, the popular right and the popular left could stop our government from doing some very bad things.


    The Tea party folks are suspicious of government and politicians and believe the only real way to control them is to minimize not expand their power and reach. Otherwise you will be continually disappointed. —-And everybody knows that.

    We’re suspicious of government, too. Have you not been paying attention to how we on the left are fighting to keep the government from spying on Americans? We want to minimize the government’s power in a whole host of areas starting with secrecy. That’s why Obama’s lies about “transparency” worked on us.
    .
    Again, we don’t want big government for its own sake, we’re not statists and know-it-all technocrats like the Third Way centrists are. We do see a need for balance between huge, little-guy crushing powers, though, and so we’re not prepared to go back to robber-baron capitalism.
    .
    The bottom line is that we need to work together when we can to limit the power of the political-media class in Washington. That’s going to take a lot of effort on everyone’s part. Try not to have your head explode when I tell you that Obama’s not a socialist –that’s not his problem– and neither am I.

  • stuartzechman

    oops, wrong thread

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    daraghmcdowell -”…you spend your way to prosperity by running budget deficits during recessions to replace falling demand for labour, thus ensuring that the consumer spending doesn’t collapse, spurring renewed demand in the economy and leading to recovery. During the recovery, you pay down the deficit.”
    .
    Ahh…if only this were truly what occurs. If the money allocated to government programs were instead given to the actual job-creating engine of ANY economy, small business, I would buy that notion. Then, there’s the fantasy that once these programs have taken hold, Congress will stop funding them in the future. But, everyone has to dream, right?
    .
    “…ALL of our experience with economic recession shows its better to run up big short term deficits to spur faster recovery. An analogy – you have no job. You can get a job if you have a car. You borrow to buy the car, you get your job, and use part of your income to pay off the loan.”
    .
    To take your analogy a step further into reality: If I don’t have a job, I CAN’T borrow money to buy a car. So instead, I walk to work. Then, once I’ve earned enough, I buy a car.

  • tjoyce994

    “If its true that Brown supporters are only voting for him because of a misunderstanding about health care reform legislation (a Democrat euphamism) and they are thus “stupid”, does that explain the votes for Obama and his “chamge” agenda? Or were voters a lot smarter a year ago?”
    -
    I’m in favor of many of Obama’s policies. We do need to change the fact that we spend more money for healthcare than any other nation on the face of the earth yet get so little for it. I’m not happy with the healthcare bill either, but I know nothing is etched in granite.
    -
    I was and still am in favor of pulling troops from Iraq, sending more of them to Afghanistan, and closing Gitmo. I think we needed to raise our world profile. Obama has worked on specifically what he said he would do. I don’t see a lot of surprises there. What I don’t think anyone counted on was the level of nastiness and gridlock. And none of us knew the true state of the economy. Who could have anticipated two wars that don’t figure into anyone’s budget? I wish he had done more, but I’m realistic about what anyone can do in a year under the best of circumstances. And he has had the worst.
    -
    If things aren’t better in four years, then we should vote Obama out. But complaining that he hasn’t done enough now is childish whining.

  • rustyreturns

    Oh my the chicken-littles of the Democrat Party are out in force today!! I love it!!

  • stuartzechman

    freeinpa:


    Try not to have your head explode, but the efforts you made electing Democrats in 2008 is not different from the Tea-party folks we see now.

    I know that, but it’s hard for lots of liberals to see themselves in the people that they’ve been accusing of racism and fascism and Talibanism and all sorts of ultimate human wrongness for so many years. It doesn’t help that the center-left wing of the political media makes Tea Partiers out to be the next coming of the Klan.


    The only true difference is you believed that government can truly solve the problem.

    Yes, we think that the government needs to get back to Teddy Roosevelt-style trust-busting and robber-baron squelching. We need to get the government back on to Ike’s task of building the next generation Interstate Highway System infrastructure. We need the government to stand up against the powerful financial interests that have gambled our wealth away, like FDR did, and get back to the system of capital investment that made us the most productive nation on earth.
    .
    That said, we’re not into big government for its own sake like the centrist technocrats. We’re not into nanny-statism. There’s a big contingent of us called “Libertarian Dems” who are more concerned with individual rights than “social justice” (whatever that is). We support 2nd Amendment rights, for example.
    .
    In theory, if we didn’t hate each other so much, the popular right and the popular left could stop our government from doing some very bad things.


    The Tea party folks are suspicious of government and politicians and believe the only real way to control them is to minimize not expand their power and reach. Otherwise you will be continually disappointed. —-And everybody knows that.

    We’re suspicious of government, too. Have you not been paying attention to how we on the left are fighting to keep the government from spying on Americans? We want to minimize the government’s power in a whole host of areas starting with secrecy. That’s why Obama’s lies about “transparency” worked on us.
    .
    Again, we don’t want big government for its own sake, we’re not statists and know-it-all technocrats like the Third Way centrists are. We do see a need for balance between huge, little-guy crushing powers, though, and so we’re not prepared to go back to robber-baron capitalism.
    .
    The bottom line is that we need to work together when we can to limit the power of the political-media class in Washington. That’s going to take a lot of effort on everyone’s part. Try not to have your head explode when I tell you that Obama’s not a socialist –that’s not his problem– and neither am I.

  • tjoyce994

    “To take your analogy a step further into reality: If I don’t have a job, I CAN’T borrow money to buy a car. So instead, I walk to work. Then, once I’ve earned enough, I buy a car.”

    -
    So what do you do if the nearest job is 40 miles away? That’s a reality in major cities?

  • daraghmcdowell

    Randomkirk – I trust I don’t need to point out to you that the stimulus bill allocated a FINITE amount of money for certain projects. You can grouse that not all of them are as stimulus effective as other alternatives, but to argue that its some sort of open ended entitlement is nonsense.

    As for the actual entitlements that are continuously funded, such as Social Security… well turns out the’yre pretty important in stimulus terms as well. In fact, dollar for dollar, Food Stamps are the most economically stimulating form of federal spending yet devised. And the best way to contain the costs of this programs? Stimulate the economy and create more jobs! Its basic economics.

    As to the car analogy you’ve spectacularly missed the point. I was positing a situation in which a car (or if you will, a fixed outlay of a certain amount of capital) is essential for getting to work (i.e. production) and assuming that there are some assets which can be borrowed against (not a problem for government.) The point was that the choice between running a deficit to stimulate growth, and doing nothing to maintain a ‘balanced budget’ is no choice at all.

  • http://joshd5.wordpress.com joshd5

    I would like to point out a couple significant problems in newfreedomblog’s post above. First, Senate Rule 22 is not written in the Constitution. The Constitution gives the Senate the authority to make its own procedural rules, and the Senate exercised this authority in adopting Senate Rule 22. This does not mean that Senate Rule 22 is written into the Constitution, just as the current tax laws are not written into the Constitution because Congress has the power to tax and spend for the general welfare. Second, Senate rules can be readily changed by a simple majority vote, unlike a Constitutional Amendment which requires the vote of a 2/3 supermajority.
    Third, all legislation in the Senate, regardless of whether it is a simple budgetary matter or complex health care reform, can be passed with a simple majority vote. (As stated above, only Constitutional Amendments require a supermajority.) Senate Rule 22, on the other hand, requires a 60 vote majority to end debate on issue and call for a final vote. It ultimately has the effect of requiring a 60 vote supermajority to pass any significant legislation, but this should not be confused with a Constitutional directive.

    I agree that the filibuster is an important device when used appropriately. Currently under Senate Rule 22, however, any important legislation can be blocked with the mere threat of a filibuster. I certainly do not think the filibuster should be removed altogether, but perhaps we should consider whether Senators should be actually forced to stand up in the Senate Chambers and actually filisbuster by continuously explaining their opposition. This way, perhaps they would choose their battles more selectively, and the public would have the ability to hold the filibustering congressmen directly accountable should it disagree with the tactics. This was the method required prior to the enactment of Senate Rule 22 (I’m assuming everyone’s seen “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”)

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    I agree we spend too much on health care. The difference between you and me is how we see it best being corrected. And that’s a fundamental difference, I fear.
    .
    For example, I support the idea that people should not be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions in principle. The problem is, someone is going to have to pay for this expanded coverage. Passing a law that says everyone must pay to have health insurance, or the “state” will fine them is not only fundamentally opposite the freedoms our Constitution proscribes, it will not fix the problem, unless those fines are draconian, a politically disasterous outcome.
    .
    Curent health care reform also does not address one of the chief culprits in our high cost system, out-of-control malpractice suits and awards.
    .
    And, quite frankly, the fact that “nothing is etched in granite” is one of the things about this whole mess that scares me the most.

  • diecash1

    “Curent health care reform also does not address one of the chief culprits in our high cost system, out-of-control malpractice suits and awards.”
    ..
    This statement is patently false. While malpractice suits and awards can be problematic, they can hardly be shown as “one of the chief culprits in our high cost system.” The costs associated with malpractice are infinitesimally small when compared to overall health care costs, well less than one percent.
    ..
    If you wish to make such a claim, please provide evidence of the scope of these costs as compared to overall health care costs. I believe you’ll find that you are grossly overestimating them.

  • daraghmcdowell

    JoshD5 – Thanks for making the important point that the Filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution.

    But I still take issue with it, even if it involves a great degree of political theatre. Under what circumstances would it be appropriate for 41 Senators, representing as little as 12% of the population to indefinitely block legislation supported by the majority? Even if a piece of legislation was of dubious constitutionality, thats for the courts to decide – not the Senate.

    Lets review the facts – the GOP was absolutely womped in two consecutive general elections, reducing them to 40% representation in the Senate. Democrats received an overwhelming mandate for HCR. Yet due to this procedural hurdle, the GOP, with absolutely NO democratic mandate has managed to come within a hair’s breadth of torpedoing the whole process, and with 2 more Senators arguably could have. More importantly, the way the political debate operates in the US they have every incentive to obstruct, and none to co-operate. How is this remotely in keeping with the principles of a democratic society, or even the mythical grail of bipartisanship?

  • square1

    KT:

    I am not surprised in the slightest that many Mass residents are angry.

    “i’m surprised, for instance, how many people are mentioning the deal that labor got on the health care bill. they are furious that tens of millions of other people would have to pay a tax, but the unions get a five-year pass.”

    What do you expect? Half of the opponents (aka the Teabaggers) are mouth-breathing morons who believe anything they are told because they are too stupid to understand the details of the legislation.

    The rest of the voters could probably understand why this isn’t a “deal” for the unions if someone, either the Democrats or the media, bothered to explain the concept to them. Remember, a key selling point of the excise tax — thank you, Jonathan Gruber — is that it will allow employees to bargain for higher wages in exchange for receiving less robust health insurance coverage. By definition, wages subject to existing collective bargaining agreements won’t rise when the tax kicks in. Unions weren’t negotiating for a “deal”. They were negotiating to not get screwed.

  • shepherdwong

    “Curent health care reform also does not address one of the chief culprits in our high cost system, out-of-control malpractice suits and awards.”
    .
    …which comprises less than 2% of total health care spending (and is really the only check we have against egregious corporate behavior). It’s still amazing to me how breathtakingly ignorant and misinformed people are, yet inexplicably believe that they know something. A Brown voter I presume?

  • 3xfire3

    Sounds like a lot of Liberal elitist are admitting that they don’t think a majority of Americans are very smart.
    They might consider that on average our citizens have gotten it right most of the time and have build our young country into the greatest country in the world in only approx 250 years.
    I think the average American citizen is a lot smarter then elitist liberals think they are.

  • freeinpa

    SZ;

    Now I will really make your head explode. In many respects you and I agree on many many policies that are needed although we may tussle of how to finally achieve it.

    ====
    “but it’s hard for lots of liberals to see themselves in the people that they’ve been accusing of racism and fascism and Talibanisism”

    It may be but the real cause of that is they were more interested in attacking opposition (And it also happens in reverse). Many times it is easier to demonize than to understand. The reality is that liberalism in the classical sense is very much indeed simialr to the Tea party movement.
    ===
    “It doesn’t help that the center-left wing of the political media makes Tea Partiers out to be the next coming of the Klan.”

    Yes, but I will remind you these are the same folks who were leading the cheers to elect Obama and “change you can believe in” which turned out to be a lie as we have discussed. The next time modern day political media is right will be historic indeed as it will be a first.

  • freeinpa

    “and is really the only check we have against egregious corporate behavior).”
    ===
    So you finally admit that government regulation is a costly, useless ruse.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    daraghmcdowell- I spectacularly missed nothing. Your analogy presumes only one possible solution to a problem. I merely suggested another, more conservative approach.
    .
    Now, I agree that rebuilding a crumbling infrastructure is a useful goal and would indeed stimulate some job creation. The problem is the evidence suggests that is not where much of the “stimulus” money is going, except when it comes to saving the jobs of teachers, police, etc., all of which, while valuable to society, viewed cynically, represent strong union political cash machines.

  • rustyreturns

    You are abosolutely correct tjoyce994. Obama did try. However what he attempted to do was totally wrong.
    .
    The American people recognize his failures, his complete failures as a matter of fact and are now speaking out.
    .
    Instead of taking two very important issues and focusing on them, he went for the moon. Health Care Reform.
    .
    He should have focused first on real job creation and the economy. He should have focused on the Terrorists, and implemented a “surge” in Afghanistan instead of how he could make George Bush and Dick Cheney look bad for purely political reasons.
    .
    Not until the very public backlash occured this summer against his push for health care INSURANCE reform did he do anything about the economy, jobs or terrorism. THE three most important issues for the vast majority of Americans.
    .
    Obama is a less than one term Senator, which the vast majority of it was spent campaigning for the Presidency. His lack of judgment and decision making skills are very apparent. He doesn’t have any. If he is as smart as the lunatic liberals on here claim, he will take a long hard look at it all and get to work on the things that matter. If he is as stupid as I know he is, he will continue down the road he started and rename it like he did with terrorism an “overseas contingency”. He’ll rename the failing economy as a “economic bull market”. And, he’ll try to convince you that a new job is “just on the horizon, just wait and see”.
    .
    Believe in the fairytales you listen to on CNN, MSNBC, or right here on TIME.com. They hood-winked you with the pie in the sky liberal policies that we all know won’t work, and have been proven to fail.
    .
    B minus my a$$. An “F” for complete FAILURE, that is the grade. Maybe it’s time for a full on recall vote. Who wants to take their vote back now they cast in 2008?

  • daraghmcdowell

    Was planning to smack down kirk on the ridiculous malpractice argument, but see that’s already accomplished.

    But what he still fails to see is that if you start from the position that reform has to alter the currently existing system of private health insurance rather than replacing it, your options are heavily limited. You start from 1) ensuring equality of access (ie no bars on pre-existing conditions.) But if you do that on its OWN, no-one will buy health insurance until they are sick. This would lead to a rapid and total collapse of the system, and/or massive increase in premiums. So you move to step 2) mandate that people purchase insurance or face a fine. This is arguably no different from providing tax breaks for charitable foundations and donations (if you provide a socially valuable service which lightens the load of the gov, they take less money from you. Buying insurance reduces the overall costs of providing healthcare to everyone. If you don’t do it, we’ll levy a tax to offset the difference.) Finally 3) if you’re going to mandate people buy something, you have to make sure its affordable. So you have to grant relatively generous subsidies.

    Take out ANY of those legs (which forms the basis of the HCR bill as it stands) and the system collapses.

  • shepherdwong

    “So you finally admit that government regulation is a costly, useless ruse.”
    .
    It’s a “ruse” in the sense that it’s practically non-existent.

  • http://sphboc.wordpress.com sphboc

    I live in Nevada, in Dana Titus’ Congressional District. Altho I have major problems with ObamaCare, I have to agree that it tries to address some signficant issues, and the 60 Senators saw fit to vote for HR3590 on 12/24.

    Point being, that I do not deem her support of ObamaCare, to date, to be inconsistent with the integrity expected of a public servant.

    But, if Mr. Brown wins, I would deem any vote in favor of enacting HR3590 “as is”, or any vote in favor of a “rush job” bill which could clear the Senate before Mr. Brown can be seated, as “unforgiveable”.

    If Reid/Pelosi truly deemed the full text of HR3590 to be “ideal”, they could have introduced it into the House last week; if 218 votes could be secured, it would already have been sent to Mr. Obama.

    I’ve sent the following to both Titus’s and Reid’s offices. If Brown does manage to win, similar communications–to any Democratic Representative who voted for HR3962–might help ensure that Mr. Brown gets to vote on the matter.

    To: Senator Harry Reid, Representative Dina Titus
    Fr: Steven P Haver
    Re: HR 3590
    Dt: January 18, 2010

    Although I deem this bill highly ill-advised, I must acknowledge one fact. On December 24, sixty Senators saw fit to vote for it. All were, presumably, aware that—if the House passed an identical version—it would go to Mr. Obama for signature.
    I deem it unlikely that any—at the time—foresaw any real possibility of such a development. It then appeared almost certain that the Conference Committee, and/or the House, would make at least one change; requiring further Senate approval prior to enactment. Allowing Democrats, who were less than truly convinced of its merits, to at least delay casting a public vote against cloture.
    If Senator Reid, and Representative Pelosi, truly deemed this a “final” version, it could have been introduced, into the House, early last week. Assuming the same voting pattern as on HR3962, the measure would have been on Mr. Obama’s desk by now. In reality, the differences between versions—and the special interest provisions for Nebraska and Louisiana—would most likely have resulted in defeat of the unaltered version.
    It now appears distinctly possible that Scott Brown may win the special election in Massachusetts, giving the Republicans their 41st vote against cloture. Should this occur, there has been talk of either:
    A. Introducing HR3590 into the House, and attempting to pass it “as is”, or
    B. Attempting to pass a reconciled version, before Mr. Brown can be seated.
    I would regard such tactics, on the part of any Legislator, as unforgiveable. If HR3590 was not worth introducing into the House prior to the election, it should not suddenly become worth introducing if Mr. Brown wins the contested seat.

  • shepherdwong

    Not until the very public backlash occured this summer against his push for health care INSURANCE reform did he do anything about the economy, jobs or terrorism.”
    .
    You’re a liar and an idiot.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    Doctors of every specialty pay malpractice insurance premiums at least in the tens of thousands of dollars every year. Do you think those costs don’t get passed on? Hospitals pay, too…in the millions. Don’t just look at the claims thmeselves, look at the underlying costs that are the cost of doing business in our too-litiguous society.

  • daraghmcdowell

    randomkirk – you have NO idea what you’re talking about. Its already been pointed out several times in this thread that malpractice insurance is a drop in the bucket of overall costs. In comparison, the bureaucracy and administrative work caused by hospitals and doctors having to deal with multiple claim requirements, both due to variance in insurance companies and the plans they offer, incurs a far greater cost in terms of manhours spent filling out forms rather than delivering care.

  • diecash1

    RK — Look no further than Texas. Tort “reform” was passed there some years ago and it has done nothing to lower the premiums that doctors pay for malpractice insurance.
    ..
    Tort reform is a nebulous thing for Repubs. They talk a lot about it’s goals but, when enacted, it never produces the results that it is supposed to.

  • 3xfire3

    Thanks Karen,

    BOTH parties have a lot of people/resources here from out of state”

    For telling it like it is. Both sides are using a lot of out of state resources. That’s is not what will decide this race.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    The best way to ensure people are getting the right health care coverage at the most affordable rates would be to change the tax code to give the breaks to the individual, and provide access across state borders, rather than have them be employer-related/determined. I don’t see why others don’t see that.

  • daraghmcdowell

    diecash1 – Its worse than that. Its a way for Republicans to pretend that the crippling deficiencies in the health-care system aren’t systemic ones that require radical reform, (at the expense of an insurance industry that lines their electoral coffers) but rather the result of ‘greedy trial lawyers.’

    This is much like their argument that the Great Recession wasn’t due to hugely irresponsible behaviour by the banks made possible through unwise deregulation (Gramm-Leach-Blilley) but rather results from the Community Reinvestment Act (even though CRA banks could not engage in the ‘sub-prime’ chicanery that got us into this mess, and that CRA mortgages enjoyed comparatively high repayment rates.) It does however allow the GOP to shift the blame from the banks to the minorities who benefitted from CRA.

    To put it another way, the GOP argument is almost always this. ‘The real problem isn’t the corporate behemoths who control our party, its [insert relevant boogeyman or democratic constituency here.]‘

  • daraghmcdowell

    Right. Because that worked SO WELL with the credit card industry. I mean once Congress allowed credit companies to operate across state border, it in no way led to a regulatory race to the bottom among the states and eventual shafting of the end consumer.

    That’s why all the credit card companies are based in Delaware, and rates are 20%. Right? Right?

  • diecash1

    dara — Good points. Thanks.

  • stuartzechman

    The absurd cost of malpractice insurance doesn’t explain the hyper-inflationary costs of prescription drugs, laboratory tests and medical equipment, compared to other wealthy nations like us.
    .
    The reason that drugs are a third cheaper in Canada (and everywhere else in the first world) than they are here has nothing to do with malpractice.
    .
    I’m not opposed to tort reform with respect to malpractice per se, but I see little in the way of data that suggests that this issue impacts the price of health care in this country in a way that would make hospital costs literally twice that of the average OECD nation.
    .
    You can’t blame hospitals’ $8 tylenol capsules purely on malpractice insurance. Magnetic Resonance Imaging equipment costs much, much less in Japan than it does here –which is part of the reason why they get more MRI’s done per patient in Japan than we do– so tort reform won’t solve that problem.
    .
    The Republicans’ myopic obsession with that one aspect of cost control seems more to do with the exploitation of lawyers’ reputations in political rhetoric than solutions-based governance.
    .
    Tort reform and Health Savings Accounts aren’t going to bring the price of health care down from $7400 plus per person in the US to the $3600 per person they pay in Germany –or the $2600 they pay in Japan.

  • diecash1

    RK — Single payer health care is the way to provide the right health care to everyone at a greatly reduced cost. I don’t understand why you don’t see that.

  • stuartzechman

    …actually, isn’t the problem with the credit card industry that Congress won’t effectively regulated it on behalf of consumer interests, now that they can actually have national-scale controls of abusive practices and exploitative contracts?
    .
    Isn’t the regulatory race to the bottom the result of a Third Way-dominated Democratic Congress that allowed industry to literally write its legislation?

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    daraghmcdowell-
    “…bureaucracy and administrative work caused by hospitals and doctors having to deal with multiple claim requirements, both due to variance in insurance companies and the plans they offer, incurs a far greater cost in terms of manhours spent filling out forms rather than delivering care.”
    .
    I’ll give you your due on the manhours devoted to filling out insurance claims, but what about the manhours and dollars wasted on duplicative, resource-wasting CYA tests, exams, and procedures undertaken to avoid malpractice claims?
    .
    As for my knowing nothing, you’re right…only been married to a practicing health care professional for 37 years. And we never talk shop. Gosh…how ignorant of me.

  • daraghmcdowell

    What about the needless duplication of testing to make money under ‘fee-for-service’ health plans?

    And kudos for marrying a health care professional. My Dad is a doctor, and my Mother and sister are nurses. I can honestly say the medical profession is full of wonderful people. It doesn’t change the fact that empirical reality contradicts 90% of what you’re claiming in your ‘arguments.’

  • http://joshd5.wordpress.com joshd5

    daraghmcdowell – I don’t think I made my point as clearly as I intended. The use of the filibuster should be limited to the rare, extraordinary cases (such as if the majority party sought to privatize Social Security, exposing the funds seniors relied upon in planning for retirement to the incredible market risk and fluctuations which would have ultimately threatened to bankrupt the system.) Allowing legislation to be blocked by the mere threat of a filibuster encourages the minority to use it far too often to score political points, even though they may not have a clear idea of why they’re opposing it. Forcing Senators to actually filibuster on the Senate floor will discourage its overuse, and will subject them to more political accountability. Many of the Brown supporters here seem to be frustrated because they feel that the Democrats have not accomplished anything in the past year because they focused on a health care bill which may ultimately not get passed. If the Republicans were required to filibuster, the footage on C-Span and other networks would identify the real reason that this legislation has stalled.

    Just a final point. The Senate certainly has a role in deciding whether a piece of legsilation it passes is constitutional. The role of the courts is to decide cases and controversies, and can only weigh in on the constitutionality of legislation if the issue arises in a case and it is absolutely necessary for resolution of the case. (The federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions). This could take years. Thus, each Senator should consider his/her constitutional role prior to enacting any legislation. There is clearly no constitutionality issue with respect to health care reform, however. Congress has broad powers under the Commerce Clause to pass legislation regarding matters affecting interstate commerce. The massive percentage of GDP spent on health care and the reduction that could be potentially offered with Health Care Reform certainly affects interstate commerce. And in any event, Congress has the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, and some portion of the health care bills could be justified constitutionally on these grounds.

  • http://twitter.com/HULAgate obamastank

    The aberration was 2008, not 2010.

    Barry Obama is going to make Jimmy Carter look like the dean of the democrap party.

    Hope & Chagrin!

  • 3xfire3

    stz,
    good post. It’s nice to here your very rational comments. They make a lot of sense. So many of the liberals commenting on this blog have such closed minds that they are part of the problems rather than part of the solutions. There are some conservatives that also fit into this category.
    If we worked together we could make our country a better place for all of our citizens.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    Let’s not forget that the most egregious examples of credit card company excesses came after new bankruptcy laws (making it far more difficult for consumers to seek relief) were passed by Congress, supported by members from both parties. As has been said before, its the unwillingness of Congress (both parties) to provide oversite that has a major role in that mess. Remember, it was a Republican president (the evil GW Bush) who started sounding alarm bells about the financial viability of FNMA, and a complacent Congress that refused to act. And a Democrat who signed the repeal of Glass-Stegall.

  • shepherdwong

    “Isn’t the regulatory race to the bottom the result of a Third Way-dominated Democratic Congress that allowed industry to literally write its legislation?”
    .
    Yes, on defense, energy, finance and health care to name the big ones. We’re a crony-capitalist oligarchy hurtling toward banana-republic political and economic status. Unfortunately we’re also the linchpin of the world economy with the biggest, baddest war machine ever created. This won’t be pretty.

  • 3xfire3

    stz,
    good post. It’s nice to here your very rational comments. They make a lot of sense. So many of the liberals commenting on this blog have such closed minds that they are part of the problems rather than part of the solutions. There are some conservatives that also fit into this category.
    If we worked together we could make our country a better place for all of our citizens

  • daraghmcdowell

    JosD5 –

    Fair point, well made. But it should be pointed out that Social Security privatisation failed mainly because it was a horrific idea, and even the bulk of Senate republicans realised pushing ahead with it would be electoral suicide.

    I also have serious doubts about the news media to accurately portray the issues and policy implications behind surrounding any particular debate, even under the conditions of your ideal filibuster. But it would be an improvement on the current status quo.

  • http://www.blakesthinktank.com/2010/01/19/tracking-massachusetts/ Blake’s Think Tank » Blog Archive » Tracking Massachusetts

    [...] Karen Tumulty of TIME [...]

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    And how, exactly, is the needless duplication of testing to make money going to be eliminated under a single-payer plan any differently than what is being done under the current model? If a test is deemed unecessary, the insurance company denies payment. I presume that is what would be done under a government-run, single-payer plan. Are the screeners better in your world?

  • daraghmcdowell

    RK – a good point for once. But it was a centrist, pro-corporate Democratic president. And the Dems who voted for the Bankruptcy bill were conservative ‘Blue Dogs’ and guys like Biden who were representing the interests of their Delaware constituents (credit card industry workers) over the national interest.

    All I’m saying – this isn’t a problem with liberal ideology or the liberal wing of the democratic party. Its because one party (the GOP) is entirely bought and paid for by corporate interests. The other has significant elements that are bought and paid for. And when you set up a system where a small number of centrist ‘swing votes’ in the Senate (say, Nelson, Landrieu, Lieberman, Snowe, Bayh et al) are all thats needed to block legislation, all one particular interest group needs to do is buy a small number of Senators. Political scientists have a term for this – state capture. Its as ugly a reality as its name suggests.

  • daraghmcdowell

    Given that every single-payer system in the developed world provides qualitatively superior results in terms of health care delivery, for far lower costs, I’m going to go with yes.

  • freeinpa

    So you finally admit that government regulation is a costly, useless ruse.”
    .
    It’s a “ruse” in the sense that it’s practically non-existent.
    =====

    I’ll take that as a yes

  • diecash1

    It’s not about better screens. It’s about scraping the fee-for-service model and moving to a system that looks at the overall picture of a person’s health. Under the current fee-for-service system, many tests can be ordered (and reasonably justified) in order to pad income. This is a tremendous problem for Medicare.

  • Art Pepper

    It doesn’t help that the center-left wing of the political media makes Tea Partiers out to be the next coming of the Klan.
    .
    Oh yeah, Obama as a witch doctor is totally not racist. Same with “tax payer = N_____”.
    .
    But probably my favorite tea party slogan is “Keep your government hands off my Medicare.” Pithy!

  • kathy

    re: Brown and health insurance. The people of Massachusetts are already paying for health insurance, and Brown has convinced them they’ll “also” be paying for health insurance for everybody else if the health bill passes. The Dems have been very ineffective in addressing this. It’s even possible that the costs will go down in Massachusetts once there’s a larger system operating nationally.

  • http://twitter.com/HULAgate obamastank

    Note to Barry, Harry, and Nod: Better A Teabagger, Than A DOUCHEBAGGER.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    Wouldn’t it make sense to implement a system the rewards one taking responsibility for one’s own health, rather than relying on someone else to make the decision for them? I recognize catastrophic health issues are a different class, but if individuals were given the choice to pick the plan that suits their needs at a price point they are comfortable with, wouldn’t we all be better off? If I knew I could save a ton of money on insurance premiums that I pay by stopping smoking, I’d certainly be inclined to take up Nicoret.

  • daraghmcdowell

    Finally! A conservative commentator on this blog accurately reflecting the substance of the Republican party’s contribution to the political debate.

  • http://twitter.com/HULAgate obamastank

    Call Marcia Cochlea’s motor pool at (800) 485-0444, get a free ride from SEIU and ACORN to the polls, then tell the driver you’re voting for SCOTT BROWN as you exit the pickup truck!

    LET’S ROLL.

  • stuartzechman

    how, exactly, is the needless duplication of testing to make money going to be eliminated under a single-payer plan any differently than what is being done under the current model?

    The premise is that we can live with a certain amount of CYA waste if the cost of the health care products and services involved are as low as, say, they are in Germany, which means half the $7400 plus per person we pay here.
    .
    Single-payer can achieve that reduction in the inflation of health care prices if –if– the government then also does what every other industrialized nation has managed to accomplish: negotiate prices in an open, transparent market of suppliers and providers on behalf of the entire population. Some countries, like Japan, for example, don’t have a single-payer system, but the Japanese government still controls prices by negotiating for the entire nation with multi-national companies like Pfizer. That said, if the government, acting as the insurer of the nation, were to do what the Japanese do, we’d have a shot at their results: people live longer, they’re healthier, the population is older, they visit the doctor three times as often, they have expensive procedures like MRI’s more often than we do, and they pay $2600 per person to our $7400.
    .
    Since we already do that with Medicare/Medicaid, and it’s a mess of back-room deals whose prices are currently bankrupting those programs, it would take comprehensive reform to make it happen.
    .
    But that is the theory behind single-payer, and it does work in much of the wealthy world, where they have as good or better health care results than we do.
    .
    Duplicate tests and such aren’t as much of a problem in countries where the prices of those tests are less than half of ours –meaning in the rest of the OECD world.

  • daraghmcdowell

    RK – yes it would be a good idea if people were rewarded for taking steps towards bettering their own health. How about if we expanded the SCHIP programme substantially by levying an extra tax on tobacco. This would increase the direct financial costs of cigarette smoking, while using the proceeds to pay for health care. Surely such a well-thought-out idea would be so wildly popular not even a Republican president would dare veto it.

    Oh wait….

    Ditto proposals on taxing high-calorie foods, banning transfats, or ending the ridiculous corn industry subsidies that have led to the widescale replacement of cane sugar for ultra-calorific corn syrup in US soft drinks etc. All very good ideas. All anathema to conservative politicians.

  • diecash1

    “Wouldn’t it make sense to implement a system the rewards one taking responsibility for one’s own health, rather than relying on someone else to make the decision for them?”
    ..
    Agreed. Incentives, both good and bad matter.

  • http://twitter.com/HULAgate obamastank

    Of course Scott Brown hurts Barry Obama.

    Scott’s an Army veteran, he’s an unapologetic Tea Party Republican, and he can spell Massachusetts.

  • mazeroski

    Move updates to front page please!

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    I agree that some padding goes on with Medicare vis a vis testing, etc. One could argue that part of the problem lies with the reimbursment rates, however. How does that get fixed? Also, if the problem currently exists in Medicare, how is essentially expanding the system to everyone going to improve the situation?
    .
    A great fear of many ethical medical practitioners is that a government-controlled system will not fairly compensate them for the work they do. By extension, if would-be doctors, nurses, etc. do not feel they will be compensated adequately for their work, they’ll look elsewhere for their careers.

  • diecash1

    A new model has been implemented in a number of places to great effect. The Cleveland Clinic, the Mayo Clinic and a variety of others have moved away from the fee-based system and have chosen to pay doctors a salary. This seems to be a very successful and well-liked system. I believe that Kaiser Permanente has also done a great deal to reduce costs, though I have no personal experience with them.
    ..
    As for expanding Medicare, as SZ pointed out elsewhere in the thread, a great deal of reform would be necessary to make it successful. Whether it would be easier to reform Medicare and open it to everyone or simply start with a new single-payer initiative is open to debate.

  • http://www.simonvinkenoog.nl/beeld/Yogi%20-%20Annelies%20Rigter.jpg yogi

    To tell you the truth, I don’t think I could spell Massachusetts either without spell check, but then again, I live in a state, Oregon, that you can’t pronounce. So let’s call it even.

  • stuartzechman

    randomkirk:
    .
    This:

    a Democrat who signed the repeal of Glass-Stegall.

    is undoubtedly true.
    .
    But there are liberal Democrats and then there are New Democrats. It wasn’t a liberal Democrat who engineered that catastrophic, ideologically-motivated failure of government, it was a cabal of Third Way centrist Democrats who did so.
    .
    Clinton’s Treasury Secretary at the time, the man who said:

    Summers hailed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which lifted more than six decades of restrictions against banks offering commercial banking, insurance, and investment services (by repealing key provisions in the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act): “Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century,” Summers said.[14] “This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy.”[14]

    , Lawrence Summers, now sits at the economic right hand of Barack Obama.
    .
    Barack Obama, of course, has come out now that the election is over as a New Democrat:

    In March 2009, Obama told a White House gathering of 65 members of the New Democrat Coalition that he is a “New Democrat.”[15]

    Make no mistake, randomkirk, there are liberal Democrats (the base of the party), whose ideology says that the role of the government is to protect consumers, workers and small business-people from giant industry and finance, and there are New Democrat centrists (the national leadership of the party), whose ideology says that the role of the government is to protect big industry and finance from the population.
    .
    Democrats are not New Democrats, and liberals aren’t Third Way centrists.

  • http://www.simonvinkenoog.nl/beeld/Yogi%20-%20Annelies%20Rigter.jpg yogi

    Sorry, that should have been “pronounce correctly.” I don’t doubt that you can say Oregon, just not correctly.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    daraghmcdowell-
    “How about if we expanded the SCHIP programme substantially by levying an extra tax on tobacco.”
    .
    I’m talking about taking INDIVIDUAL RESPOSIBILITY for one’s health. Why does everything have to be mandated by government? Since you seem to like taxation to proscribe social policy, why not give the insurance premium tax incentive to the individual and let him/her decide what is best for them?

  • http://twitter.com/HULAgate obamastank

    This is not just a local election, but an American political MOVEMENT against Obama and his math-impaired social welfare agenda.

    So much for the 40-year reign of the 15 minute media wonder.

  • stuartzechman

    3xfire3:
    .
    Thanks very much for taking the time and trouble to read a political viewpoint and analysis with which you will disagree much of the time, it’s appreciated.
    .
    I will certainly read your commentary, too.

  • stuartzechman

    3xfire3 :
    .
    Thanks very much for taking the time and trouble to read a political viewpoint and analysis with which you will disagree much of the time, it’s appreciated.
    .
    I will certainly read your commentary, too.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    stuartzechman-
    .
    If your statement is declarative and meant to be taken that you are a Democrat (as opposed to New), I appreciate your having identified your guiding political philosophy.
    .
    To reciprocate, I consider myself a Teddy Roosevelt Republican (though not a registered member of the party). I believe in conservative principles, but accept government has a role in the world. Our differences are the degree.

  • kathy

    NECN, the boston cable news network ALways follows Joe Kennedy’s name with saying “who is not a relation of Ted Kennedy,” Good for them.

  • tjoyce994

    “Passing a law that says everyone must pay to have health insurance, or the “state” will fine them is not only fundamentally opposite the freedoms our Constitution proscribes, it will not fix the problem, unless those fines are draconian, a politically disasterous outcome.”
    -
    I don’t see that requiring everyone to have health insurance is radically different from requiring everyone to carry liability insurance on their car or business. At some point, most people need medical care. Uninsured people use the hospital emergency rooms as their primary care physician. What could have been resolved with a $75 doctor visit is now $3,500 to $5,000 that is passed on to some one else. And because emergency rooms are trained to look for the obvious and refer you to your physician, this isn’t terribly efficient. I want my health insurance to be affordable, but I don’t have a problem with paying for it.
    -
    I’m not aware of how a requiring me to have health insurance violates my constitutional rights.
    -
    -
    “Curent health care reform also does not address one of the chief culprits in our high cost system, out-of-control malpractice suits and awards.”
    -
    This isn’t correct, but I can see why so many people believe that it is true. First of all most people don’t realize how successful insurance companies are at trying cases. They also don’t realize that the true cost of malpractice is the legal fees. The attorneys fees, expert expenses, etc for the winning cases and the losing cases are the same.
    -
    There is also no real relationship between what the carriers charge for premiums and the physicans’ claim history. As more companies exit the industry, the remaining carriers charge what the market will bear. In fact programs for physicians with spotty records (distressed physican programs) are vey lucrative for carriers. The premiums are high, the limits of liability are low, and the physicians have very little say in the case disposition.
    -
    Anyone who believes that doctors do unnecessary tests solely to keep from being sued has never dealt with an HMO.
    -
    As some one who works in the insurance industry, I am against settlement caps. Too often companies take calculated risk until these risk blow up in their face. (i.e. The average loss will be $ amount, and it will be cheaper to pay the claims than to correct a situation). High jury verdicts are a way to get such a company’s attention.

  • mattyj273

    When someone tells you their insurance went up 10%-30%, just tell them “hey you listened to the Republicans”. When someone tells you they didn’t get a raise this year because it went to health insurance, just tell them “Hey, you had your chance”. And when you see the growing list of people who die from having no insurance or because they have a preexisting condition, just reply “Sorry, in America you receive no sympathy”. And when the doctor says to you, sorry your insurance doesn’t cover the procedure to save your life, you can reply “I had a shot to save myself”.

  • tjoyce994

    “Doctors of every specialty pay malpractice insurance premiums at least in the tens of thousands of dollars every year. Do you think those costs don’t get passed on? Hospitals pay, too…in the millions. Don’t just look at the claims thmeselves, look at the underlying costs that are the cost of doing business in our too-litiguous society.”
    -
    Unless you cap what the insurance companies are allowed to charge for malpractice insurance, you can’t affect the cost of the coverage.

  • tjoyce994

    “A new model has been implemented in a number of places to great effect. The Cleveland Clinic, the Mayo Clinic and a variety of others have moved away from the fee-based system and have chosen to pay doctors a salary.”
    -
    In addition to having the facility p/u the malpractice costs for their employees, those doctors are extremely well paid.

  • stuartzechman

    Art, the people on the popular right who are scared crapless about the government aren’t always expressing that rage because of racism.
    .
    They’re honestly scared crapless of “big government”. A huge difference between the popular right and left is that the rightists don’t care whether or not their outbursts are seen as racist by anyone else, if they themselves don’t mean the sloganeering to be. It doesn’t make them white supremacists, it just makes them insensitive to how they appear to us. Plus, the vast majority of them just hate Obama because they think he’s the second coming of Stalin, not for any other reason.
    .
    Taking the most offensive or reactionary (or racist) of the Tea Partiers’ schtick and plastering it wall to wall on television whilst intoning “look at all the scary, angry activists, and recoil, middle America” is exactly what the institutional press did with anti-Iraq invasion protesters.
    .
    It’s unfair, it’s unrepresentative, it works to suppress popular identification with activism on either left or right, and it’s mean to push tribal buttons in us, the reality-based community, so that we react predictably, and support the establishment center as a buffer against the popular right. It’s “hold your nose and vote for Democrat X” propaganda, for the most part.
    .
    A whole bunch of the Tea Partier activists are Paul-ites who would be with us on ending the occupations, if we could see past the political media’s witch doctor sign video.
    .
    A large number of them are just ordinary folks who believe some untrue things they hear from Glenn Beck-types about their government. It’s not people that should be vilified, it’s the scum who exist to exploit their fears on the right, and the scum who exist to exploit their images on the center. Those images exist to make us afraid, to make us less likely to demand something better than what we’re getting from our government, from Democrats, from institutions –because the alternative is the scary, de-humanized, neo-Klan images of the popular right.
    .
    We’re not denying that racism exists when we don’t ascribe racism to anti-government protesters as a whole. We don’t need to make them out to be something they’re not in order to know that they’re mistaken about so much.
    .
    We need to get past the tribal impulse to immediately believe the absolute worst about our political enemies, if we’re going to get anywhere politically. We can still express outrage at the obvious racist sh*t without tarring the entire popular right with that accusation. Don’t forget, lots of folks know people who don’t like Obama, and don’t think that having that political opinion means anything about racism. We smear the motivations of those folks at our political peril. We need to do better than that to have any success persuading people that we’re on their side.

  • stuartzechman

    Why don’t the Democrats just immediately propose a bill that regulates insurers to prohibit pre-existing conditions exclusions, rescission, and other denial of care abuses?
    .
    Why is it this piece of garbage bill or nothing?
    .
    Also importantly, what are you going to say when that person turns around and asks you these questions?
    .
    Are you going to tell them “We Democrats tried, but since we didn’t get the bill through that we dithered with Olympia Snow and Chuck Grassley on for a year, we’re done trying.“?

  • stuartzechman

    Sorry, that should read “it’s meant to push tribal buttons in us, the reality-based community, so that we react predictably, and support the establishment center as a buffer against the popular right.

  • Art Pepper

    Why don’t the Democrats just immediately propose a bill that regulates insurers to prohibit pre-existing conditions exclusions, rescission, and other denial of care abuses?
    .
    I thought that Krugman actually explained this pretty well.
    .
    If insurance companies are required to take all comers, regardless of preexisting conditions, then you need a mandate, otherwise people will wait until they are sick to buy insurance.
    .
    If you have a mandate, you need some way either to contain costs or to subsidize those who cannot afford it. Ideally both.
    .
    If you have subsidies, you need a way to pay for them.
    .
    Hence any serious bill will have at least four components. This is why the GOP “plan” is a joke, although it incorporates some random bits of what you’d need.
    .
    As for “done trying” I’m still trying to understand the calculus where you can pass a bill with ~ 56 or 57 votes when you “need” (under current rules) 60 votes. What’s the exact proposal? Dems should introduce a more progressive bill and lose the blue dogs? Dems should introduce a progressive bill and it will be so popular that the tea partiers will rise up and demand the GOP support it? Dems should do away with the filibuster? (I could get behind that one.)

  • fhmadvocat

    Frankly, I love how right-wingers are talking about how much Obama poll numbers have dropped. After all, only one president in modern times had worse 1st year numbers than Obama. That president was Ronald Reagan. And what president in modern times had the best poll numbers after his first year in office? Well, that would be George W. Bush, and between Reagan and W., we all know whose presidency was much more successful.

  • stuartzechman

    Art Pepper:
    .
    First, policy:

    If insurance companies are required to take all comers, regardless of preexisting conditions, then you need a mandate, otherwise people will wait until they are sick to buy insurance.

    I understand this, insurers will lose a ton of money if these regulations are in effect.
    .
    I guess I don’t care as much about keeping that industry going with nearly identical profit margins as some (centrist Democrats). My first order of business is protecting consumers from these care-denial practices, which aren’t there merely to keep these firms in existence, but to keep them as profitable as possible. Nothing wrong with that from a business standpoint, but still in need of correction.
    .
    The argument that everyone’s needed to pay into a system that covers every need of every participant is a good one, and that’s where Krugman is coming from. That the insurers will still be in the care-denial business is what these regulations will correct. This isn’t single payer, so we’re not at the point where profit and care-denial have been taken out of (Krugman’s) equation.
    .
    Second, politics:
    .
    Why not put the things that are wildly popular up for votes first, and then work on what will make the system sustainable after the clear demonstration of whose side the Democrats are on?
    .
    Yes, the Republicans will have a hard time voting against the anti-care denial provisions that are in their own proposals. Yes, it will be very difficult for any politician to justify voting against the very thing that people want from their government, namely protection against insurance companies that are out to keep premiums and deny claims however they legally can for profits’ sake.
    .
    The entire system is unsustainable, Art. Without price controls on hospitals, prescription drugs, laboratory tests, medical procedures and equipment, premiums will reflect inflationary health care prices, and care denial will increase. All that keeping private insurers in the system does is keep the government out of the care-denial business and open price-control policy. Care-denial for those under 65 is kept privatized, which is a goal of this health care reform legislation.
    .
    Fortunately, insurers can sustain the losses from care-denial prohibitions for the months or years necessary to implement price-controls on health care commodities as governments have in the rest of the OECD world. Having shown folks that the top concern for Democrats is the welfare of ordinary people, and not the various big players in the health care system, they would then have a measure of political credibility to take on real systemic reform.
    .
    Does that make sense, Art? Since the Republican plans don’t include much in the way of market reforms, and actually do include anti-care-denial legislation, isn’t it time for the Democrats to play “don’t you support the troops?” politics with health care reform, for a change (we can believe in)?

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    “Unless you cap what the insurance companies are allowed to charge for malpractice insurance, you can’t affect the cost of the coverage.”

    Well, yes, actually there is another way. Cap the amount of payout for malpractice claims. And, keep a database on the malefactors in the legal profession who abuse malpractice litigation. I realize this is a small percentage of the whole, but it would at least give ambulance chasers pause.

    While we’re at it, put more pressure on the medical professions to weed out their own bad apples.

  • shepherdwong

    “A large number of them are just ordinary folks who believe some untrue things they hear from Glenn Beck-types about their government. It’s not people that should be vilified, it’s the scum who exist to exploit their fears on the right, and the scum who exist to exploit their images on the center. Those images exist to make us afraid, to make us less likely to demand something better than what we’re getting from our government…”
    .
    You have to realize that a lot of that exploitation is of latent racism, veiled as economic populism and a large number of them are motivated by that racism, i.e., don’t raise my taxes to give benefits to shiftless [insert "other" race here]. You read it hear every day, you see it on FOX, I hear it from my neighbors – coast-to-coast. Let’s not fool ourselves.

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater

  • stuartzechman

    randomkirk:

    If your statement is declarative and meant to be taken that you are a Democrat (as opposed to New), I appreciate your having identified your guiding political philosophy.

    I’m a neo-neo liberal.
    .
    I could also just say that I’m a liberal. I’m from the left-wing of politics. You could say that I’m a leftist, and not a centrist or a rightist.
    .
    Liberal, that’s me.
    .
    You can always tell a centrist from a real liberal, because centrists will hide behind words like “progressive” or “moderate”, because they’re deeply concerned about being wrongly identified as “liberal”. They think “liberal” is a dirty word (they’re the ones who teamed up with conservatives to make “liberal” and “left-wing” forbidden words in establishment politics). When they want to appeal to us, they use “progressive”, when they want to appeal to the right, they say “pragmatic” or “non-ideological”, so that everyone knows that they’re not going to stand on liberal principle –they won’t, because they aren’t liberals.
    .
    Centrists are profoundly afraid of being called “liberal” by anyone, and will do whatever it takes to avoid it.
    .
    We aren’t afraid of being called “liberal”. We’re honest about what we believe, and what we want to do if the electorate entrusts us with political power.
    .
    We’re the opposite, ideologically and politically, of centrists. We have more in common with the right, since at least conservatives aren’t afraid to say what they believe and identify who they are (much of the time).
    .
    But, since there’s a significant ideological divide between “benevolent welfare/social justice” liberals and us neo-neo-liberals on some key issues of governance, I’d better also mention that a number of liberals in that former group won’t endorse some of what I say liberals are for or against. Second Amendment rights come to mind, as well as the priorities of the state in terms of assistance programs.
    .
    I hope that some of what I’ve said makes sense, randomkirk. I understand that, if you’re not a liberal, some of this is probably quite new to you. Thanks for reading.

  • kathy

    KT – re: your appearance on Hardball. Do you really think the Democrats have made more “corrupt” deals to get the senate bill passed than are typical, or have the Republicans yelled about it louder than usual? I think Tom Delay was making some pretty specialized deals when he was in charge.

  • Art Pepper

    Stuart: OK – I see where you’re coming from. Thanks for responding.
    .
    I think Democrats were trying to thread the needle between expanding coverage and not breaking the existing system (such as it is) for people who are currently getting employer-based coverage.
    .
    That’s where you get the argument that single payer might be nice in theory, but you need a plan that you can actually get to from where you are now.
    .
    When I say “Democrats were trying…”, I mean to include only those who were serious about reform. In which I would include Obama, Pelosi, and even Reid, but not folks like Nelson or Baucus. (Or Lieberman, heaven forbid.).
    .
    One area where I think you and I disagree is that you’ve lumped Obama and Reid in with the blue dog Centrists, and I’m not sure that’s quite right. (I’m probably also mischaracterizing your view…)
    .
    However, it’s certainly obvious the Dems misread the mood of the country and badly miscalculated.

  • Art Pepper

    This does not sound like they are preparing to pass the Senate bill in the House.

    I generally trust that Pelosi knows how to count votes, but what is her backup plan? Is it the EPIC FAIL plan?

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    tjoyce994-
    .
    “At some point, most people need medical care.”
    .
    If people were allowed to make their own choices, the level of coverage they might deem necessary for their own well-being might be different from what is mandated (or chosen for them under the current system). If we have a single-payer system, isn’t that essentially one size fits all?

  • textee

    MIss Tumulty:

    Please keep us updated on the number of times Obama’s illegal alien aunt casts fraudulent votes for the Democrats’ hapless nominee for the U.S. Senate.

    Also, please let us know the number of dogs, cats, paramecia and dead people that Obama’s voter fraud outfit ObamAcorn has registered to vote in Massachusetts.

    Thank you.

  • stuartzechman

    shepherdwong:
    .
    I think that more of that is being made than actually exists. It’s not that it doesn’t exist, it’s just that it’s not as prevalent in the Tea Party movement as liberals have rushed to accept.
    .
    I think that we have to be especially careful not to say things we don’t know, like “a large number of them are motivated by that racism“. The problem is that a large number of them aren’t, and arguments that speak to economic populism are…popular.
    .
    Ask 53_3, the most staunch defender of the “The popular right are all racists…just look at the black community’s reaction to them!” line that I can think of here at the Swamp, about illegal immigration taking away Americans’ jobs, sometime.
    .
    53_3 isn’t a xenophobe for having those concerns, and people with little who are frightened of the government taking away what little they have and giving it to others “more deserving” than they aren’t necessarily racists, just misguided, misinformed rightists.
    .
    There are many economic populist arguments that can be portrayed as racist or xenophobic, if you’re out to vilify proponents. We liberals have gotten caught up in some of our crusades against the popular right to the point where we over-identify racism as the motivation behind popular rightist political action.
    .
    It’s counter-productive and inaccurate to paint a populist, rightist, anti-government movement as primarily the expression of racism, even if it identifies us liberals as good, wholesome, non-racists to ourselves and our allies in the process.
    .
    It’s not a denial of the existence of racist (or xenophobic, or anti-semetic, for that matter) popular movements in this country if we fail to call out racism where ever it might, possibly, maybe, could-be-portrayed to exist. When we do over-identify, the cure is sometimes worse than the disease. We need to be very cognizant of the potential for alienating more people than we can persuade by these means. That is the goal, isn’t it? Social change through voluntary means? Since we don’t have any thought police (and the notion is abhorrent to liberals), we must endlessly persuade and enlighten, not endlessly demonize and accuse.
    .
    We need to be really super-productive in dealing with racism as it actually exists, and not concerned with calling out for its own sake. We need to be really honest with ourselves about what we know about people who are our political enemies, and what we’d like to believe about them, otherwise we lose the credibility necessary to persuade and enlighten, and to curb the actual, structural racism that mars the pursuit of justice in America.
    .
    Thanks for taking

  • stuartzechman

    …the time to get through this without immediately reacting, shepherdwong. It’s important as members of the reality-based community to continually challenge our premises. If our premises are correct, then they will withstand question, righteousness intact, I’m sure you will agree.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    stuartzechman-
    .
    Thanks for the lesson in left-of-center nuances. Neo-neo-liberal. Who new?
    .
    BTW, I find your posts erudite and thoughtful. Can’t say I agree with all of what you say, but concede you have many valid points with which I do agree. Keep up the good work.

  • stuartzechman

    Art Pepper:
    .
    No, no, I really do appreciate that you’ve read my commentary with an open mind. I’m not here to win arguments, so if you disagree, you disagree, and that’s fine. We’re ultimately on the same side, you and I.
    .
    However, the reason why I call Obama a New Democrat is because…he called himself a New Democrat ( link to Wikipedia entry on New Democrats ):

    In the politics of the United States, the New Democrats are an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. They are identified with more center-right social/cultural positions and neoliberal fiscal values.[1][2] They are represented by organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the New Democrat Network, and the Senate and House New Democrat Coalitions.
    .
    Some of those identified as New Democrats had vied for the 2008 Democratic nomination for President, including Hillary Rodham Clinton and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.
    .
    In 2003, Barack Obama (at the time serving in the Illinois State Senate), asked the Democratic Leadership Council to remove his name from its New Democrat Directory. He said that his name had been added without his knowledge, and that he was removing his name because it implied membership in the DLC, which he had never joined.[14]
    .
    In March 2009, Obama told a White House gathering of 65 members of the New Democrat Coalition that he is a “New Democrat.“[15]

    Art, he waited until after the election, after he appointed Blue Dog organizer Rahm to Chief of Staff, after he pursued centrist policies with respect to occupations, secrecy, the financial bailout, etc., to acknowledge that he is a New Democrat…a Third Way centrist.
    .
    He waited until after Hillary was done, until after he didn’t need to distinguish himself from the DLC to the liberal base and the netroots.
    .
    He waited until after we all voted and organized and gave money for him, Art.
    .
    The White House is getting the health care legislation that they wanted, that the New Democrats wanted, that Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln wanted, that’s the hard truth. They believe in centrist policy, because, like Ben, Joe, Blanche and Rahm, Obama is a New Democrat.

  • shepherdwong

    “It’s counter-productive and inaccurate to paint a populist, rightist, anti-government movement as primarily the expression of racism, even if it identifies us liberals as good, wholesome, non-racists to ourselves and our allies in the process.”
    .
    Oh, I never said that it was primarily racist. The bulk of the movement is quite obviously motivated merely by right-wing-authoritarian-following, where any fear or resentment of any “other”, race, religion, gender-orientation, political persuasion, economic status, etc., rational or not, is equally useful.
    .
    And, in the interest of getting along, I never call my racists neighbors bigots.
    .
    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

  • stuartzechman

    oops, here’s that link to the New Democrats entry:
    .
    ( link to Wikipedia entry on New Democrats )

  • stuartzechman

    …in the interest of getting along, I never call my racists neighbors bigots.
    .
    I wish I’d have kept that in mind when I told my wife’s family that they were racists in their home in Slovakia, when they attempted to inform me that gypsies were congenital thieves, and dirty, and not good, like normal people, and that the deserved the filth and poverty in which they lived, instead of the government handouts that were wasted on them. It was tough to get along when the little shanty-towns were pointed out to me as proof of their inherent dirtiness during car trips. Mind you, these are highly educated people, psychologists, historians, the elite of that country, not common villagers with superstitions and ancient hatreds. That’s how it is in Europe, though.
    .
    It was interesting to watch them as they struggled with the idea that their common knowledge sounded exactly like what certain people in my country said about certain groups of other people, almost word for word. That conversation wasn’t in the interest of getting along, that’s for sure, but it did cause some new thoughts to take place.
    .
    In the interests of not alienating others who don’t see things quite the way I do, I never call people who I can only suspect of racism bigots. It’s also in the interests of being accurate and fair, and differentiating between that which I know, and that which I suspect about people I don’t know. It’s in the country’s interests, and the interests of solving racial tensions that I make and act on that distinction.
    .
    I hope that I’ve been clear about what I believe, shepherdwong.

  • stuartzechman

    Thanks for the link BTW.

  • http://randomkirk.wordpress.com randomkirk

    I read about this new model and it sounds promising to me. The best part is, it’s a PRIVATE initiative. Now, if we could just figure out a way to move things in that direction without government takeover, I’m behind it.

  • stuartzechman

    That’s very kind of you to say, randomkirk, thanks for reading.

  • http://feedyouradhd.com/scott-wins-massachusetts-now-republicans-dont-screw-this-up-again/ Scott Wins Massachusetts; Now, Republicans, Don’t Screw This Up … Again | Feed Your ADHD

    [...] middle school gym for a Coakley stump the night before polls opened. And as voting began Tuesday, her support had eroded like a beach beaten down by a hurricane. The sands beneath her feet hadn’t just shifted. [...]

  • tjoyce994

    “Well, yes, actually there is another way. Cap the amount of payout for malpractice claims. And, keep a database on the malefactors in the legal profession who abuse malpractice litigation. I realize this is a small percentage of the whole, but it would at least give ambulance chasers pause.:
    -
    “While we’re at it, put more pressure on the medical professions to weed out their own bad apples.”
    -
    There are physicians who take a two week course and immediately begin doing lucrative cosmetic surgery — badly. There are some doctors that are so bad, no one will cover them for their vacations. When the work product is so bad and the behavior so egregious, is it really fair to cap damages? And you still have failed to deal with the high cost of litigation.
    -
    On the other hand, some professions are magnets for mal practice suits (ob-gyn, oncology). That doesn’t mean that the physician did anything wrong. A malpractice suit is an expensive fact finding mission. If your loved one died in surgery, you want the right to find out why. Sometimes the litigation is dropped once the case has been thoroughly explored.
    -
    How do you determine that an attorney has abused the sysem? By the number of cases he handles? Malpractice is a specialized area of law.

  • tjoyce994

    “Art, the people on the popular right who are scared crapless about the government aren’t always expressing that rage because of racism.”
    -
    “A huge difference between the popular right and left is that the rightists don’t care whether or not their outbursts are seen as racist by anyone else, if they themselves don’t mean the sloganeering to be.”
    -
    I have to disagree with you on this one. As a person of color, I overlook a lot of ignorance. I think it’s important to listen to the idea rather than the presentation. But some of the antics I’ve seen this past year are racist, and should be labeled as such. The message I get is, “I don’t like Obama’s politics, and I detest the fact that he is black.” I also disagee that this is just a matter of insensitivity. The intent is to hurt and demean. I don’t have an intelligent argument, but so what? He’s Black.
    -
    Let me be clear. Calling Obama names and saying that you hate is politics isn’t racist. It’s politics. Putting his picture on a poster with a bone through his nose is racist. So is the greeting card with pictures of the watermelon on the white house lawn, the Barack the Magic Negro joke, and the teabaggers who refer to Obama as the nigger. I have nothing in common with people who do this, and there is no place for me in a political party that encourages or endorses this behavior.
    -
    I do agree with you that many of the teabaggers are misinfomed. But I also see some of them as bigots.

  • http://www.homefarminsurance.info/2010/01/20/massachusetts-votes-can-dem-turnout-save-coakley/ Massachusetts Votes: Can Dem Turnout Save Coakley? | home farm insurance

    [...] Read more on Time Magazine [...]

  • http://ikejakson.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/a-fading-star-over-massachusetts/ A fading Star over Massachusetts « Ike Jakson’s Blog

    [...]  http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/01/19/massachusetts-senate-race-election-day/ [...]

  • http://botd.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/top-posts-1363/ Top Posts — WordPress.com

    [...] Massachusetts Senate Race: Election Day NOTE: I’ll be updating this post throughout the day. I’ve been up here for only a day, but it’s hard [...] [...]

  • Ike Jakson
  • http://ikejakson.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/joe-the-weaver-and-spinner/ Joe, the Weaver and Spinner « Ike Jakson’s Blog

    [...]  http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/01/19/massachusetts-senate-race-election-day/ [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus