Scozzofava Officially Backs Owens

Politics • Views: 3,302

It’s official: Republican Dede Scozzofava has endorsed Democrat Bill Owens in the NY-23 special election.

Doug Hoffman’s camp is calling her a traitor, but they were doing that already.

Those in the camp of the Conservative candidate Douglas L. Hoffman called Ms. Scozzafava a turncoat.

“This afternoon Dede Scozzafava betrayed the GOP,“ Senior Communications Advisor Rob Ryan said in a statement. “She endorsed a Pelosi Democrat who will spend more, tax more, and push the liberal agenda that is dragging down this nation.”

Jump to bottom

362 comments
1 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 9:44:39pm

Amazing, this will have far reaching implications.

2 erraticsphinx  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 9:46:22pm

Heh.

Double heh.

3 freetoken  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 9:51:11pm

If the Beckians-Palinistas do succeed in driving out the “RINO”s it is pretty clear that those cast out will not have any love for the new GOP masters.

There are plenty of ethno-nationalists who probably vote (D) here and there, so the new and improved (?) GOP will probably pick some of them up…

It will be interesting to see if the inflow is greater than the outflow.

4 erraticsphinx  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 9:55:41pm

Very good article in the Politico about how they got her to endorse.

Or rather, persuaded her to endorse openly (since it’s obvious she hates Hoffman’s guts).

I don’t understand the GOP. They did not have a SHRED of fiscal conservatism for the last 8-10 years (including 6 with total control of Congress/Presidency) and now they expect to “get back to principles and core values”.

What principles? What core values?

This is an omen of a party in a death spiral.
I live in NY, so I will probably stay registered Republican to try to influence primaries ( despite this current fiasco, most GOPers here are NOT far right). But as for voting for federal GOP candidates, not happening anytime before the theocons leave.

5 mikhailtheplumber  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 9:56:20pm

re: #3 freetoken

If the Beckians-Palinistas do succeed in driving out the “RINO”s it is pretty clear that those cast out will not have any love for the new GOP masters.

There are plenty of ethno-nationalists who probably vote (D) here and there, so the new and improved (?) GOP will probably pick some of them up…

It will be interesting to see if the inflow is greater than the outflow.

How can the inflow be greater than the outflow? Ultimately, the changes undergoing the GOP will turn it into the party of angry white guys and, regardless of how vociferous they can be, thinking they are “the people” the constitution speaks of, angry white guys are doomed to be a smaller and smaller minority in America.

Luckily.

6 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 9:56:33pm

Crazy kooky. They already called here all kinds of blue/lefty things.

7 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 9:56:51pm

I’ve kind of shifted on this race since I found out that Scozzofava. like Owens, supports the card check bill. I really wish I could give my support to Hoffman, since he’s the only one who opposes it, but I’m not comfortable supporting anyone who cozies up to Robert Stacy McCain. Thus my answer to the question of “Who should win in NY-23” is “None of the above”.

8 avanti  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 9:57:02pm

Here’s a discussion on the issue of the moderates in the GOP.

link.

9 lastlaugh  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 9:57:29pm

Five thirty Eight has an analysis with who’s received the most local money. It’s Owens by about a 10:1 margin.

[Link: www.fivethirtyeight.com…]

10 iceweasel  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 9:58:13pm

re: #4 erraticsphinx

Very good article in the Politico about how they got her to endorse.

Or rather, persuaded her to endorse openly (since it’s obvious she hates Hoffman’s guts).


Hey, I was just now reading that Politico article! This was interesting about one of the deciding factors:

Silver’s assurance, in a phone conversation with Scozzafava, that the state Assembly Democratic caucus would embrace her if she chose to switch parties, now viewed as a real possibility after her endorsement Sunday of Owens.

11 harpsicon  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 9:58:27pm

But her campaign manager is backing Hoffman - why do I think that this portends about a 50-50 split of her remaining 20%… If it was even before, it’s probably still even.

I’m trying to think of cases of the reverse, where a Dem went on to back a Repub, but all I’m coming up with is Zell Miller. Anybody?

In any event, as her husband is apparently a union official, I think this whole affair has (for her) way less to do with rejecting radical rightists than with where the family bread is buttered…

12 mikhailtheplumber  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 9:58:28pm

I’m off to bed.

Good night, lizards.

13 erraticsphinx  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 9:59:36pm

re: #10 iceweasel

Imagine, a party looking for converts, not heretics.


Teh Horrorz!

14 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:00:09pm

Open question:

Is this circus a side show or foreshadowing of the next elections?

15 bratwurst  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:02:11pm

re: #14 Bagua

Open question:

Is this circus a side show or foreshadowing of the next elections?

For the sake of the country, I hope it is the former!!

16 freetoken  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:02:33pm

re: #5 mikhailtheplumber

How can the inflow be greater than the outflow?

Supposedly about 55 million people are registered voters with an affiliation of (R). However, there are over 200 million adults in this country. There are always ways to pick up more bodies, even if you lose a few.

The Sarah has almost 1 million friends on facebook. She is the de facto leader of this movement of the rightists, even if she is not the brains or bucks behind the movement.

As unemployment lingers in the high figures and economic malaise sets in, there will be plenty of people looking for a scapegoat, and somebody will end up leading them.

There is a huge potential in the xenophobia market.

17 erraticsphinx  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:02:51pm

re: #14 Bagua

I think it might be both.

At this point, I feel like Hoffman will win simply because Owens does not have enough time to consolidate.

A week longer, I think Hoffman’s totally out of step with the district positions will have cost him. But right now, Owens is out of time.

18 lastlaugh  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:04:25pm

re: #14 Bagua

Open question:

Is this circus a side show or foreshadowing of the next elections?

This may be a real possibility for 2010. I think the best thing for the GOP is Hoffman loses, and someone finally steps up into the leadership vacuum. It’s party leadership that holds big tents together.

19 Areopagitica  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:04:25pm

The GOP’s death spiral embrace of Palin, Beck, Limbaugh et al and the far right social conservatives is like watching a chicken run hopped up on speed run around in a circle with its head cut off.

Its kind of ironic that the party that once touted itself as standing for smaller government and fiscal responsibility are now so focused on social issues such as regulation of marital behavior (something traditionally left to the states), the erosion of federalism, creationism in schools, anti-volcanology, prayer in school…It seems like they are really trying to make inroads in the personal lives and choices of people while back in the real world, we voters are scared out of our pants about companies like AIG, Citi, Goldman Sachs, and their ilk that nearly destroyed our economy, continued pandering to radical islamic interests, high gas prices, TARP, how we can have some sort of meaningful and transparent health care reform to prevent people from going bankrupt if they become ill.

GOP, Michael Steele, please pull your head out of your tuchus!!!

20 avanti  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:04:32pm

re: #14 Bagua

Open question:

Is this circus a side show or foreshadowing of the next elections?

Any Republican that wants to survive in the present climate had better plant their lips on Beck’s and Rush’s ass and move away from any sort of moderate position.

21 erraticsphinx  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:05:38pm

re: #16 freetoken

Oooh, just wait till immigration reform comes up again.

The truly hideous people will show up.

22 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:07:00pm

re: #20 avanti

Any Republican that wants to survive in the present climate had better plant their lips on Beck’s and Rush’s ass and move away from any sort of moderate position.

That is a depressing thought. One does perceive a swing of the pendulum, hopefully it will at least slap Beck on the way.

23 lastlaugh  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:07:35pm

re: #21 erraticsphinx

Oooh, just wait till immigration reform comes up again.

The truly hideous people will show up.

Why wouldn’t you want to alienate the largest growing voting bloc in the nation?

24 Racer X  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:08:28pm

A woman married three times walked into a bridal shop one day and told the sales clerk that she was looking for a wedding gown for her fourth wedding.

“Of course, madam,” replied the sales clerk, “exactly what type and color dress are you looking for?”

The bride-to-be said: “A long frilly white dress with a veil.”

The sales clerk hesitated a bit, then said, “Please don’t take this
the wrong way, but gowns of that nature are considered more
appropriate for brides who are being married the first time - for
those who are a bit more innocent, if you know what I mean? Perhaps ivory or sky blue would be nice?”

“Well,” replied the customer, a little peeved at the clerk’s
directness, “I can assure you that a white gown would be quite
appropriate. Believe it or not, despite all my marriages, I remain as innocent as a first-time bride. You see, my first husband was so excited about our wedding, he died as we were checking into our hotel.

“My second husband and I got into such a terrible fight in the limo on our way to our honeymoon that we had that wedding annulled immediately and never spoke to each other again.”

“What about your third husband?” asked the sales clerk.

“That one was a Democrat,” said the woman, “and every night for four years, he just sat on the edge of the bed and told me how good it was going to be, but nothing ever happened.”

25 iceweasel  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:09:27pm

re: #20 avanti

Any Republican that wants to survive in the present climate had better plant their lips on Beck’s and Rush’s ass and move away from any sort of moderate position.

Yep. And yet:

“We accept moderates in our party, and we want moderates in our party. We cover a wide range of Americans,” said Republican House Leader John Boehner in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Hilarious tweets coming in over that statement now, btw:

RT @cartergilson: It is inclusive. They take in conservatives *and* nutjobs.

RT @terry_levine: @markos inclusive in the sense the GOP includes 70yo white men, 71yo white men, 72yo white men…

(markos) Step 1: kick out gays, blacks, Latinos, youth, urbanites, single women, non-religious & (now) moderate GOPers. Step 2: majority!

26 erraticsphinx  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:10:47pm

re: #25 iceweasel


I have to say, that last tweet from Markos is on the money.

27 checked08  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:13:59pm

re: #24 Racer X

This is why you don’t talk politics with strangers. Never any good jokes to open a political discussion.

28 iceweasel  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:16:14pm

re: #26 erraticsphinx

I have to say, that last tweet from Markos is on the money.

Yes. I would have had step 2 ??? and then step three Majority! but that’s just my compulsive need to make a (tired) south park reference.

another mocking tweet from a while ago (glenn greenwald)

Hilarious - Fox told its viewers this morning that Scozzafava withdrew to ensure a Hoffman victory - 3 hours later, she endorsed Owens.

29 avanti  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:16:20pm

While the GOP is forming a circular firing squad, Obama’s polling has been pretty stable after the honeymoon drop. I think some of that is because of the attention the GOP infighting is getting. It’s not a confidence builder for conservitives.

Gallup.

30 freetoken  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:19:40pm

Well, I’m everyone here will be comforted to know that one well regarded (at least according to Townhall where her column appears) expert, Bay Buchanan, has weighed in on this with a new essay:
Is the Republican Label Irrelevant?

[…] Bottom line—the Republicans Party is deeply conservative while America is predominantly conservative. It is the party label that has trouble, not the philosophy which was once its driving force.

The key to expansion then is to realign itself with that which is conservative and regain the trust of the 35% of Independents and 21% of Democrat who also call themselves conservative. You do this with candidates who appeal to these voters—conservative populists who speak with boldness and clarity about their vision for America. […]


So there… according to the Paleocons the expansion of the GOP is right on track with the pushing out of the likes of candidate Dede…

31 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:19:45pm

re: #26 erraticsphinx

I have to say, that last tweet from Markos is on the money.

It is indeed. I’m not a fan of Scozzofava, but what happened to her was a purge. It’s telling that the one election on the East Coast the GOP is sure to win is the one where the candidate kept the social issues in the background. Bob McDonnell is going to win in Virginia by hitting economic issues and hitting them hard. He kept on message and stayed with issues where he had the advantage. That is the path GOP will have to take, should it wish to remain a national party. Hoffman by contrast, walks the path to failure. Even if he wins, conservatism will have lost.

32 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:19:57pm

Considering hoffman is running with a theocratic nativist party, it’s the only reasonable thing for her to do.

33 erraticsphinx  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:20:26pm

re: #28 iceweasel

Dumb as a box of rocks, Fox is.
Which kind of figures, when you look at who its geared too.

Don’t these geniuses realize that when you have a political party which is composed of just one rigid ideology, not only does it get harder to win elections, but also harder to govern?

34 iceweasel  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:20:39pm

Oliver Willis: Purge, GOP, Purge

Dede Scozzafava’s decision to endorse the Democrat and not the far-right Conservative party candidate in NY-23 will probably not help Bill Owens, who was a long shot to win a +30 Republican seat. But it tells you what you need to know about the current Republican party.

(snip)

The Republicans and the conservative movement, led by such bright bulbs as Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, are whittling down a base that already is the minority of Americans. In a time where American parties should be expanding the GOP is contracting. They show no interest in moderation, racial inclusivity, or movement on gender issues.

35 Racer X  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:22:04pm

What time is it?

36 erraticsphinx  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:22:35pm

re: #31 Dark_Falcon

Right on the money. McDonell ran a flawless campaign, and he was also helped by Deed’s utter ineptitude.

Without Deeds lack of public speaking skills, lack of concrete proposals, and his completely inane decision to fire up Dems by…running away from Obama, this election would be much closer.

37 iceweasel  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:23:00pm

re: #30 freetoken

Well, I’m everyone here will be comforted to know that one well regarded (at least according to Townhall where her column appears) expert, Bay Buchanan, has weighed in on this with a new essay:
Is the Republican Label Irrelevant?


So there… according to the Paleocons the expansion of the GOP is right on track with the pushing out of the likes of candidate Dede…

Vietnamization: they figure they need to destroy the party in order to ‘save’ it.

38 maxwellp  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:24:08pm

It’s not just the social conservatives who are hurting the GOP. Don’t forget about the war-mongering foreign policy crowd. People are turned off by endless wars as much as they are from the Elmer Gantrys of this world.

39 freetoken  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:24:24pm

re: #34 iceweasel

The brilliance of Palin et. al. endorsing Hoffman is that the congressional district in question is unlikely to go to a (D), thus giving Hoffman a real chance at victory. If Hoffman should win, the boldness of the “true” conservatives in declaring victory will not be trivial. They will think that they have proven once and for all that the GOP needs to do just as Bay Buchanan suggested.

40 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:26:36pm

re: #37 iceweasel

Vietnamization: they figure they need to destroy the party in order to ‘save’ it.

Not quite right for word choice. “Vietnamization” referred to Richard Nixon’s policy of expanding the role of the ARVN and moving them into the lead against the NVA. It is important in terms of understanding the last stages of that war, so I would ask you to please pick another word.

41 iceweasel  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:28:50pm

re: #39 freetoken

The brilliance of Palin et. al. endorsing Hoffman is that the congressional district in question is unlikely to go to a (D), thus giving Hoffman a real chance at victory. If Hoffman should win, the boldness of the “true” conservatives in declaring victory will not be trivial. They will think that they have proven once and for all that the GOP needs to do just as Bay Buchanan suggested.

That actually is kind of brilliant. Meantime, for those GOP voters who begin to fret and catch on that this is a purge of moderates, the story they’ll be fed is “Don’t worry, Scozzafava was a radical leftist, not even a RINO…after all, she endorsed Owens.”

42 freetoken  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:32:18pm

re: #41 iceweasel

The public faces on the front of this movement, Palin, Beck, etc. are not the brains behind it. Rather, the big-bucks, politically savvy groups such as Club for Growth are the ones that are behind the scenes orchestrating this Hoffman insurgency.

In order to get control of Congress and the WH, however, they will have to turn up the xenophobia. I think no other issue could pull enough “independents’ into the movement. “Fiscal responsibility” sounds good but is not a very good emotional motivator.

43 avanti  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:32:32pm

re: #41 iceweasel

That actually is kind of brilliant. Meantime, for those GOP voters who begin to fret and catch on that this is a purge of moderates, the story they’ll be fed is “Don’t worry, Scozzafava was a radical leftist, not even a RINO…after all, she endorsed Owens.”

Sadly, many on the right are trashing Newt over the issue, further scaring off anyone from trying to right the boat.

44 erraticsphinx  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:33:09pm

Good night, everybody. Cannot wait for Tuesday to finally get here, sick of all the polls and “radical leftist” chants, “we must secede if we don’t win this” chants, etc.

45 gaw  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:34:04pm

Man, how’d that MODERATE thing work out for ya during that last election?

Purging the republican party of democrats… yeah, that makes sense to me! But then, Glenn Back makes sense too.

46 TedStriker  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:39:16pm

re: #45 gaw

Man, it must real hard to eke out 90 posts in almost six years…how many months did it take for you to decide to surface and drop a turd in the punch bowl?

BTW, if Beck makes sense to you, you’re as batshit crazy as he is…

47 Racer X  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:39:23pm

Ares 1-X Rocket Lifts Off

48 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:41:09pm

re: #45 gaw

Check out this one’s site. He’s got a glowing vid of Sarah Palin up top while earlier posts have positive reviews of books by Michael Behe and other ID loons. And now he says he approves of Glen Beck. I think I’ll go get the grill set up.

49 iceweasel  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:41:52pm

re: #40 Dark_Falcon

Not quite right for word choice. “Vietnamization” referred to Richard Nixon’s policy of expanding the role of the ARVN and moving them into the lead against the NVA. It is important in terms of understanding the last stages of that war, so I would ask you to please pick another word.

You know, I did know that it was a misuse of the term, and was just too tired and lazy to come up with something more fitting (and snappier). I had a mental bet with myself that someone would spot it— my guess was that it would be you, because I know you’re up on this sort of thing. :)

50 TedStriker  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:41:52pm

re: #45 gaw

If you’re working to get your flounce cookie, you’re gonna have to try harder, because that post of yours is weak sauce…

51 freetoken  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:42:03pm

re: #45 gaw

But then, Glenn Back makes sense too.

MP3 Audio
52 avanti  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:42:04pm

re: #45 gaw

Man, how’d that MODERATE thing work out for ya during that last election?

Purging the republican party of democrats… yeah, that makes sense to me! But then, Glenn Back makes sense too.

It is a real problem is it not. Mccain was too conservative socially to appeal to independents and Dems, and too moderate for conservatives. Maybe the GOP can pick someone conservative enough to win 80% of the 25% of the GOP vote share and drive off the rest.

53 cosmo  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:43:07pm

They’ll laud Scozzafava as a “free-thinker” a “visionary” and an individual who “has seen the light.”

Then, as the D tires of her utility, or flat-out no longer needs her, they’ll Cindy Sheehan her tuchus out of town.

The influx/outflow question is an interesting one, but at the end of the day, it’s a question of how many of the “ins” and “outs” actually visit the polls on any given November.

My experience is that “angry white men” (as noted by an earlier commenter) vote with sterling regularity.

54 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:43:13pm

re: #30 freetoken

That’s sounds a lot like the european populist strategy of the crypto-fascist parties, and their demonization of moderate right parties in europe. Fascists need a wedge where they can muscle for space and push the moderates out of the way. While parliamentary european governments allow for these parties to get some representation, they usually don’t gain majorities.

In the American style of governance, however, this sort of radicalization of one party is much more problematic in that we need both parties to have moderation and the ability to compromise. With this nativist mainstreaming, the moderates have no choice but to turn to the opposition, or this may be the dawn of a viable third party, or the GOP is on it’s way to a Mondale styled butt whoopin’- we’ll see.

However, we must not forget where the nativist have been taking lessons- those I see around the blogosphere complaining about LGF and fascists and racists and this “what happened at LGF?” crap- many of them also mention how they never paid attention to the vlaams belang issue.

That sure explains why they can’t figure out what the hell is going on.

55 freetoken  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:46:08pm

re: #48 Dark_Falcon

Check out his post about Robert E. Lee…

I think we have a real winner here…

56 TedStriker  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:47:49pm

re: #55 freetoken

Check out his post about Robert E. Lee…

I think we have a real winner here…

Lemme guess…a RSM/neo-Confederate wannabe?

57 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:49:21pm

re: #45 gaw

Man, how’d that MODERATE thing work out for ya during that last election?

Purging the republican party of democrats… yeah, that makes sense to me! But then, Glenn Back makes sense too.


How’s that Intelligent Design thing working out for you?

Christian Apologetics and Intelligent Design

I can see why Glenn Back[sic] would make sense to you.

58 iceweasel  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:49:45pm

re: #42 freetoken


In order to get control of Congress and the WH, however, they will have to turn up the xenophobia. I think no other issue could pull enough “independents’ into the movement. “Fiscal responsibility” sounds good but is not a very good emotional motivator.

I think you’re right. It also fits with the mood of the moment. One problem is that it’s a terrible strategy for the long term. In the predictions I’ve seen about demographics, it’s going to be impossible for any party to win national office without a sizeable chunk of the Latino vote by 2030. And starting before then it can just barely be done. Nate Silver has an excellent post about this from May:
Operation Gringo: Can the Republicans Sacrifice the Hispanic Vote and Win the White House?

I think you’re right that the xenophobia angle is the one they’ll take, (which also fits nicely in a psychological and emotional sense with the paleo-cons and their isolationist tendencies), but it’s one that would only give them some short term bounce at the expense of a huge backlash later, inevitably.
So strange. The GOP always seemed to be the party with a solid grasp of longterm planning. All gone now.

59 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:49:52pm

re: #53 cosmo

They’ll laud Scozzafava as a “free-thinker” a “visionary” and an individual who “has seen the light.”

Then, as the D tires of her utility, or flat-out no longer needs her, they’ll Cindy Sheehan her tuchus out of town.

The influx/outflow question is an interesting one, but at the end of the day, it’s a question of how many of the “ins” and “outs” actually visit the polls on any given November.

My experience is that “angry white men” (as noted by an earlier commenter) vote with sterling regularity.

Yep, that’s probably right about Scozzafava. Free thinker aren’t actually popular in politics. Parties prefer less imaginative office-holders who will stay in line. Creativity often is perceived as disloyalty and a threat to party unity. Suspicion of that kind sucks, but as the song says, It’s Like That, And That’s The Way It Is.

Youtube Video
60 freetoken  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:50:06pm

re: #54 Sharmuta

It is difficult to motivate people… especially if you are asking them to do something for a cause. One really has to push the right buttons, and those tend to be emotional, not philosophical.

In recent times, nothing has stirred the electorate like the immigration reform of a couple of years ago. The volume of calls and letters to the “moderate” gang in the Senate derailed the legislation, even though the President was onboard with the idea and probably even the majority of the senate.

Xenophobia - the ultimate political stimulant for the nationalists.

61 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:52:11pm

re: #58 iceweasel

[…]

I think you’re right that the xenophobia angle is the one they’ll take, (which also fits nicely in a psychological and emotional sense with the paleo-cons and their isolationist tendencies),[…].

With a minimum of 12 million illegal aliens in country, it’s not really a case of “xenophobia” and “isolationist tendencies” its a real issue.

62 freetoken  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:52:35pm

re: #56 talon_262

Lemme guess…a RSM/neo-Confederate wannabe?

Seems to be more of an apologist for secessionism.

63 gaw  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:55:23pm

re: #46 talon_262

Man, what an inclusive group this bunch is. Sure glad you guys don’t try to purge dissenting views from your club! Why, given the nature of this thread, it would be most ironic if you were not tolerant of dissenting voices.

Think I’ll go back into my hole, seeing as I don’t subscribe completely to the orthodox lizardoid view.

64 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:56:09pm

re: #49 iceweasel

You know, I did know that it was a misuse of the term, and was just too tired and lazy to come up with something more fitting (and snappier). I had a mental bet with myself that someone would spot it— my guess was that it would be you, because I know you’re up on this sort of thing. :)

I call it “barn-burning” after a Dutch legend of a farmer who burned down his barn to rid it of rats. The far-right proposes the same thing for the GOP.

65 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:56:51pm

re: #61 Bagua

With a minimum of 12 million illegal aliens in country, it’s not really a case of “xenophobia” and “isolationist tendencies” its a real issue.

Something being a real issue never stopped people from tacking xenophobia and isolationism onto it in the past, why should they start now?

66 Sharmuta  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:57:03pm

re: #60 freetoken

It is difficult to motivate people… especially if you are asking them to do something for a cause. One really has to push the right buttons, and those tend to be emotional, not philosophical.

In recent times, nothing has stirred the electorate like the immigration reform of a couple of years ago. The volume of calls and letters to the “moderate” gang in the Senate derailed the legislation, even though the President was onboard with the idea and probably even the majority of the senate.

Xenophobia - the ultimate political stimulant for the nationalists.

Indeed- it was an issue just made for piggy backing, in their opinion, to which they did, and enjoyed success from it. To be quite honest- their greatest success was the counter-jihad movement, which again brings me to vlaams belang.

The fallout over the vlaams belang and the counter-jihad was a sort of canary in the coal mine moment for LGF and moderates on the right in general. Now with the election of Obama, we’re seeing the mask drop completely from the entire right and not just what we might have thought was a subset. If they were a subset, they mainstreamed pretty damned fast.

67 iceweasel  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:57:47pm

re: #61 Bagua

With a minimum of 12 million illegal aliens in country, it’s not really a case of “xenophobia” and “isolationist tendencies” its a real issue.

Legitimate concerns about illegal immigration aren’t at all the same as playing up and pandering to xenophobia.

We can expect the legitimate concerns to be raised, along with a whole lot of xenophobic ones, for the emotional draw. The xenophobia will probably also render rational discussion of the real problems with illegal immigration impossible.
And the Latino community members who are citizens and vote are going to remember it. Shortterm gain for longterm alienation (so to speak) of what will soon be an essential voting bloc in the US.

68 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:57:55pm

re: #63 gaw

Man, what an inclusive group this bunch is. Sure glad you guys don’t try to purge dissenting views from your club! Why, given the nature of this thread, it would be most ironic if you were not tolerant of dissenting voices.

Think I’ll go back into my hole, seeing as I don’t subscribe completely to the orthodox lizardoid view.

You could stick around and defend your ideas. That might involve some work, however. Feel free, at least until Charles takes your T-bird away.

69 TedStriker  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:58:17pm

re: #63 gaw

Who are you trying to kid? You don’t want a discussion, you want to troll…

70 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:59:23pm

re: #55 freetoken

Check out his post about Robert E. Lee…

I think we have a real winner here…

Which one?

71 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:59:29pm

re: #63 gaw

That’s right, you tell ‘em, back you your little bible blog where you rant about “president pantywaist” and the importance of Intelligent Design and the horrors of gay marraige.

I’m sure you are real tolerant of dissenting voices.

72 maxwellp  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:00:50pm

Getting back to discussing Scozzofava. Given her endorsement of the democrat, I say I am glad she won’t win.

I understand her sour grapes with Hoffman. I would be upset too. However, she was the Republican nominee and received funds from the Republican Party. Endorsing the democrat while taking money from the Republicans speaks volumes.

There is no rule that says one has to endorse a candidate. Given her feelings towards Hoffman, she should have released her supporters to vote any way they wanted and not endorsed the democrat.

73 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:01:34pm

re: #65 SanFranciscoZionist

Something being a real issue never stopped people from tacking xenophobia and isolationism onto it in the past, why should they start now?

No it shouldn’t you are correct. But I reckon in the current political environment charges of xenophobia are being used to cover for the illegal aliens just as charges of Islamophobia is used to cover for focus on Islamist crime.

74 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:03:32pm

re: #63 gaw

Flounce!

75 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:03:53pm

re: #67 iceweasel

Legitimate concerns about illegal immigration aren’t at all the same as playing up and pandering to xenophobia.
[…]

I agree, see #73.

In the case of “alienating” Hispanics, this is a hot button issue and the xenophobia and racism cards are being played accordingly.

76 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:04:09pm

re: #68 SanFranciscoZionist

You could stick around and defend your ideas. That might involve some work, however. Feel free, at least until Charles takes your T-bird away.

Fun, Fun, Fun!

77 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:04:43pm

re: #72 maxwellp

Getting back to discussing Scozzofava. Given her endorsement of the democrat, I say I am glad she won’t win.

I understand her sour grapes with Hoffman. I would be upset too. However, she was the Republican nominee and received funds from the Republican Party. Endorsing the democrat while taking money from the Republicans speaks volumes.

There is no rule that says one has to endorse a candidate. Given her feelings towards Hoffman, she should have released her supporters to vote any way they wanted and not endorsed the democrat.

Concur.

78 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:05:24pm

re: #73 Bagua

No it shouldn’t you are correct. But I reckon in the current political environment charges of xenophobia are being used to cover for the illegal aliens just as charges of Islamophobia is used to cover for focus on Islamist crime.

There are those who use it like that, but there’s also a fair bit of genuine racism and refusal to deal with facts on the ground out there. This is one of those really truly complicated issues. It does not reduce well to simple slogans. Or rather, it reduces really well to simple slogans, but no one has ever solved any problem connected to it like that.

79 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:05:48pm

re: #76 Dark_Falcon

Fun, Fun, Fun!

What exactly is this “orthodox Lizardoid” view gaw speaks of? There is loads of divergent viewpoints on this forum.

80 avanti  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:05:54pm

re: #77 Dark_Falcon

Concur.

Yep, sour grapes on her part, and a classless move.

81 lostlakehiker  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:06:07pm

re: #4 erraticsphinx

Very good article in the Politico about how they got her to endorse.

Or rather, persuaded her to endorse openly (since it’s obvious she hates Hoffman’s guts).

I don’t understand the GOP. They did not have a SHRED of fiscal conservatism for the last 8-10 years (including 6 with total control of Congress/Presidency) and now they expect to “get back to principles and core values”.

What principles? What core values?

This is an omen of a party in a death spiral.
I live in NY, so I will probably stay registered Republican to try to influence primaries ( despite this current fiasco, most GOPers here are NOT far right). But as for voting for federal GOP candidates, not happening anytime before the theocons leave.

The theocons aren’t leaving the Republican party because they have nowhere to go. Democrat? (!?!) What can happen is that the Republican party returns to Reaganite big-tent self-discipline, and accepts the votes and support of a range of types, from libertarian to country-club to any kind of worker who doesn’t enjoy being bullied into union membership, to Christians who find that the Republican party is not the Party of God but it’s a better fit than what they’ll get with the Dems.

The Republican party is going to have to also have its Galileo moment and accept that science is the closest we’ll get to Truth when it comes to questions about the natural world.

82 Gus  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:07:22pm

re: #79 Bagua

What exactly is this “orthodox Lizardoid” view gaw speaks of? There is loads of divergent viewpoints on this forum.

Bagua, wanted to say, sorry for being cranky yesterday morning.

83 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:08:13pm

re: #78 SanFranciscoZionist

There are those who use it like that, but there’s also a fair bit of genuine racism and refusal to deal with facts on the ground out there. This is one of those really truly complicated issues. It does not reduce well to simple slogans. Or rather, it reduces really well to simple slogans, but no one has ever solved any problem connected to it like that.

Of course there is genuine racism as well, among all groups including minorities one may observe.

But the issue is there like the proverbial elephant in the room. We can’t skate around it forever.

84 iceweasel  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:08:38pm

re: #79 Bagua

What exactly is this “orthodox Lizardoid” view gaw speaks of? There is loads of divergent viewpoints on this forum.

The orthodox Lizardoid view is probably the view that gaw doesn’t know wtf he’s talking about.

85 keithgabryelski  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:09:10pm

re: #72 maxwellp


There is no rule that says one has to endorse a candidate. Given her feelings towards Hoffman, she should have released her supporters to vote any way they wanted and not endorsed the democrat.

Unless she believes, and rightfully so, that a Hoffman win is a bigger loss for Republicans than a Democrat win.

86 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:09:11pm

re: #79 Bagua

What exactly is this “orthodox Lizardoid” view gaw speaks of? There is loads of divergent viewpoints on this forum.

There is no lizard orthodoxy save an aggressive embrace of the virtue of sanity.

87 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:10:39pm

re: #82 Gus 802

Bagua, wanted to say, sorry for being cranky yesterday morning.

Thank you for saying that Gus 802!

But really, your viewpoints were welcome, I didn’t find you cranky.

Money is a hot button issue and the crash last year harmed us all, it’s difficult to talk about economics and who and what is to “blame” in hindsight without emotion as we are all affected personally.

88 gaw  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:14:33pm

re: #68 SanFranciscoZionist
You could stick around and defend your ideas.

OK, here’s my idea- Trying to be the mushy moderate party of the middle has cost the republican party in the past, and will cost the party in the future. Returning to core principles of limited government, lower taxes, less government spending, less centralization, more local control, and yes, dare I say it, support of socially conservative policies, would be good for the party.

re: #69 Talon 262
You don’t want a discussion, you want to troll…

You are right. I don’t want a discussion. Instead I want to be attacked ad hominem and have my core beliefs and principles ridiculed for no reason other than that they don’t comport to the majority view here.

re: #71 Bagua
I’m sure you are real tolerant of dissenting voices.

When they are respectfully stated. I don’t tolerate people trashing me on my own site, though I have engaged in respectful dialogue in the past. Something that used to happen here, as I recall. Years ago.

89 Gus  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:14:39pm

re: #87 Bagua

Thank you for saying that Gus 802!

But really, your viewpoints were welcome, I didn’t find you cranky.

Money is a hot button issue and the crash last year harmed us all, it’s difficult to talk about economics and who and what is to “blame” in hindsight without emotion as we are all affected personally.

You’re welcome and thanks back.

To be honest I’m going through a rough spot financially on my end and when that happens I get into blame mode. To be honest, I know the real blame lies with my own actions.

90 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:15:49pm

re: #84 iceweasel

The orthodox Lizardoid view is probably the view that gaw doesn’t know wtf he’s talking about.

It’s funny really, these partisan fanatics imagine we have some sort of “orthodox” view because we don’t buy into their orthodoxy.

I expect they imagine you and I iceweasel are political twins. I’m trying to imagine your brain in my body in a voting booth.

Youtube Video
91 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:19:11pm

re: #88 gaw

I don’t tolerate people trashing me on my own site, though I have engaged in respectful dialogue in the past. Something that used to happen here, as I recall. Years ago.

When you come here trashing this site and making ridiculous allegations of “orthodoxy” and lack of dissent, then yes, what you write on your “own site” is fair game. Why? Because you link to it.

And you “don’t tolerate people trashing me on my own site” oh dear, is that place sacred or something?

92 Gus  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:19:28pm

re: #88 gaw

92 comments since 2004 and you think you have “us” figured out?

Try again.

93 maxwellp  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:20:22pm

re: #85 keithgabryelski

Unless she believes, and rightfully so, that a Hoffman win is a bigger loss for Republicans than a Democrat win.

At least Hoffman showed he is a fighter. Dede showed she is not worthy to be in Congress. She is the Republican nominee in an overwhelmingly republican district. Yet she quit the race and endorsed the democrat.

Think about it. A major party candidate quits the race in a district owned by that candidate’s party. If anything it shows she is not a fighter. Is that the type of person you want fighting for you in Congress?

I don’t understand why she dropped out. Whoever wins this election will have to fight for it again next year. So if I were Dede, I would have fought hard to the end to at least set myself up for the contest next year. If Hoffman turns out to be as bad as everyone here thinks, she would be in a position to challenge him. Now, I don’t think that is possible.

94 iceweasel  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:25:32pm

re: #90 Bagua

It’s funny really, these partisan fanatics imagine we have some sort of “orthodox” view because we don’t buy into their orthodoxy.

I expect they imagine you and I iceweasel are political twins. I’m trying to imagine your brain in my body in a voting booth.


hee. That trailer creeped me out.
My brain in your body in a voting booth…reminds me of this classic Simpsons bit somehow:

Youtube Video

My favourite part is when he says “Hey! I only meant one of those votes for McCain!”

95 keithgabryelski  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:27:04pm

re: #93 maxwellp

At least Hoffman showed he is a fighter. Dede showed she is not worthy to be in Congress. She is the Republican nominee in an overwhelmingly republican district. Yet she quit the race and endorsed the democrat.

She could have seen the writing on the wall, especially given the poo flinging the radicals have been throwing at her. It’s not cowardly to understand the fights you can’t win and avoid them.

As for endorsing the Democrat: again, there is ample evidence that the election of Hoffman will further hurt the Republican party by increasing the throttle hold the radicals have on it. A Democrat win can be seen aw an opportunity to reorganize (which we already know the Republicans are in desperate need of).

96 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:27:07pm

re: #88 gaw


You are right. I don’t want a discussion. Instead I want to be attacked ad hominem and have my core beliefs and principles ridiculed for no reason other than that they don’t comport to the majority view here.

When were you attacked ad hominem , do you even know the definition of the term?

97 gaw  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:28:17pm

re: #91 Bagua

Not sacred. Just mine. If you come to my place and behave obnoxiously, I don’t have to tolerate it.

By the way, did I trash this site? I don’t think so. I merely raised a dissenting voice regarding the view that the repub party needs more moderate (Err, actually that should read “socially liberal”) members.

Look, you guys are welcome to trash me and my views all you want. You can even tell charles to pull my ticket. It just seems ironic that you trash the right wing for wanting to purge democrats from the gop while you engage in purging dissenting views from your own ranks.

98 Gus  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:31:18pm

re: #85 keithgabryelski

Unless she believes, and rightfully so, that a Hoffman win is a bigger loss for Republicans than a Democrat win.

From what I read, the thinking is that a Hoffman win will empower the Tea Party movement and increase the purging. Of course, Scozzofaza was a rather unique candidate.

Regardless of that and continuing on the Hoffman win, the belief is that the Dems want to have GOP candidates further to the right in both the primaries and what looks like Super Tuesday for 2010.

A conservative win in the 23rd shouldn’t be that difficult since it has been voting Republican for many years now. However, that’s hard to judge since McHugh, even though he was a Republican, was strong with the unions. Obama also garnered more votes than McCain in ‘08 but that’s not too atypical with working class GOP districts.

99 iceweasel  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:32:15pm

re: #97 gaw

It just seems ironic that you trash the right wing for wanting to purge democrats from the gop while you engage in purging dissenting views from your own ranks.

Nobody’s purging you. People objected to what they (we) felt was a mischaracterisation of the site and the views held by people here, which are, as DF pointed out, only in agreement on one thing: an aggressive embrace of the virtue of sanity.

100 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:34:09pm

I always welcome more moderate to conservative Democrats so I hope she switches over

101 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:34:29pm

re: #97 gaw

Not sacred. Just mine. If you come to my place and behave obnoxiously, I don’t have to tolerate it.

You don’t? What do you do, ban the first visitor you’ve had?

Your self of righteous indignation is entirely misplaced and wholly consistent with your worldview.

Your claims of orthodoxy here are simply projection and wholly incorrect. If you wish to fling turds at this blog, you have no business being sensitive yourself.

102 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:35:07pm

re: #97 gaw

Not sacred. Just mine. If you come to my place and behave obnoxiously, I don’t have to tolerate it.

By the way, did I trash this site? I don’t think so. I merely raised a dissenting voice regarding the view that the repub party needs more moderate (Err, actually that should read “socially liberal”) members.

Look, you guys are welcome to trash me and my views all you want. You can even tell charles to pull my ticket. It just seems ironic that you trash the right wing for wanting to purge democrats from the gop while you engage in purging dissenting views from your own ranks.

You’ve raised an actual question with this post so I’ll reply without snark or downding. Moderate does not equal socially liberal. Oten it means people who do not want the government invovled in social issues or those who don’t want to fight the Culture Wars. Such people need to be welcomed into the GOP. There simply are not enough social conservatives to form a governing coalition.

103 keithgabryelski  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:36:06pm

re: #97 gaw


Look, you guys are welcome to trash me and my views all you want. You can even tell charles to pull my ticket. It just seems ironic that you trash the right wing for wanting to purge democrats from the gop while you engage in purging dissenting views from your own ranks.

Have I missed something?

I saw little bit of ridicule sent your direction about inactivity on your site, but I haven’t seen anyone try to stifle your comments.

and this “purge democrats from the gop” is the main problem — you believe this woman is a democrat, she isn’t — she is a self described moderate republican. Using the term “democrat” (in this sense) is “begging the question” of her right to exist in the Republican party.

Help me out, here:
Present some evidence your comments are being suppressed.
Present some evidence you are being purged from this site.
Present some evidence Scozzofava is a Democrat.

104 TedStriker  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:36:50pm

re: #88 gaw

OK, I’ll bite. You say:

OK, here’s my idea- Trying to be the mushy moderate party of the middle has cost the republican party in the past, and will cost the party in the future. Returning to core principles of limited government, lower taxes, less government spending, less centralization, more local control, and yes, dare I say it, support of socially conservative policies, would be good for the party.

I say that, a great many Lizards (myself included) would agree to most of the above statement. With the power of the public purse, being a good steward of taxpayers’ money make logical sense…the thing is that the GOP hasn’t been fiscally conservative in many years, opting to outspend the Dems while they held the White House and/or Congress over the past decade or so.

The one thing that just screams FULL STOP, though, is your support for “socially conservative policies”. What in the world makes you and other SoCons the arbiter of moral and correct behavior? It sure isn’t G-d…

105 Gus  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:41:01pm

re: #100 Conservative Moonbat

I always welcome more moderate to conservative Democrats so I hope she switches over

Gallup polls show an increase of conservative identity with Americans in recent months in fact holding a majority. Yet at the same time, those that identify as Democrats still hold a lead. That would put “the money” on conservative Democrats.

That’s a generalization of course and probably more applicable with national elections. Districts will vary and people will elect whom they see fit which could be either further to the left or further to the right.

106 Gus  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:42:34pm

re: #103 keithgabryelski

Could you imagine Millicent Fenwick in this environment?

107 SixDegrees  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:43:19pm

re: #42 freetoken

The public faces on the front of this movement, Palin, Beck, etc. are not the brains behind it. Rather, the big-bucks, politically savvy groups such as Club for Growth are the ones that are behind the scenes orchestrating this Hoffman insurgency.

In order to get control of Congress and the WH, however, they will have to turn up the xenophobia. I think no other issue could pull enough “independents’ into the movement. “Fiscal responsibility” sounds good but is not a very good emotional motivator.

I almost agree, but wonder whether there’s any leadership at all, or if it isn’t simply almost random banging from one issue into another. Note that Palin, Limbaugh, Beck et al never spotted Hoffman on their radar until well after polls started showing him taking the lead in the 23rd and Scozzofava faltering. They simply glommed onto a situation that already existed; they didn’t create it. They didn’t even exacerbate it, as far as I can tell. The polling trends are all pretty much straight lines, without any kinks or knees indicating sudden external influence from the gadfly brigade. Hoffman, after all, had been in the race for many months, yet it’s only in the last two or three weeks that the shriekers have paid any attention to this race.

I do agree that their strategy, such as it is, will rely on the goading of populist mobs.

108 maxwellp  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:43:39pm

re: #95 keithgabryelski

She could have seen the writing on the wall, especially given the poo flinging the radicals have been throwing at her. It’s not cowardly to understand the fights you can’t win and avoid them.

As Herman Edwards once said, “You play to win the game.”

The whole world knew Walter Mondale was going to lose in 1984. Most knew McCain was going to lose last year after the financial meltdown. Yet both of these guys soldiered on. Dede didn’t. Who cares if the campaign was tough. Does she think Congress will be easy. I am sure the democrats on the hill would have thrown more at her. To me this shows she wasn’t up to it.

109 TedStriker  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:45:58pm

re: #106 Gus 802

Could you imagine Millicent Fenwick in this environment?

She’d be run out of the GOP as a liberal RINO.

/and the man who defeated her in her last campaign, Frank Lautenberg, is a lout…

110 TedStriker  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:49:04pm

re: #108 maxwellp

As Herman Edwards once said, “You play to win the game.”

The whole world knew Walter Mondale was going to lose in 1984. Most knew McCain was going to lose last year after the financial meltdown. Yet both of these guys soldiered on. Dede didn’t. Who cares if the campaign was tough. Does she think Congress will be easy. I am sure the democrats on the hill would have thrown more at her. To me this shows she wasn’t up to it.

Sort of like someone else we know.

/Sarah, I’m looking at you…

111 SixDegrees  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:50:27pm

re: #97 gaw

It just seems ironic that you trash the right wing for wanting to purge democrats from the gop…

No one is purging Democrats from the GOP. The extreme right wing theocrats, however, seem to have developed a real talent and desire to turn Republicans into Democrats through rigid intolerance. To hear Beck, Limbaugh and Malkin tell it, Ronald Reagan would be considered a RINO were he alive today, and be purged from party ranks for not toeing ideological lines closely enough.

Note that this is not a winning strategy. In the 23rd, the GOP has now officially lost the election and had it’s minority in the House reduced by one member. That’s a done deal, and the election results themselves will do nothing to change that, short of a massive write-in campaign for the only Republican on the ballot - Scozzofava.

I guess they really showed their face who’s boss. Too bad about their nose.

112 Gus  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:50:38pm

re: #109 talon_262

She’d be run out of the GOP as a liberal RINO.

/and the man who defeated her in her last campaign, Frank Lautenberg, is a lout…

It’s almost disturbing to think that Fenwick would have been considered a RINO. I find the term rather childish.

I voted for Lauetnberg once along with “Dollar Bill” Bradley — basketball nickname. He’s a bit of standard Dem pol.

113 SixDegrees  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:52:21pm

re: #108 maxwellp

As Herman Edwards once said, “You play to win the game.”

The whole world knew Walter Mondale was going to lose in 1984. Most knew McCain was going to lose last year after the financial meltdown. Yet both of these guys soldiered on. Dede didn’t. Who cares if the campaign was tough. Does she think Congress will be easy. I am sure the democrats on the hill would have thrown more at her. To me this shows she wasn’t up to it.

Like Palin?

No, not quite as bad as quitting in the middle of an unfinished job, I guess.

114 keithgabryelski  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:57:33pm

re: #108 maxwellp

As Herman Edwards once said, “You play to win the game.”

The whole world knew Walter Mondale was going to lose in 1984. Most knew McCain was going to lose last year after the financial meltdown. Yet both of these guys soldiered on. Dede didn’t. Who cares if the campaign was tough. Does she think Congress will be easy. I am sure the democrats on the hill would have thrown more at her. To me this shows she wasn’t up to it.

You are certainly free to that opinion, but …

1) I don’t think the comparison of a presidential election to this election is reasonable — higher stakes.
2) Mondale ran in hopes of picking up the pieces after an October surprise. It was a longshot bet that was worth taking.
3) McCain has endured harsher treatment than an election loss, I’m sure he didn’t think twice about the risk/reward of continuing after the troubles his campaigned ran in to.

My point: if you can see going into a fight that you will lose and possibly die (given that every article written about here seemed to be from the radical view that she was a “radical left wing democrat” — she might well consider her political career over if she continued) and if you consider the take over of your party by a small but vocal minority that has shown no ability to positively influence the growth of it or to even find policies that are acceptable to the general public — well, i can’t really blame her for waving people away from the skunk at the party.

115 SixDegrees  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:58:28pm

re: #105 Gus 802

Gallup polls show an increase of conservative identity with Americans in recent months in fact holding a majority. Yet at the same time, those that identify as Democrats still hold a lead. That would put “the money” on conservative Democrats.

That’s a generalization of course and probably more applicable with national elections. Districts will vary and people will elect whom they see fit which could be either further to the left or further to the right.

Note that the Blue Dogs are the only Conservatives holding real power within Congress these days. The Democrats aren’t stupid; where it makes sense, their members are co-opting the Conservative platform in order to win elections, and the number of Conservative Democrats is growing as a result. So far, they’ve managed to divorce the worthy portions of Conservatism - fiscal responsibility, a desire for smaller, less intrusive government - from the bullshit peddled by the theocrats on the religious right seeking to peer into every American bedroom and enforce rigid sexual mores while supplanting public education with a nationwide “school” system of Bible studies resembling a warped Christian version of madrassas.

This is a strategy that the GOP should have adopted years ago, but didn’t - they let the religious right seize control of the party, and now have to deal with the fallout from being the party of anti-gay, Bible thumping creationists ready to stuff women into burkas and begin purging heretics from the nation, preferably with fire.

116 keithgabryelski  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:59:21pm

re: #108 maxwellp

As Herman Edwards once said, “You play to win the game.”

again, the question is “what is a win” — if losing the election to Hoffman is such a significant loss that you can’t risk staying in the race … well, there you go.

117 Gus  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 11:59:34pm

The GOP lost the Northeast and barely holding on with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. At the same time, the GOP lose Colorado and a couple of other states. They only retain a foothold in southern states. They lost the house and the senate and the White House. Gallup show Democratic party identity ahead of Republican party identity. Meanwhile, the GOP is pulling out the old tired meme of abortion and now gay marriage which are two issues that are not high on the forefront of average Americans.

118 SixDegrees  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 12:00:49am

re: #114 keithgabryelski

You are certainly free to that opinion, but …

1) I don’t think the comparison of a presidential election to this election is reasonable — higher stakes.
2) Mondale ran in hopes of picking up the pieces after an October surprise. It was a longshot bet that was worth taking.
3) McCain has endured harsher treatment than an election loss, I’m sure he didn’t think twice about the risk/reward of continuing after the troubles his campaigned ran in to.

My point: if you can see going into a fight that you will lose and possibly die (given that every article written about here seemed to be from the radical view that she was a “radical left wing democrat” — she might well consider her political career over if she continued) and if you consider the take over of your party by a small but vocal minority that has shown no ability to positively influence the growth of it or to even find policies that are acceptable to the general public — well, i can’t really blame her for waving people away from the skunk at the party.

Also: what would you do when high-profile members of your own party started stabbing you in the back? Stick around in hopes that their zealotry would subside over time? Hardly likely, given the past. Or bail, and leave the contest without a GOP candidate, costing the party yet another seat in the House? The latter would certainly look attractive if it were me.

119 SixDegrees  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 12:06:41am

re: #117 Gus 802

The GOP lost the Northeast and barely holding on with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. At the same time, the GOP lose Colorado and a couple of other states. They only retain a foothold in southern states. They lost the house and the senate and the White House. Gallup show Democratic party identity ahead of Republican party identity. Meanwhile, the GOP is pulling out the old tired meme of abortion and now gay marriage which are two issues that are not high on the forefront of average Americans.

Not only are these last two issues not particularly compelling at the moment - there has been a shift in support for them by many, and an awful lot of conservatives are now opposed to the official GOP position on them. And together with attempts to force religion into the classroom through the backdoor of creationism, they create a compelling argument that the religious right is attempting to establish a theocracy to run the US - which, in fact, they are. Spend five minutes listening to Chucklebee and this becomes terrifyingly apparent.

120 Gus  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 12:08:43am

re: #115 SixDegrees

Apparently now with a “loyalty oath” authored by the unhinged and bombastic Glenn Beck.

It’s been since the 1980s that the GOP has been adhering to the idea that getting the votes means two things: the proverbial litmus test and pandering to the illusory base. Two problems with that and one is that it is a minority ideology. The other, and most importantly, it makes for poor governance in the 21st century.

The primary concern of Americans are thus life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As long as the GOP keep pandering to the likes of James Dobson and other of his ilk, they will only show that they are only interested in governance from the bully pulpit.

121 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 12:10:23am

re: #120 Gus 802

Apparently now with a “loyalty oath” authored by the unhinged and bombastic Glenn Beck.

It’s been since the 1980s that the GOP has been adhering to the idea that getting the votes means two things: the proverbial litmus test and pandering to the illusory base. Two problems with that and one is that it is a minority ideology. The other, and most importantly, it makes for poor governance in the 21st century.

The primary concern of Americans are thus life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As long as the GOP keep pandering to the likes of James Dobson and other of his ilk, they will only show that they are only interested in governance from the bully pulpit.

Quite Concur. And now it’s off to bed with me. Goodnight all.

122 gaw  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 12:10:25am

re: #99 iceweasel

People objected to what they (we) felt was a mischaracterisation of the site and the views held by people here, […] an aggressive embrace of the virtue of sanity.

If you say so. However, I guess since I’m “batshit crazy” I must not have that virtue. I’m just an ignorant right winger, but would that qualify as ad hominem?

re: #102 Dark_Falcon

Moderate does not equal socially liberal. Oten it means people who do not want the government invovled in social issues or those who don’t want to fight the Culture Wars.

Fair enough, but in general when one speaks of a “moderate repub” they are referring to one with liberal views on social issues, not fiscal or defense policy.

re: #103 keithgabryelski

I saw little bit of ridicule sent your direction about inactivity on your site, but I haven’t seen anyone try to stifle your comments.

Actually, I was being ridiculed for my lack of activity at this site, not my own. Granted, though, content of my site has certainly been up for discussion.

Present some evidence your comments are being suppressed.

They aren’t I didn’t say they were.

Present some evidence you are being purged from this site.

Several references to my longevity here being brief, implying that I would be blocked as a troll.

Present some evidence Scozzofava is a Democrat.

DIABLO- Democrat In All But Label Only. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and votes like a duck, and endorses other ducks, why would you insist on calling it an elephant?

re: #104 talon_262

What in the world makes you and other SoCons the arbiter of moral and correct behavior? It sure isn’t G-d…

Actually I would claim that G-d IS the Arbiter, and Christ will be the final Judge. Once again, a minority view here, and probably one that will get more grief.

I cannot speak for all other SoCons, but I think a lot of them would agree with that statement.

123 Bagua  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 12:16:20am

re: #122 gaw

If you say so. However, I guess since I’m “batshit crazy” I must not have that virtue. I’m just an ignorant right winger, but would that qualify as ad hominem?

No. Look up the term and educate yourself. Ever insult is not Ad Hominem and Intelligent Design is not science. Words have meaning.

Actually I would claim that G-d IS the Arbiter, and Christ will be the final Judge. Once again, a minority view here, and probably one that will get more grief.

I cannot speak for all other SoCons, but I think a lot of them would agree with that statement.

Well that kinda trumps all discussion does it not? It all comes down to Jesus, end of discussion. And you are interested in a diversity of opinion? I doubt that very much.

124 SixDegrees  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 12:17:50am

re: #120 Gus 802

Apparently now with a “loyalty oath” authored by the unhinged and bombastic Glenn Beck.

It’s been since the 1980s that the GOP has been adhering to the idea that getting the votes means two things: the proverbial litmus test and pandering to the illusory base. Two problems with that and one is that it is a minority ideology. The other, and most importantly, it makes for poor governance in the 21st century.

The primary concern of Americans are thus life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As long as the GOP keep pandering to the likes of James Dobson and other of his ilk, they will only show that they are only interested in governance from the bully pulpit.

The problem in the short term is that special elections and even the midterms tend to favor the kooks - they’re the ones who are motivated to get to the polls no matter way. Primaries work the same way. In all of these cases, the fringe wields more power than in the general Presidential election. Also, it’s commonplace for the party not in power to gain seats during the midterms. So by this time next year, we may very well be looking at the kooks claiming some sort of victory, illusory or otherwise, owing simply to the normal political tides that prevail at such times and not due to any actual merit. The problem I see is that this will provide them with enough momentum to nominate a total loser - think Huckabee, or Palin - in 2012 and crash into a smoking hold in the ground so deep it will take a decade or two to climb out of.

125 Gus  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 12:18:32am

re: #122 gaw

So what you’re saying then is that all Republicans should adhere to one strict set of principles or as I previously stated, a loyalty oath of sorts. Basically a cookie cutter idealism of a GOP mold that keep within a strict set of rules and to which all passes the litmus test. Once that’s attained, you can almost say, “you’ve seen one Republican, you’ve seen them all.” Anyone that wants to vote for a candidates that adheres to that “orthodoxy” will be safe in knowing that if they vote for a Republican, they’re pre-packaged and will have only one-mind-set.

126 Gus  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 12:24:26am

re: #124 SixDegrees

The problem in the short term is that special elections and even the midterms tend to favor the kooks - they’re the ones who are motivated to get to the polls no matter way. Primaries work the same way. In all of these cases, the fringe wields more power than in the general Presidential election. Also, it’s commonplace for the party not in power to gain seats during the midterms. So by this time next year, we may very well be looking at the kooks claiming some sort of victory, illusory or otherwise, owing simply to the normal political tides that prevail at such times and not due to any actual merit. The problem I see is that this will provide them with enough momentum to nominate a total loser - think Huckabee, or Palin - in 2012 and crash into a smoking hold in the ground so deep it will take a decade or two to climb out of.

Exactly. And they will too judging by the way things are going. If Hoffman wins or loses that seems to be the trajectory. Think 912DC march and the billions of people that showed up. Think about Mr. No-Personality, Dick Armey and the continually flip-flopping Newt Gingrich. The 3-percentors have taken the reign and they are confident in Glenn Beck’s Nielsen ratings topping out at 3 million voters. It’s actually closer to 1 percent.

127 SixDegrees  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 12:27:33am

Gotta run. BBIAB.

128 Gus  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 12:28:17am

Night all.

129 maxwellp  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 12:30:32am

re: #125 Gus 802

So what you’re saying then is that all Republicans should adhere to one strict set of principles or as I previously stated, a loyalty oath of sorts. Basically a cookie cutter idealism of a GOP mold that keep within a strict set of rules and to which all passes the litmus test. Once that’s attained, you can almost say, “you’ve seen one Republican, you’ve seen them all.” Anyone that wants to vote for a candidates that adheres to that “orthodoxy” will be safe in knowing that if they vote for a Republican, they’re pre-packaged and will have only one-mind-set.

I agree with your concerns over the social conservatives trying to run people out of the party. Likewise, I was just as offended by NRO’s “unpatriotic conservative” epithet. It’s not just the social conservatives who are ideologues.

130 gaw  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 12:32:29am

re: #123 Bagua

…end of discussion.

With you, the discussion never began.

re: #125 Gus 802

So what you’re saying then is that all Republicans should adhere to one strict set of principles or as I previously stated, a loyalty oath of sorts…

You are putting words in my mouth (or perhaps just restating what you think to be my position to clarify the discussion. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on that matter.)

I say that there is a certain set of principles that I ascribe to, and that I choose to associate myself with those that freely ascribe to essentially the same set of principles. Those principles have in the past been represented to one degree or another within the repub party, and to the extent they were, it was good for the party and the country. To the extent that the party distances itself from those principles, it does so to its own detriment and the detriment of the nation.

I’ve only just this evening heard of this “Beck Loyalty Oath”, but I would say that the ideals presented within that list would be consistent with my views.

131 Bagua  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 12:39:57am

re: #130 gaw

With you, the discussion never began.

Good point! You came right out slamming the blog and whining about this not being “an inclusive group,” and professing your agreement with Beck and playing the martyr while wittering about “Actually I would claim that G-d IS the Arbiter, and Christ will be the final Judge.”

Not much of a discussion indeed.

132 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 3:05:39am

It seems to me that there is a lot more intolerance at this site than there used to be. And not just on this issue.

Sad.

Dede is a Dem on the main economic issues - and THAT is why she is out on her ear. Not all this stuff about extreme social conservatism. People are pissed off with Big Government, that is why Hoffman will win.

Running around arguing that a Hoffman win spells the end of the GOP is Chicken-Little behaviour.

133 freetoken  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 3:09:18am

re: #132 JohninLondon

First, this place is as it has always seemed to be, at least to me: intense.

Secondly, the whole excuse that “People are pissed off with Big Government” doesn’t pass the smell test… there is quite a bit more going on under the hood, as well as above.

Finally, should Hoffman win it’s not the end of the GOP… however, it very well may be the end of the GOP having a chance of being a voice of reason.

134 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 3:17:52am

133 freetoken

You say that a win by Hoffman may very well be the end of the GOP having a chance of being a voice of reason.

That is exactly the sort of Chicken-Little thinking I meant.

But if it means the GOP will stop selecting utterly wet candidates like Dede in behind-the-scenes fixes - right on.

135 dugmartsch  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 4:22:28am

re: #132 JohninLondon

It seems to me that there is a lot more intolerance at this site than there used to be. And not just on this issue.

Sad.

Dede is a Dem on the main economic issues - and THAT is why she is out on her ear. Not all this stuff about extreme social conservatism. People are pissed off with Big Government, that is why Hoffman will win.

Running around arguing that a Hoffman win spells the end of the GOP is Chicken-Little behaviour.

Dude has four issues on his website. The first issue is The Gays.

Don’t tell me it’s about Big Government when you want to make government the arbiter of who you can marry.

I am personally pretty intolerant of that kind of inconsistency that masquerades as “conservative.” Those are the issues that get the cash. Gays, abortions, xenophobia, and shouting down the president in what I can only understand as a fit of racist anger during an address to congress.

136 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 4:29:03am

135 dugmartch

Sure, Hoffman may not be the right guy. But Dede had no right to pretend she is Republican, given her associations and her votong record.

re. the President being shouted down - all I recall is a sole Republican of otherwise good behaviour who called Obama out on one of his lies. Yes, unparliamentary behaviour and all that, for which he apologised. But hardly the President being shouted down, it was a vehement one-word interruption , your term suggests mass behaviour.

137 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 4:58:58am

re: #11 harpsicon

Nah.

It’s about keeping a male Michelle Bachman out of Congress.

138 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 4:59:28am

re: #136 JohninLondon

use the reply button - it helps people scanning the page.

139 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:01:53am

re: #132 JohninLondon

This site is exceptionally liberal in who it allows to post.

Some people here even tolerate me ;-)

Make a half decent argument and you get kudos - act like an ass or have a knowledge no deeper than talking points and people soon let you know.

Republicans used to - at one point - long ago - stand for “letting people get on with things in their own lives”… shock horror. That is now called “Liberalism” and has been branded evil…

140 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:04:22am

re: #136 JohninLondon

Hoffman isn’t running for Congress ADAIK.

But he sure is being demonised.

141 funky chicken  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:06:21am

re: #4 erraticsphinx

Very good article in the Politico about how they got her to endorse.

Or rather, persuaded her to endorse openly (since it’s obvious she hates Hoffman’s guts).

I don’t understand the GOP. They did not have a SHRED of fiscal conservatism for the last 8-10 years (including 6 with total control of Congress/Presidency) and now they expect to “get back to principles and core values”.

What principles? What core values?

This is an omen of a party in a death spiral.
I live in NY, so I will probably stay registered Republican to try to influence primaries ( despite this current fiasco, most GOPers here are NOT far right). But as for voting for federal GOP candidates, not happening anytime before the theocons leave.

opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and “Darwinists”

oh, and enriching GOP cronies like Trent Lott and Ted Stevens and Thad Cochran

142 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:08:18am

re: #140 JohninLondon

the NY-23 doesn’t come with a seat in the US House of Representatives?. Or do they sit in the Canadian Legislature way up there?

143 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:15:20am

re: #142 wozzablog

My error.

It will be interesting to see how he acts in the House - if he wins.

I just don’t see horns sticking out of his head. But as an unreconstructed Thatcherite I tend to focus on economic issues.

144 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:15:49am

re: #136 JohninLondon

he (Wilson) apologised so Vehemently - and meant it so totally - that he ran home and started to campaign off the back of it.

Yeah. he was a really swell guy.

145 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:17:04am

re: #143 JohninLondon

do you drive a black cab perchance ;-)

146 funky chicken  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:18:41am

re: #136 JohninLondon

So McHugh, who served the district as a GOP congressman for years was “pretending to be a republican” as well? He was every bit as “liberal” as Ms. Scozzafava.

147 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:19:52am

re: #143 JohninLondon

An on how he will act - given his one attempt at a local interview and based on who he has surrounding himself - my considered opinion is “reflexively and without forethought”

148 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:20:51am

re: #145 wozzablog

What would it matter if I did drive a black cab ?

As it happens, I never have. I use them a lot, though - is that contagious ?

149 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:22:33am

re: #144 wozzablog


His apology was not accepted by the Dems, they stirred things up again after Obama had accepted his apology.

And the substantive point is that Obama WAS lying.

150 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:23:40am

re: #148 JohninLondon

is driving a black cab contigruous with being a Thatcherite Londonner - in my exprience of being a native here myself - almost certainly yes ;-)

(i did attach a wink, as it wasn’t really sarcastic so much a wry observation)

151 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:30:35am

re: #149 JohninLondon

Wilson was so stricken with grief at his own action that he just plumb forgot to apologise to the House - which is why he was censured.
He didn’t even have to apologise for calling the president a liar. Just that he was unparliamentary. Simple good manners evade him.

He made a milque toast apology “if anyone was offended” - bullcrap.

El Prez was not lying. Illegals are not covered in the legislation.

factcheck.org

Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

False. That’s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes “SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE,” which says that “[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.” However, the bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” And as we’ve said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs.

152 JRCMYP  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:34:14am

re: #52 avanti

It is a real problem is it not. Mccain was too conservative socially to appeal to independents and Dems, and too moderate for conservatives. Maybe the GOP can pick someone conservative enough to win 80% of the 25% of the GOP vote share and drive off the rest.

You know, he wasn’t too conservative for me until he tried so hard to win the Republican “base” voters with social conservative talk (which I didn’t believe, btw)…and then he picked Sarah Palin. Once that happened, there was *no way* I was going to vote for him.

153 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:38:37am

Which of the umpteen Health Care bills does that refer to - the whole thing has been smoke and mirrors so far.

If you think Pelosi et all have any intention of excluding illegal immigrants down the line …

He apologised to Obama. Obama accepted the apology forthwith.

In my book Obama was lying at the time. In a car3efully rehearsed speech. Now THAT is unparliamentary behaviour.

154 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:53:03am

re: #11 harpsicon

In any event, as her husband is apparently a union official, I think this whole affair has (for her) way less to do with rejecting radical rightists than with where the family bread is buttered…

If you joined a club that started calling you everything except “friend”, how long would you remain a member?

155 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:57:00am

re: #153 JohninLondon

uh-huh.

Wilson apologised to Rahm Emmanuel. Who said in turn said - to paraphrase - “kthnxbye”.

Wilson brought his own Caucus into disrepute and made subsequent milque toast apologies. Wilson did not apolgise to his peers for spitting on the carpet. A sense of deceny and parliamentary respect should be inate - and they just are not in the man.

factcheck.org is disecting the HR3200 Bill - I believe Obama was referring to the HR3200 bill.

You believe he was referring to some none specific bill in a nonespecific committee with a nonespecific provision and are calling him a liar on it.

well played.

156 keithgabryelski  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:50:51am

re: #153 JohninLondon


In my book Obama was lying at the time. In a car3efully rehearsed speech. Now THAT is unparliamentary behaviour.

It’s fortunate we have a bill to look at that backs President Obama’s statements.

157 Liberally Conservative  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:57:22am

re: #153 JohninLondon

Which of the umpteen Health Care bills does that refer to - the whole thing has been smoke and mirrors so far.

If you think Pelosi et all have any intention of excluding illegal immigrants down the line …

He apologised to Obama. Obama accepted the apology forthwith.

In my book Obama was lying at the time. In a car3efully rehearsed speech. Now THAT is unparliamentary behaviour.

You said: I think Pelosi and friends want to include medical care for illegal immigrants at some point in the future.

Then said: Although there aren’t any provisions for health care for illegal immigrants in the bill, Obama is a liar for saying there aren’t any provisions for health care for illegal immigrants in the bill, because we all know what he will do “later”, for the sole reason that Pelosi wants to.

158 Right Brain  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:18:02am

As of this morning Republican Hoffman has opened a 17 point lead over Democrat Bill Owens, sounds like turncoat Dede Scozzafava might as well have stayed in bed.

And in an even more ominous sign that Democrats are in for a two year bruising Republican Chris Christie leads Gov Jon Corzine (NJ-D) 47-41 a few days before the election. Personally I will give odds the spread is higher, there is polite society and then there is the voting booth.

And in New York City the 83% Democrat majority is about to elect the fifth non-Democrat mayor in row, this time with only a 15 point spread, making it an even 20 years since the Democrats have held that office.

159 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:35:39am

re: #158 Right Brain

Ok.

Hoffman was a registered Republican who turned conservative to run against the legitimate GOP candidate as a splitter/spoiler. And its Dede who gets your ire?

Palin, Thompson and Perry are the true RINOS. Conservatives who are using and abusing the GOP until some new shiny play thing comes along.

Ok.

Hoffman was a registered Republican who turned conservative to run against the legitimate GOP candidate as a splitter/spoiler.

Palin, Thompson and Perry are the true RINOS. Conservatives who are using and abusing the GOP until some new shiny play thing comes along.

160 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:36:34am

re: #159 wozzablog

pimf

161 Liberal Classic  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:37:20am

re: #122 gaw

Fair enough, but in general when one speaks of a “moderate repub” they are referring to one with liberal views on social issues, not fiscal or defense policy.

No one has ever explained to my satisfaction why a pro-defense, fiscally-conservative atheist should be thrown out of the party. Or a pro-defense, fiscally-conservative homosexual. Or a person who is pro-defense, fiscally-conservative and who is pro-choice. Or a person who is pro-defense, fiscally-conservative who believes creationism should not be taught in public school science classes.

This only makes sense if those “social issues” are actually more important than holding pro-defense, fiscally-conservative positions.

162 jbolty  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:43:52am

The republican party is not in the woods because of being too conservative. They have been losing while trying to be pretend democrats. If you want a party that is weak on defense, in favor of big government, open borders with amnesty, spends like no tomorrow and never saw a trial lawyer union or tax hike they don’t like then there is already the democrats. Trying to out spend that crowd will never happen; the gop base won’t trust you (see John McCain) and why would the left vote for you when they can go Dem and get the real thing?

Couple all this with the so-called moderates always wanting to “reach across the aisle” and “my good friend across the aisle” and just generally wanting a deal at any cost and wanting to be liked by the press corps at any cost. Notice that there is NEVER any reaching over from the left and the compromises always go only one way. Lefties play politics as a blood sport and the GOP still has not realized it.

I know little of Hoffman but as said, denying a vote to Pelosi is worth whatever else he brings with him. It’s not like one house member is going to suddenly institute a theocracy by fiat.

Frankly I am confused by many of the comments here over the last few days and elsewhere. It seems as if many think that the political spectrum only has three slots;

Obama/Code Pink/Kos
John McCan/Lindsey Graham
Super right wing jack booted theocrats.

There are other opionions and moderate republican is not synonomous with squishy wannabe democrat.

As soon as the GOP can get someone, anyone, to lead with a message of “we are the party of adults with adult responsibilites” they may have a chance to start winning.

163 TDG2112  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:44:02am

re: #34 iceweasel

The funny thing about all this is that it makes Bush junior look like a political genius. These social conservative issues resonate with Hispanics. Anti-gay marriage, pro-life, creationism, religion etc. The simple problem for Rush and company is they are not white and a whole lot of them don’t speak English (at least in California, I’ve been to Texas and it seems they’ve integrated a whole lot better there- although I couldn’t tell you why).

Bush did try to expand in that direction. I wonder if Rush and company will ever figure that out. It’s already too late, but I still wonder if they will ever figure it out.

164 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:48:44am

re: #157 Liberally Conservative

I am afraid I prefer John Boehner’s account of the series of outrageous lies Obama propounded in Congress :

Youtube Video

amd to be dragging up Wilson’s interruption - which occurred after several of the lies Boehner referred to - seems to me to be straining at a gnat when the REAL issue is the very nature of the health-care reforms.

In the UK it is a resigning matter if a Minister deliberately lies to Parliament. Not a bad tradition, maybe.

165 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:59:32am

re: #164 JohninLondon

i try to reduce my exposure to Boehner as much as possible in case i am infected with a raging case of Teh Oranges.

Good luck though with trying to get him to resign and calling him a liar - afterall it worked so well for Democrats that Bush got a second term

166 Liberally Conservative  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:01:51am

re: #164 JohninLondon

I am afraid I prefer John Boehner’s account of the series of outrageous lies Obama propounded in Congress :


amd to be dragging up Wilson’s interruption - which occurred after several of the lies Boehner referred to - seems to me to be straining at a gnat when the REAL issue is the very nature of the health-care reforms.

In the UK it is a resigning matter if a Minister deliberately lies to Parliament. Not a bad tradition, maybe.

Ok, so I listened to that. Let me clarify.

Obama is letting the Bush tax cuts lapse and paying for healthcare with that. That is not a tax hike, and it is not adding to the deficit. The Bush tax cuts lasted for 10 years and not perpetuity for a reason.

Boehner is saying that employers may drop their health coverage and just take the fine after the plan takes effect. However, there is no fine for employers if they drop their coverage now. Employers provide health insurance as a competitive advantage, because they want their employees to be more secure, or because the unions mandate it/provide it. The bill would add another reason to that list.

There is no specific language banning illegal immigrants from government healthcare in the bill because there are already laws doing that. Illegal immigrants aren’t eligible for federal aid, and this bill wouldn’t change that.

Medicare cuts aren’t a part of the bill, but they look like an inevitability, unless we want to increase our deficit more.

Americans are scared to death, Boehner says. I wonder why.

167 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:05:27am

re: #165 wozzablog

The Dems accusations about Bush lying eg on Iraq were false. Or don’t you accept that ?

Boehner’saccusations of Obama lying - OK he used more diplomatic language - were correct.

A significant difference, methinks.

Plus - you surely can’t be saying that the Dems lost in 2004 simply because they had accused Bush, Cheney et al of lying ? I thought they lost because of the flawed candidate they put up, plus the OK state of the economy.

168 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:06:48am

re: #166 Liberally Conservative


Sounds like you welcome the whole PelosiCare package.

Where does the “Conservative” tag come from?

169 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:11:17am

re: #167 JohninLondon

this isn’t about Iraq. thats old hat.

you surely can’t be saying that the Dems lost in 2004 simply because they had accused Bush, Cheney et al of lying ?

You are actually correct on that. Congrats, be proud.

170 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:11:54am

re: #167 JohninLondon

and don’t call me Shirley

171 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:15:16am

re: #168 JohninLondon

down ding - don’t presume to know people or insult them based on their name, particularly when you don’t have the facts on your side. LC’s last post didn’t read as a resounding thumbs up to “Pelosicare” - merely a thoughtful analysis. Without using the word Liar at that.

172 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:20:47am

re: #169 wozzablog


You were the one who raised the Dems’ calling Bush a liar - your post 165. The core accusations were over Iraq/WMDs. I simply responded. Old hat, yes, but it remains an article of faith among the Dems, from their hypocritical leadership right down to their grassroots.

But Wilson, a fairly obscure fellow, is an utter villain ?

173 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:24:25am

re: #171 wozzablog

Where’s the insult ? I merely found it odd to see a conservative suggesting eg that the health bill carried no cost.

The Bill DID increase spending. Saying that letting the Bush tax measure expire is irrelevant to what the Bill itself actually involved.

174 dugmartsch  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:24:58am

re: #158 Right Brain

As of this morning Republican Hoffman has opened a 17 point lead over Democrat Bill Owens, sounds like turncoat Dede Scozzafava might as well have stayed in bed.

And in an even more ominous sign that Democrats are in for a two year bruising Republican Chris Christie leads Gov Jon Corzine (NJ-D) 47-41 a few days before the election. Personally I will give odds the spread is higher, there is polite society and then there is the voting booth.

And in New York City the 83% Democrat majority is about to elect the fifth non-Democrat mayor in row, this time with only a 15 point spread, making it an even 20 years since the Democrats have held that office.

Keep planning your strategy around picking off your opponents weakest members and doing nothing to strengthen your core and see how that works out for you. Moreover, do it by electing candidates which rational agnostic people (the fastest growing constituency in America) consider bat shit crazy. Really, see how it works out for you. Communism will start looking reasonable again by comparison in no time.

I live in new jersey, am solidly liberal and will not be voting for Jon Corzine. It is not because the Republicans ran such a wonderful candidate, but because I find Corzine radioactive on many levels.

And funny how you consider Scozzafava a democrat but the Independent Mayor of NYC who would be to the left of Scozzafava on many local and national issues you chalk up on your side. Cause he’s a white dude?

175 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:25:12am

re: #172 JohninLondon

You were the one who raised the Dems’ calling Bush a liar - your post 165. The core accusations were over Iraq/WMDs. I simply responded. Old hat, yes, but it remains an article of faith among the Dems, from their hypocritical leadership right down to their grassroots.

But Wilson, a fairly obscure fellow, is an utter villain ?

He’s not. He was being a jerk and got slapped down for it. That said, some people read into Wilson’s actions what they want to see. Tea Partiers look at him and see someone “speaking truth to power”, while some leftist see him as representative of the entire GOP, which he is not.

176 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:25:52am

re: #172 JohninLondon

In that i was pointing that calling the sitting President a Liar doesn’t always have the desired effect - then yes, yes i did bring up the Dems calling Bush a liar. You brought up Iraq though… (projection, per chance?)

Wilson has, as we say on our side of the pond John, “form”.

He reflexively denied the US had chemical or biological relations with Iraq in the 80’s. He later had to retract.
He also didn’t believe that Strom Thurmond could possibly (out of which prejudice?) have fathered a black daughter.

177 iceman1960  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:29:11am

I personally hope the door doesn’t hit ScuzzyFuzzy on the way out.

178 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:29:49am

re: #171 wozzablog

You’ll love today’s opinion piece in the WSJ :


[Link: online.wsj.com…]

179 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:30:13am

re: #173 JohninLondon

you kind of outright doubted the guys conservative credentials because he didn’t agree with your interpretation of facts.

I took offense on LC’s behalf - if he didn’t i’ll step back.

180 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:31:07am

re: #176 wozzablog

Wilson remains a nonentity. Hardly worth debating, I don’t know why he was brought up in the first place - which was my original point.

181 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:35:07am

(I’m free-styling this, so I hope it doesn’t come out badly)

My biggest deepest fear all these twists and turns is that we’re finding out that really, the people who are in the extreme right are much more prevalent in the US than we thought. That the moderates aren’t the majority. and that the theocrats and the bigots are much stronger than we thought.

I remember the shock when poll after poll, showed the majority of Republicans either didn’t believe or doubted that Obama was even a US citizen. I keep looking at poll after poll that shows the US just about in last place in understanding Evolution. I’m watching gay marriage look like it’s going to go down in defeat in Maine. It seems like everywhere we turn, the forces of intolerance, bigotry, xenophobia and even hatred are gaining ground, and I feel more and more like we are lonely voices in the wind going, what the Hell is wrong with everyone?

This is why, despite the issues I have with Obama, I’m rooting for him and seeing what more i can do for him. Because if Obama fails, The Republican party can and will gain power over a diminished and weakened America. A radicalized Republican party with too few moderate voices left to keep the intolerance reigned in. A Republican party full of people that will have no hesitation to try to force their values and their morals on to everyone else.

I am afraid for America. I know we’ve survived more and worse than this, but at the same time, that’s no promise that the America I know and love will survive *this* one. And yes, I know It may anger people but I keep being reminded of the quote by Sinclair Lewis, “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”

182 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:36:20am

re: #180 JohninLondon

let sleeping congressmen Lie.

183 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:38:33am

re: #181 bloodstar

a little emotive, but as Mr J Stewart would say “nailed it”.

184 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:39:10am

re: #178 JohninLondon

You’ll love today’s opinion piece in the WSJ :

[Link: online.wsj.com…]

It’s a bad bill, no doubt. We’ve got to focus on the Senate, though. That’s our best shot at killing this demon. Still, John, if you’ve got any recent NHS horror stories, this would be the time to link to them. Many people need to be reminded why government health care is not a good idea.

185 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:39:20am

re: #181 bloodstar

Excellent comment. I keep being reminded of that Lewis quote too. Well said.

186 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:42:17am

re: #182 wozzablog

let sleeping congressmen Lie.

One of the job qualifications is being able to lie even in their sleep. //

187 jbolty  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:42:54am

re: #181 bloodstar

(I’m free-styling this, so I hope it doesn’t come out badly)

My biggest deepest fear all these twists and turns is that we’re finding out that really, the people who are in the extreme right are much more prevalent in the US than we thought. That the moderates aren’t the majority. and that the theocrats and the bigots are much stronger than we thought.

I remember the shock when poll after poll, showed the majority of Republicans either didn’t believe or doubted that Obama was even a US citizen. I keep looking at poll after poll that shows the US just about in last place in understanding Evolution. I’m watching gay marriage look like it’s going to go down in defeat in Maine. It seems like everywhere we turn, the forces of intolerance, bigotry, xenophobia and even hatred are gaining ground, and I feel more and more like we are lonely voices in the wind going, what the Hell is wrong with everyone?

This is why, despite the issues I have with Obama, I’m rooting for him and seeing what more i can do for him. Because if Obama fails, The Republican party can and will gain power over a diminished and weakened America. A radicalized Republican party with too few moderate voices left to keep the intolerance reigned in. A Republican party full of people that will have no hesitation to try to force their values and their morals on to everyone else.

I am afraid for America. I know we’ve survived more and worse than this, but at the same time, that’s no promise that the America I know and love will survive *this* one. And yes, I know It may anger people but I keep being reminded of the quote by Sinclair Lewis, “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”

Came out fine as long as you intended to make the point that those you disagree with are all hate filled ignorant bigots. I assume that was your point.

188 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:44:43am

re: #162 jbolty

re: #162 jbolty

The republican party is not in the woods because of being too conservative. They have been losing while trying to be pretend democrats. If you want a party that is weak on defense, in favor of big government, open borders with amnesty, spends like no tomorrow and never saw a trial lawyer union or tax hike they don’t like then there is already the democrats. Trying to out spend that crowd will never happen; the gop base won’t trust you (see John McCain) and why would the left vote for you when they can go Dem and get the real thing?

Couple all this with the so-called moderates always wanting to “reach across the aisle” and “my good friend across the aisle” and just generally wanting a deal at any cost and wanting to be liked by the press corps at any cost. Notice that there is NEVER any reaching over from the left and the compromises always go only one way. Lefties play politics as a blood sport and the GOP still has not realized it.

That’s why the Democrats have introduced healthcare reform legislation that includes a single payer system, right? No, they never compromise. They’ve only watered down the public option (which has broad support among the American public) in an attempt to get conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans on board but I guess that isn’t compromise in your world view.

I know little of Hoffman but as said, denying a vote to Pelosi is worth whatever else he brings with him. It’s not like one house member is going to suddenly institute a theocracy by fiat.

Frankly I am confused by many of the comments here over the last few days and elsewhere. It seems as if many think that the political spectrum only has three slots;

Obama/Code Pink/Kos
John McCan/Lindsey Graham
Super right wing jack booted theocrats.

There are other opionions and moderate republican is not synonomous with squishy wannabe democrat.

As soon as the GOP can get someone, anyone, to lead with a message of “we are the party of adults with adult responsibilites” they may have a chance to start winning.

Exactly why should anyone believe them? The Bush administration ran on the fact that they were adults and look what happened.

189 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:44:43am

re: #186 iceweasel

One of the job qualifications is being able to lie even in their sleep. //

Great line, ice. That one really did make me LOL.

190 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:46:39am

re: #187 jbolty

Came out fine as long as you intended to make the point that those you disagree with are all hate filled ignorant bigots. I assume that was your point.

“Assume” is an understatement. I have no idea how you pulled that out of what he said.

191 jbolty  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:46:49am

re: #188 3kids3dogs

re: #162 jbolty


Exactly why should anyone believe them? The Bush administration ran on the fact that they were adults and look what happened.


But they did not act that way. They were adults on defense and terror, for the most part, but in domestic affairs they were all over the map and spending like drunken democrats.

192 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:47:30am

re: #189 Dark_Falcon

Great line, ice. That one really did make me LOL.

heh. Then my work here is complete! For now. :)

193 jbolty  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:47:52am

re: #191 jbolty

But they did not act that way. They were adults on defense and terror, for the most part, but in domestic affairs they were all over the map and spending like drunken democrats.

Gee, maybe this line:

It seems like everywhere we turn, the forces of intolerance, bigotry, xenophobia and even hatred are gaining ground,

194 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:48:35am

re: #187 jbolty

unless you are alligning yourself with the extremists and theocrats and not with the moderating influence… then i bleieve you have misread the sentiment.

195 jbolty  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:49:20am

re: #190 iceweasel

“Assume” is an understatement. I have no idea how you pulled that out of what he said.

reply to the qrong comment, sorry.

Gee, maybe this line:

It seems like everywhere we turn, the forces of intolerance, bigotry, xenophobia and even hatred are gaining ground,
196 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:50:08am

re: #191 jbolty

But they did not act that way. They were adults on defense and terror, for the most part, but in domestic affairs they were all over the map and spending like drunken democrats.

So, once again, why should anyone believe them? All the uproar is about domestic spending. When exactly was the last time Republicans reduced domestic spending and why should anyone think this latest crop is any different? As a matter of fact, they’re actually demonizing the Democrats as wanting to cut Medicare spending.

197 celticdragon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:51:23am

re: #48 Dark_Falcon

Check out this one’s site. He’s got a glowing vid of Sarah Palin up top while earlier posts have positive reviews of books by Michael Behe and other ID loons. And now he says he approves of Glen Beck. I think I’ll go get the grill set up.

He is an intelligent design advocate.

*cue music to beer commercial*

Real men of genius…

Here’s to you, Mister faux science wackaloon!

198 jbolty  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:51:33am

re: #194 wozzablog

unless you are alligning yourself with the extremists and theocrats and not with the moderating influence… then i bleieve you have misread the sentiment.

Well it seems that the definition of moderate has become “embrace all things democrat in the spirit of unity” everything else and everyone to the right of Susan Collins is a knuckle dragging bigot.

199 celticdragon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:52:43am

re: #63 gaw

Man, what an inclusive group this bunch is. Sure glad you guys don’t try to purge dissenting views from your club! Why, given the nature of this thread, it would be most ironic if you were not tolerant of dissenting voices.

Think I’ll go back into my hole, seeing as I don’t subscribe completely to the orthodox lizardoid view.

Flounce.

200 jbolty  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:53:14am

re: #196 3kids3dogs

So, once again, why should anyone believe them? All the uproar is about domestic spending. When exactly was the last time Republicans reduced domestic spending and why should anyone think this latest crop is any different? As a matter of fact, they’re actually demonizing the Democrats as wanting to cut Medicare spending.


No one should believe the current crop and especially the GOP leadership or the RNCC. which is why a conservative voice is needed to pull everyone back to the so-called center.

201 celticdragon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:54:55am

re: #72 maxwellp

Getting back to discussing Scozzofava. Given her endorsement of the democrat, I say I am glad she won’t win.

I understand her sour grapes with Hoffman. I would be upset too. However, she was the Republican nominee and received funds from the Republican Party. Endorsing the democrat while taking money from the Republicans speaks volumes.

There is no rule that says one has to endorse a candidate. Given her feelings towards Hoffman, she should have released her supporters to vote any way they wanted and not endorsed the democrat.

I think it is a personal thing, so I will withhold judgment. They really don’t like each other, and all bets are off when it gets to that point.

202 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:55:37am

re: #195 jbolty

Gee, maybe this line:

It seems like everywhere we turn, the forces of intolerance, bigotry, xenophobia and even hatred are gaining ground,

But doesn’t that seem like an accurate description of many national trends? The teaparty bigots, rumours of Obama being Kenyan, populist appeals that play on very dark underlying themes?

Even if you don’t agree with that, it’s a bit of a leap to go from someone having expressed that worry, to the idea that he thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a bigot. It’s possible to worry about rising hate, bigotry, and xenophobia without thereby thinking everyone you don’t agree with is an example of that phenomena.

Ex: i agree with that above statement, and I’m disagreeing with you about something, but I don’t have any reason to think you’re a hateful bigot.

203 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:55:46am

Following up… (cause I didn’t want to run out of room, and these are two distinct thoughts)

My hope is that we’re seeing the last dying gasp of a previous generation, one that refuses to step into todays era, and are taking advantage of an off year election cycle to generate sound and noise. We see the generations change and to put it simply, as the next generation dies off the new generation takes over with their values and beliefs. Which tends to be moderately pro choice, mostly pro gay marriage, patriotic, and more agnostic than any generation prior to it. They’re also an interesting mix of fiscal conservative while also raised with social security and other programs already in place.

I remind myself that this is an off year election and that off year elections are *not* the best indicators of the mood of a country. Indeed, all politics are local, and I suspect that some of the candidates are doing well because of a combination of local dynamics and expected low turn out. In Maine, Virginia and NY-23 you’re seeing what happens when a energetic minority turns out and the apathetic majority doesn’t seem to care (and I’m not even sure what to think about New Jersey). It also helps the Far right that they can *pour* money into these races and blanket the airwaves with ads, misinformation, and out right lies (take the time to look up some of the horribly misleading ads that have gone up in Maine and you’ll see what I mean). That will be diluted some in 2010 and utterly impossible in 2012.

So the question is with all this in mind, Just how big are NY-23 and Maine? If Hoffman wins and Gay Marriage is repealed, I think it’s a nice feather that will help push the momentum to the Far right, but still doesn’t indicate nationwide trend. If either one of them fail, then despite having a perfect storm of funding and votor apathy, the far rights couldn’t pull a win out, and that would be fantastic for the Republican party moderates to regain control of the circus and move back towards the not so far right.

204 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:55:58am

re: #184 Dark_Falcon
—-
can’t help with NHS horror stories although…

(repost of my own comment from a previous thread)
My mum was taken ill in the middle of the night three weeks ago - we called an ambulance. It arrived within 10 minutes.
She started undergoing tests immediately. When an MRI was needed she was taken straight through on the guerny.

She was in for 4 days for further tests and supervision. Total cost - £12 for two prescriptons of complex medicines.

I have gone to my GP with chronic stomach pains a couple of years back and was sent straight to the A&E where i had an ultrasound within a couple of hours. Luckilly nothing serious.

My father, last year, presnted to the GP with dryness in his mouth - within two weeks he was seeing a cancer specialist and had a biopsy. false alarm - luckilly. he got all the meds he needed for free after paying a one off £90 to the NHS for that years precriptions for all his various conditions.

People presenting at their GP surgery with none urgent or none specific complaints have to wait longer than prospective cancer patients. It’s up to the GP as first point of contact to make the right call about treatment - but it’s a call they make on treatment - not cost.

—-


DOCTORS in all systems around the world make mistakes and there is not a 100% pool of care available. Rationing of care takes place in all systems. Including the American one.
Glass houses and stones.

205 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:57:15am

re: #200 jbolty

Do you see a conservative voice out there that isn’t also on board with the social conservative platform. It’s the social issues that keep the moderate voters away.

206 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:58:52am

re: #198 jbolty

Not at all.
Unless Goldwater, Kristol and Buckley Sr were leftist democrats.

There are a lot of people on the right who remain civil and are not - to put it politely - seeing FEMA camps around every corner.

207 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:00:02am

re: #184 Dark_Falcon

The British NHS is like the curate’s egg - good in parts. And the great majority of NHS employees at the clinical level are dedicated and try to do their best.

But there is a stifling bureaucracy, and endemic failures of management. Wards are not cleaned properly, there is queuing even for urgent medical tests, serious shortages of equipment.

In my own case, I was unaware I had been suffering cardiac fibrillation for months on end - my pulse had been racing at 200 a minute, very erratically, progressively weakening the heart muscle and damaging the mitral valve. I had seen my local GP on another matter - but he has about 8 minutes per patient, and did not check my blood pressure even though I am a pensioner. To him, I am just a number.

Anyway - I finally felt so ill I went to the local large hospital - and they saw that I was acutely ill. But no echocardiogram was available for 2 days, and the ward they put me on proved to be infected with MRSI or somesuch bug - it was obviously not clinically clean, anyone could see that.

Luckily one of my daughters works in the NHS and got me transferred by ambulance to a teaching hospital. I was put in a private room in view of the MRSI infection, and had an immediate echocardiogram, the FIRST proper diagnosis - followed by a top consultant stopping my erratic heart with those electric paddles and then letting it restart under its own normal sinus rhythm. But it might not have restarted.

My condition should have been diagnosed much earlier, I should not have caught a dangerous infection in hospital, and it was a disgrace that the first hospital was not able to check my condition properly. My view is that it was only thanks to my daughter’s intervention that I survived.

The NHS is a very hit-and-miss affair, and compares very badly with the care I have seen given to elderly friends in California. That is why I bridle at anyone who wants to transplant the NHS to the US. Of course some reforms are necessary - but not the Pelosi/Obama nonsense.

208 Jimmah  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:02:09am

re: #204 wozzablog

B-but…the Daily Mail tells me how awful the NHS is…are you saying that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source of information about life in the UK? (gasp)///

;-)

209 celticdragon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:03:48am

re: #122 gaw

DIABLO- Democrat In All But Label Only. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and votes like a duck, and endorses other ducks, why would you insist on calling it an elephant?

Cute. Calling Moderate and (all but extinct) liberal Republicans satanic or devilish. By all means, keep purging the party to irrelevance.

210 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:04:25am

re: #208 Jimmah

i do own a great t-shirt with the slogan

I’m The One The Daily Mail Warned You About

211 jbolty  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:05:20am

re: #205 3kids3dogs

Do you see a conservative voice out there that isn’t also on board with the social conservative platform. It’s the social issues that keep the moderate voters away.

Not yet but I hope a fiscal conservative and a social moderate will arise. The problem is that if there is any whiff or mention of any social issue, even as a point of discussion, buy any canidate they get sledge hammered. No issues will be resolved if that can not be discusses openly.

These labels stick, if not batted back:
secure the border = racist bigot
kids might do better in a traditional family = homophobe bigot hater
go slow on health reform = you hate the poor and sick
get tough on Iran = war monger
domestic oil production = hate the enviroment

It’s bad enough to get hammered by the press and the democrats but the republicans don’t need to be in a circular firing squad.

212 jbolty  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:07:31am

re: #206 wozzablog

Not at all.
Unless Goldwater, Kristol and Buckley Sr were leftist democrats.

There are a lot of people on the right who remain civil and are not - to put it politely - seeing FEMA camps around every corner.

very true but the people that need to hear from them are not listening. For every Bill Kristol and Krauthhammer reader there are about 100,000 john stewart watchers.

213 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:08:10am

re: #207 JohninLondon

That is why I bridle at anyone who wants to transplant the NHS to the US. Of course some reforms are necessary - but not the Pelosi/Obama nonsense.

None of the current Democratic proposals are looking to transplant the NHS to the US.

214 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:08:44am

re: #207 JohninLondon

i’m very glad you eventually got the treatment you needed and you had such a good relative.

i have American friends though who were misdiagnosed, poorly treated in hospital and been mired in beaurocracy.

The Pelosi/Obama hodgepodge is nothing but a gap closing measure for coveriing a small number of people who are currently falling through the cracks into no healthcare system what so ever

215 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:11:25am

re: #214 wozzablog


That is a truly amazing description of PelosiCare. A whitewash.

“Nothing to see here, please move along”.

216 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:12:22am

re: #212 jbolty

Jon Stewart gets viewers because burying wingnuts is a bloodsport.

Unfortunately it’s not the people watching Jon Stewart who are at fault - the people seeing FEMA camps, Nirth cetiikits, death panels and “no taxation with representation” are not watching Jon Stewart and are not listening to Kristol of Krauthammer either.

On the other hand - Kristol and Krauthammer are regulars on the network of record for death Pannellistas and Teabaggers.

217 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:12:42am

re: #211 jbolty

I hope you remember this problem with labels the next time you write that Democrats NEVER compromise.

I also note that you didn’t respond to my pointing out that the Democrats actually have compromised. Should I take that as an admission that you were wrong about that?

218 Jimmah  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:12:49am

re: #210 wozzablog

i do own a great t-shirt with the slogan

Heh - I take it then you are a criminal who is having sex massages in prison at the tax payers expense then? (based on the last headline I saw on that paper) ;-)

219 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:12:57am

re: #213 3kids3dogs

That is why I bridle at anyone who wants to transplant the NHS to the US. Of course some reforms are necessary - but not the Pelosi/Obama nonsense.

None of the current Democratic proposals are looking to transplant the NHS to the US.

Exactly. It’s a common misconception (because it’s being actively promulgated by the right) that the proposed reforms will ‘nationalise’ health care or ‘socialise’ it. They’re constantly talking about the NHS.
Point out that the actual proposals will not do anything like that, and they’ll respond with “oh but what they really want to do is blahblah”

it’s pretty frustrating to realise that you have to combat not only wrongheaded objections to the real proposals, but the wingnut smears against the proposals they imagine will be made in some counterfactual world as well.

220 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:13:16am

re: #193 jbolty

hey jbolty, if you felt I painted with a broad brush, that was not my intent and my apologies for not being more clear.

but I don’t think everyone in the Republican party supports intolerance, xenophobia, racism, hatred, bigotry, and Theocracy. My fear is that the number of people who do, is larger than we realized. Using the polls about obama’s birth certificate, the support for theocratic candidates, the rampant aversion to homosexuality, and the willingness to stoop to out right racism during the illegal immigration fight.

I’m ok and grateful for people who are Religious, I am not grateful for anyone who wishes to make me live by their religion.

I’m grateful for the debate on illegal immigration, I am not grateful when I get hit by a beer can and told to go back to mexico when I’m out running.

I could go on, but you get my point. Disagreeing is wonderful, and I’ll fight for your right to disagree with me, but I fear that the sentiment isn’t reciprocated by the far right.

221 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:14:36am

re: #215 JohninLondon

Pelosi wants medicare Part E - Obama doesn’t. Pelosi and Obama are trying to settle on a solution that covers those swho fall through the employer cover, medicaid and medicare gaps and who are denied Private Insurance for preexisting conditions.


Medicare Part E will not get passed.

222 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:17:41am

re: #219 iceweasel

Exactly. It’s a common misconception (because it’s being actively promulgated by the right) that the proposed reforms will ‘nationalise’ health care or ‘socialise’ it. They’re constantly talking about the NHS.
Point out that the actual proposals will not do anything like that, and they’ll respond with “oh but what they really want to do is blahblah”

it’s pretty frustrating to realise that you have to combat not only wrongheaded objections to the real proposals, but the wingnut smears against the proposals they imagine will be made in some counterfactual world as well.

One might think that the right is playing politics but only until they remember that only the left does that.

223 jbolty  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:17:56am

re: #217 3kids3dogs

I hope you remember this problem with labels the next time you write that Democrats NEVER compromise.

I also note that you didn’t respond to my pointing out that the Democrats actually have compromised. Should I take that as an admission that you were wrong about that?

Never say never. There are certainly some good democrats, with the best interests of the country in mind but generally I think in terms of the leadership, since at the end of the day they have pretty good party disipline.

I meant never as in never when it favors the republican position. The dems know they can get away with a lot of phony action since they have the cover of most of the press.

224 jbolty  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:22:47am

re: #220 bloodstar

hey jbolty, if you felt I painted with a broad brush, that was not my intent and my apologies for not being more clear.
…

agree and understand.

My issue is when everyone to the right of nancy pelosi is painted as the next Tim McVey (not saying that’s your opinion but that’s the way the dem leadership tries to paint it)

As I mentioned above it has become too hard to have a discussion about many issues because of the knee jerk reactions and canned responses.

225 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:23:13am

re: #207 JohninLondon

Quite Concur.

226 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:25:25am

re: #221 wozzablog


Hopefully none of the dogs-breakfast bill will be passed. The people don’t want it. :

[Link: www.rasmussenreports.com…]

The suggestions for tort reform and for increasing competition for private-sector insurance would cost nothing and would yield immediate benefits i terms of cost reductions and widening the availability of affordable insurance. But maybe that is too much a free-market, too Republican an approach ?

227 suchislife  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:27:23am

re: #226 JohninLondon

The suggestions for tort reform and for increasing competition for private-sector insurance would cost nothing and would yield immediate benefits i terms of cost reductions and widening the availability of affordable insurance. But maybe that is too much a free-market, too Republican an approach ?

I’m not yet sure what my position on tort reform is, but I thought this article was interesting.
[Link: www.slate.com…]

228 celticdragon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:28:47am

re: #211 jbolty

Not yet but I hope a fiscal conservative and a social moderate will arise. The problem is that if there is any whiff or mention of any social issue, even as a point of discussion, buy any canidate they get sledge hammered. No issues will be resolved if that can not be discusses openly.

These labels stick, if not batted back:
secure the border = racist bigot
kids might do better in a traditional family = homophobe bigot hater
go slow on health reform = you hate the poor and sick
get tough on Iran = war monger
domestic oil production = hate the enviroment

It’s bad enough to get hammered by the press and the democrats but the republicans don’t need to be in a circular firing squad.

So look at who says these things. In other words…who are you associating with that also espouses this? It will stick to you.

Secure the border? Fine…but secure from what? Terrorist infiltrators or brown skinned unter-menschen? We know what Dobbs, Rushbo etc have to say on that.

Kids in a traditional family? Why is that any of your concern to begin with? I am a transgendered woman still married to my wife, and how we raise our son is none of your damned business. Ever. Period.

Stick to dealing with your own family and keep your long nose out of other people’s affairs.

We have been going slow on health reform, considering we first started talking about reform back in Teddy Roosevelt’s administration. No shit. “Go Slow”tends to be code for “Delay it so we can kill it while our HMO backers make a killing and give us teh awesome donations”.

Being tough on Iran sounds great. Not so much when it is coming from Bill Kristol and the neo-con gang at The Weekly Standard who have been calling for airstrikes on Iran for years. Not really sure what that would accomplish, since the Iranians are not stupid and have prepared for that.

We used to subtle real well. Stuff like sinking one of their rustbucket Victor III subs which would be plausibly deniable but still get the message across. Smile sweetly and tell them that preventative maintenance would have prevented that little tragedy with all hands lost…

Nope. Kristol, Goldfarb etc want ostentatious airstrikes that would do little but create more terrorism backlash. It’s the Green Lantern Theory. If we just want it bad enough…we can make it happen!

Domestic oil production.

Uh huh. I am a geology major finishing up my degree. Two words:

Peak oil.

There is nowhere near enough domestic reserve to even remotely offset or influence the prices enough to make any real difference. if you believe otherwise, you are fooling yourself.

229 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:28:55am

Terrific article here, btw, explaining why US health care costs are so high.

[Link: voices.washingtonpost.com…]

An insurance industry CEO explains why American health care costs so much

230 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:36:50am

re: #223 jbolty

Never say never.

I guess you should have remember that before you typed:
Notice that there is NEVER any reaching over from the left and the compromises always go only one way.

There are certainly some good democrats, with the best interests of the country in mind but generally I think in terms of the leadership, since at the end of the day they have pretty good party disipline.

You think the Democrats have good party discipline? I’ve seen no evidence of that in my lifetime.

I meant never as in never when it favors the republican position. The dems know they can get away with a lot of phony action since they have the cover of most of the press.

Do the Republicans do any different when they are in power? If you think so I’d like to see some evidence of that.

231 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:37:13am

re: #227 suchislife

Tort is over rated. About 2% or so of current premiums.
[Link: www.kellogg.northwestern.edu…]

and doctor flight is, um, under question.
[Link: honolulu.injuryboard.com…]

232 suchislife  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:40:25am

re: #231 wozzablog

I certainly aggree that it’s overrated, but maybe Ezra Kleinis right when he argues (see my link) that it would be a mistake. If it isn’t, then there would by no reason not to placate the Republicans and do at least some good by including it.

233 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:40:51am

re: #226 JohninLondon

70% of people are in favour of a public option down to 50% in some studies and Obama won an election on wanting a Public Option.

Obama won. A public options is on the table.

Rasmussen are constantly out of the range of of tracking polls on most issues in favour of the Republican side.

234 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:42:27am

re: #230 3kids3dogs

Do the Republicans do any different when they are in power? If you think so I’d like to see some evidence of that.

re: #230 3kids3dogs

re: #230 3kids3dogs

Do the Republicans do any different when they are in power? If you think so I’d like to see some evidence of that.

re: #223 jbolty

Never say never. There are certainly some good democrats, with the best interests of the country in mind but generally I think in terms of the leadership, since at the end of the day they have pretty good party disipline.

I meant never as in never when it favors the republican position. The dems know they can get away with a lot of phony action since they have the cover of most of the press.

Forgive my newbieness as I am still learning how to properly quote and reply. There were some comments of mine in #230 that appear to be part of the post that I was replying to.

235 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:43:29am

Tort reform doesn’t matter ??re: #231 wozzablog

Tort reform doesn’t matter ??Tort reform doesn’t matter ??

I had shares in USB - following Warren Buffett. Spineless Specter finally acquiesced to legislation that cut the spurious legal claims on asbestositis - the shares tripled instantly.

Maybe the market knows better about the real impact of the ambulance chasers than guys who write articles ? For anyone to claim that the ambualnce-chasers cause only 2% ectra costs is pure moonshine.

236 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:43:46am

re: #232 suchislife


i’m not arguing for Tort reform. just putting more statistics out there :-)

237 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:49:19am

re: #233 wozzablog

I never saw Obama say a single word about a public option during the election.

His strongly-disapprove rating is now way ahead of his strongly-approve.

He does NOT have any kind of mandate to shove this Pelosi/Obamacare nonsense down the throats of the people. But sure, he is an arrogant son-of-a-bitch, he’ll keep trying.

And pardon my asking - you seem to take a Dem view on lots of stuff. Do you, basically, lean Dem ?

And if so - should Republicans take any notice of what Dems say about the Dede/Hoffman affair ?

(At which point I must grab a black cab to my next appointment. Bye for now.)

238 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:52:30am

re: #235 JohninLondon

I said “over rated” i didn’t say it didn’t matter.

A stock market spike does equate to substantive valueation of a longterm problem.

The review Leemore Dafny has conducted seems to have been quite thorough. Curse those academics and their academia.

239 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:53:18am

re: #237 JohninLondon

I never saw Obama say a single word about a public option during the election.

His strongly-disapprove rating is now way ahead of his strongly-approve.

He does NOT have any kind of mandate to shove this Pelosi/Obamacare nonsense down the throats of the people. But sure, he is an arrogant son-of-a-bitch, he’ll keep trying.

And pardon my asking - you seem to take a Dem view on lots of stuff. Do you, basically, lean Dem ?

And if so - should Republicans take any notice of what Dems say about the Dede/Hoffman affair ?

(At which point I must grab a black cab to my next appointment. Bye for now.)

Good Day, John. Do come back more often.

240 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:57:27am

re: #237 JohninLondon

I never saw Obama say a single word about a public option during the election.

You must not have paid any attention then. It was a large part of his stance on healthcare reform.

His strongly-disapprove rating is now way ahead of his strongly-approve.

Correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to think that this is only because he has advocated for a public option. I think that it is also due to his advocating for a watered down public option. The left feels betrayed because this is something of a change from what he campaigned on.

He does NOT have any kind of mandate to shove this Pelosi/Obamacare nonsense down the throats of the people. But sure, he is an arrogant son-of-a-bitch, he’ll keep trying.

The majority of the polls that I’ve seen shown better than 50% of Americans are in favor of a public option of some sort.


And pardon my asking - you seem to take a Dem view on lots of stuff. Do you, basically, lean Dem ?

And if so - should Republicans take any notice of what Dems say about the Dede/Hoffman affair ?

(At which point I must grab a black cab to my next appointment. Bye for now.)

241 suchislife  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 10:01:49am

re: #236 wozzablog

I know. It seemed to me that you misread my position. But maybe you were just piling on, which is very welcome, of course!

242 jbolty  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 10:03:18am

re: #228 celticdragon

So look at who says these things. In other words…who are you associating with that also espouses this? It will stick to you.

Secure the border? Fine…but secure from what? Terrorist infiltrators or brown skinned unter-menschen? We know what Dobbs, Rushbo etc have to say on that.

Kids in a traditional family? Why is that any of your concern to begin with? I am a transgendered woman still married to my wife, and how we raise our son is none of your damned business. Ever. Period.

Stick to dealing with your own family and keep your long nose out of other people’s affairs.

We have been going slow on health reform, considering we first started talking about reform back in Teddy Roosevelt’s administration. No shit. “Go Slow”tends to be code for “Delay it so we can kill it while our HMO backers make a killing and give us teh awesome donations”.

Being tough on Iran sounds great. Not so much when it is coming from Bill Kristol and the neo-con gang at The Weekly Standard who have been calling for airstrikes on Iran for years. Not really sure what that would accomplish, since the Iranians are not stupid and have prepared for that.

We used to subtle real well. Stuff like sinking one of their rustbucket Victor III subs which would be plausibly deniable but still get the message across. Smile sweetly and tell them that preventative maintenance would have prevented that little tragedy with all hands lost…

Nope. Kristol, Goldfarb etc want ostentatious airstrikes that would do little but create more terrorism backlash. It’s the Green Lantern Theory. If we just want it bad enough…we can make it happen!

Domestic oil production.

Uh huh. I am a geology major finishing up my degree. Two words:

Peak oil.

There is nowhere near enough domestic reserve to even remotely offset or influence the prices enough to make any real difference. if you believe otherwise, you are fooling yourself.

You are making my exact point. I was not expressing an opinion on those things. I was just pointing out that simply mentioning them up for discussion brings out the long knives. Then you ascribe bigotry and hate and profit motive for the motivation. Who said anything about brown skinned people?

243 jbolty  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 10:05:08am

re: #230 3kids3dogs

Do the Republicans do any different when they are in power? If you think so I’d like to see some evidence of that.

Actually the republicans are different in power. They have no idea how to take the lead and run with it; they seem to be more effective in oposition. Not saying that’s a good thing but when they do have the levers of power they have no ability to get anything done.

244 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 10:08:34am

re: #237 JohninLondon


from the Guardian News Paper, December 22nd 2008

“President-elect Barack Obama recently named Tom Daschle as his secretary of health and human services. The decision is sure to upset conservatives and some mainstream Americans since a few […] ideas, like the creation of both a government healthcare programme that would compete with privates ones and a federal health board to determine coverage, carry with them overtones of socialism, that politically dangerous word so often hurled at Obama during the campaign.”

I lean to the Democrat side, and am on the Liberal Left. But I want the Republican Party to survive as a Going Concern because 1 party rule is a bad thing. I have had a long term interest in US polictis and believe the extreme figures on both sides to be as bad as each other - but that presently it is the nuts in the GOP who are more to the fore than in the Democratic party.

245 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 10:14:02am

re: #240 3kids3dogs

thanks

246 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 10:16:41am

re: #243 jbolty

Actually the republicans are different in power. They have no idea how to take the lead and run with it; they seem to be more effective in oposition. Not saying that’s a good thing but when they do have the levers of power they have no ability to get anything done.

George W. Bush got plenty of his agenda passed. Recent Republican Congresses got plenty of their agenda passed. Tax cuts and Medicare Part D are two easy examples.

247 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 10:17:51am

re: #245 wozzablog

My pleasure!

248 celticdragon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 10:41:50am

re: #242 jbolty

You are making my exact point. I was not expressing an opinion on those things. I was just pointing out that simply mentioning them up for discussion brings out the long knives. Then you ascribe bigotry and hate and profit motive for the motivation. Who said anything about brown skinned people?

Uh, you were inferring. You try to be cute about it, but anybody reading your post could immediately figure out where your views were leading to. You brought up the “traditional family” thing, and I responded.

“Who said anything about brown skinned people?”

Virtually every dog whistle caller on Fox News, for starters. The open and blatant hatred of Mexican people (legal immigrants and even natural born citizens included) has been unapologetic and open at a number of town hall events and tea parties. Where have you been hiding? Pat Buchanan’s comments about how we are “losing white America” escape your attention last week?

“Then you ascribe bigotry and hate and profit motive for the motivation.”

The “Goin’ Galt” tea party folks just call it “The invisible hand of the market place.” Remember! Profit is everything and money is your God!

Sorry, but I have heard enough of outright cruelty and contempt for sick, needy people from “conservatives” (I use the term loosely here, since I doubt that many of them could define it other than their own tribal identification) to have an idea that many of them are actually fine with other people literally dieing on the street. Really. No kidding. Especially if they are darker skinned.

I have had conversations with people who literally want to shut down public schools and public hospitals. I have talked with people who INSIST that every poor or needy person deserves every bad thing that happens because they choose to be poor and they like it. I honestly gave up, because it was like trying to talk to people who don’t speak English. We have such fundamentally different notions on what even constitutes civic responsibility and basic decency that we don’t share any actual values at all.

I will tell you this: Who you associate with marks your character. If you associate with groups that espouse hate in veiled ways (or dogwhistles, as they are known, and most ‘secure the border’ outfits are explicitly anti-Mexican), then you can be expect to be considered one of them. If you are going to bring up kids and families, then other opinions will be proffered. If you are not interested in being challenged or debated, find another forum or man up and write your own blog.

249 Dynomite  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 10:44:50am

re: #72 maxwellp

Getting back to discussing Scozzofava. Given her endorsement of the democrat, I say I am glad she won’t win.

I understand her sour grapes with Hoffman. I would be upset too. However, she was the Republican nominee and received funds from the Republican Party. Endorsing the democrat while taking money from the Republicans speaks volumes.

There is no rule that says one has to endorse a candidate. Given her feelings towards Hoffman, she should have released her supporters to vote any way they wanted and not endorsed the democrat.

… Yet Lieberman was a hero when he endorsed McCain, even though he had already been welcomed back into the DNC fold.

While I’m sure you’ll find nitpicky differences, the bottom line is the same. It’s unusual for one party to endorse someone from the other, but it’s only some great travesty if it is your ox being gored.

250 jbolty  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 10:47:57am

re: #248 celticdragon

Uh, you were inferring. You try to be cute about it, but anybody reading your post could immediately figure out where your views were leading to. You brought up the “traditional family” thing, and I responded.

Take a breath. You are still overflowing with hate for anyone that disagrees with you. Why have a debate when clearly you have it all figured out? I feel sorry for you.

251 dugmartsch  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 11:20:24am

re: #237 JohninLondon

I never saw Obama say a single word about a public option during the election.

His strongly-disapprove rating is now way ahead of his strongly-approve.

He does NOT have any kind of mandate to shove this Pelosi/Obamacare nonsense down the throats of the people. But sure, he is an arrogant son-of-a-bitch, he’ll keep trying.

And pardon my asking - you seem to take a Dem view on lots of stuff. Do you, basically, lean Dem ?

And if so - should Republicans take any notice of what Dems say about the Dede/Hoffman affair ?

(At which point I must grab a black cab to my next appointment. Bye for now.)

You didn’t look very hard/listen very well. From his campaign’s website:

Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.

[Link: www.barackobama.com…]

Rewriting history doesn’t win you any points with me.

252 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 1:34:38pm

re: #251 dugmartsch

I watched many many Obama speeches and never saw him arguing for the huge reforms now proposed. That is what I said initially, and I stand by that.

253 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 1:39:28pm

re: #244 wozzablog

Thanks for the reply.

I thought that was where you were coming from. Kind of you to be solicitous for the welfare of the party you oppose.

Seems to me that the bill is opposed by virtually all Republicans in Congress and much of it is opposed by a sizeable bloc of Democrats in Congress.

Quite right too.

254 celticdragon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 2:43:42pm

re: #250 jbolty

Take a breath. You are still overflowing with hate for anyone that disagrees with you. Why have a debate when clearly you have it all figured out? I feel sorry for you.


LOL! Uh…yeah…

Project much?

255 Odahi  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 2:57:24pm

Say what you will, but the foreign and domestic policies of the Dems are not popular, and they are doing nothing to moderate them. The far-left redistribution, health care takeover, takeover of other industries, weak foreign policy, and unsustainable fiscal irresponsibility are going to drive millions of voters away. And now the Dems have advice from a conservative. Take it with as much attentoin as we are inclined to take the advice of the left.

256 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 3:07:21pm

re: #255 Odahi

point by point or just a total blaze?

far-left redistribution


you mean allowing some tax cuts to lapse, right?. thats what you mean?

takeover of other industries


the decision Shrub welched in not allowing Michigan and other industrial areas be plunged into 30% unemployment?. Hundreds of thousands of jobs depending on federal loan guarantees and investment?

weak foreign policy


surely, you don’t mean CONTINUING the tri-partite talks involing Europe, Russia and China?


oh, and yeah, been over to one of the moonbat blogs recently. seen how highly they think of the Prez for not wanting single payer?, or immediate Iraq withdrawl, or immeditaely capping ALL bankers salaries?. yeah, guess you must not have seen that, hey.

257 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 3:10:02pm

re: #253 JohninLondon

theres no small element of coincidence to the Democrats opposing it being the largest recipients of health industry campaign contributions… none at all, and perish the thought. slap my wrists for even thinking about it.

and don’t even get me started on the GOP stance on wealthcare reform/

258 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 3:16:39pm

re: #256 wozzablog

Obama’s foreign policy isn’t just weak. It is spineless.

259 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 3:18:56pm

re: #257 wozzablog

The funding those BlueDog Dems get is peanuts compared with all the SEIU money for Obama and the ambulance-chasing lawyers’ donations to the Dems.

260 jbolty  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 3:34:16pm

re: #254 celticdragon

LOL! Uh…yeah…

Project much?

Huh? When I have ever gone off on a celticdragon type rant? you are dragging everything under the sun to hang around my neck and that of everyone else who you think is out to get you.

look in a mirror.

261 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 3:38:46pm

re: #259 JohninLondon

uh-huh.

yet still it’s the votes of individual dems who’s contributions from Heakthcare Providers are vital that are holding this up.

Bought and paid for.

262 Odahi  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 3:39:18pm

No, “Allowing some tax cuts to lapse” is NOT what I mean. Nice try, though. Taking a trillion dollars the feds don’t have and throwing it about is what I mean.
“Shrub?” nice…
I mean buying up stock in private corporations, taking over financial institutions, and attempting to “reform” the health-care system by taking THAT over as well. There are other instances as well. “Shrub” never grabbed as much executive power in his wildest wet-dreams as “Odumbo” has in the past year. (Kinda sucks when somebody resorts to name-calling, huh?) NO, I did not vote FOR “Shrub.” I voted against Gore and Kerry.
“30% unemployment?” Where do you get that figure? And as opposed to the BOOMING, healthy 22% they “enjoy” now, I suppose. And the “federal loan guarantees and investment” have done what, exactly, to decrease that 22%?
Let’s see- weak foreign policy. I didn’t agree with the Iraqi invasion when it happened. I was IN the first Gulf War, and I thought we should have pursued Saddam then. I don’t agree with all of “Shrub’s” policies, and this was a big mistake in my opinion. But it Was Obama himself who said AFGHANISTAN is the right war, and we can’t afford to lose it. Yet he sits on his hands for weeks, and consults politicians about the direction the war should take, while snubbing the very general he himself placed in charge. What’s happening in Iran? What is his position on Honduras? Is he willing to give a Hugo Chavez wannabe legitimacy in the face of the decision of the Honduran Supreme Court? North Korea. Gee, we’ve done SO much to stop them, haven’t we. Deserting our NATO allies, failing to keep our word about missile defense in Eastern Europe, has done what, exactly, for our “reset” foreign policy with Russia? They don’t seem to appreciate it enough to give us a hand with Iran.
No, I don’t get over to the moonbat blogs much. Did go to mybarackobamadotcom and saw this: “Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.” Immediate Iraq withdrawal? Now that would be a nice way to repay them for their courage in trying to forge a new society- desert them and leave them to the extremists, terrorists, and thugs who are still there. Just as ill-advised now as it was after the first Gulf War, and I opposed it strongly then. And just WHO will have their salaries capped next? Car company executives, doctors maybe? Maybe insurance company executives? How about YOU, for that matter? That sit all right with you? I was opposed to the “stimulus” package from the start. It was wrong for the Bush administration to meddle with the economy to such an extent, and it is even more wrong to continue meddling, and increase it. How can adding another layer of government oversight to ANY industry make it more efficient?

263 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 3:40:35pm

re: #258 JohninLondon

Just because John Bolton say’s it’s so doesn’t always make it so.

Was the USA ever going to Invade North Korea?. or nuke it?.

Was the US going to Nuke Iran or send in Ground troops with the decimated military that has been rotated through Iraq more times than a wurlitzer?

The Iranians and North Koreans know the cards on the table as the rest of us.

264 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 3:49:43pm

re: #262 Odahi

points for effort though.

Missile defence showed no signs of working, zero zip. And got the back up of the only country who can be constructive in that region - Russsia. Or you want we should go nuke them too?. It was aboondoggle, a crock a no show, a finagle from the start - everyone in the world not involved in the funding or building of it knew that.

There was a Coup in Honduras, and after CIA misadventures there in the past do you really want to start inserting troops - Negroponte and Nuns, anyone?.

Latin America lurched leftwards during the Bush years - so?. You no likey the lefty, true?

There have been attemted Coups in Venezuela too. Coups - the overthrow of an elected government. You know, like Glenn Beck said happend in America?, with that election, you know, the one that happend, of the guy you don’t like very much. Who kind of said that he wants the Government in health care, a considered approach to afghanistan (which is an internation issue comprising zones and spehres of influence and conflicting missions and rules of engagement) - and oh- yeah.

the guy who said he wanted to spread the wealth won. GET OVER IT.

build a constructive republican party that isn’t enthrall to talkingpoints as policy - Afghanistan being a great example - and just get on with winning some elections. Hey, hows NY-23 working out for you?

265 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 3:51:53pm

re: #264 wozzablog

down ding me to buggery. i really don’t care, i’ll get the dings back - make hay.

taking more than 5 minutes “of knowing it in the gut” to make a decsion doesn’t make someone spineless.

266 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 3:57:23pm

re: #264 wozzablog

You start by saying that Russia is constructive !!!

Can I have a large glass of what you are drinking ?

Obama kowtowed to Putin on the missile defence system, threw the Poles etc under the bus. What did he get in return ? Zilch.

As I said earlier - Obama is spineless on foreign policy, ditches or insults allies, and asslicks America’s real foes. So far he is looking worse than Carter even.

And all because he has this warped view that everything is America’s fault. Straight out of the Jeremiah playbook.

267 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 4:03:31pm

re: #266 JohninLondon

Really read every word - please - i said “can be” constructive, not “are” constructive. i’m not an idiot.
The russians are offering to take Irans nuclear material for processing, but thats constructive engagement, no?.

the Poles are nativist crypto-facsists. they will get along fine so long as they have members of their own community to persecute. they enjoy that sort of thing lately.

yeah. Jeremiah, the bull frog or the preacher?
if you mean the preacher you are getting a down ding. seriously.

268 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 4:04:23pm

re: #266 JohninLondon

yeah, but the “blame america first” meme gets an automatic downding. no matter who espouses it.

nothing personal.

269 Odahi  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 4:12:00pm

“everyone in the world not involved in the funding or building of it knew that.” Which is why they all wanted us to deploy it in their countries, right? If that “boondoggle, crock, no-show” was so laughable, why did it “get the back up” of the Russians? hmmm?
Now, when did I EVER say anything at all about nuking anyone? Next you’ll accuse me of being a fundamentalist Christian and right-to-life abortion-clinic bomber.
When did I say anything about “inserting troops” in Hondo? You DO know that we already have a presence there, yes? Do you know WHY Zelaya was removed from office by the Honduran SUPREME COURT? Maybe we should let the Congress and Supreme Court deal with it. The Honduran ones, that is. Due process, and all that? Zelaya wanted to ignore the presidential term limit in the Honduran Constitution, like his buddy Chavez. You were all for limiting executive authority when “Shrub” was in, any thoughts about letting Obama have three terms- or a life term? I thought so. (Works both ways, you see).
Elected government? In Venezuela? How about the “elected government” of Cuba while we’re at it? Or Cambodia? Or China? Just because Jimmy Carter says it, doesn’t make it true either.
America seems to have LOST- how’s that deficit working out for you? And your kids? and grandkids? and EVERYbody’s grandkids? Where exactly in the Constitution does it give the Federal government power to regulate health care? I remember the 10th Amendment, do you and your party?
Don’t know about NY-23. It’s not my district. How’s it working out for YOU? Last time I checked, it wasn’t exactly a landslide, nor was the last Presidential election.
Hey, “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” Works for me. I never accused Democrats of wanting to nuke everyone or overthrow the government the last eight years, please return the favor.

270 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 4:12:27pm

re: #267 wozzablog

Just like Obama, you diss the Poles. Allies. But boost the Russians - who remain a real threat to Eastern European countries.

That seems to be Obama’s policy too.

On Iran, Russia has done far less than it could, shows every sign of wanting things to drift on - and has blocked UN resolutions. You call that constructive ?

271 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 4:14:40pm

re: #268 wozzablog


You know full well that in a whole succession of speeches Obama has run the US down - while sucking up to the foes of the US.

Like I said - worse than Carter.

272 Odahi  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 4:16:55pm

re: #270 JohninLondon

Just like Obama, you diss the Poles. Allies. But boost the Russians - who remain a real threat to Eastern European countries.

That seems to be Obama’s policy too.

On Iran, Russia has done far less than it could, shows every sign of wanting things to drift on - and has blocked UN resolutions. You call that constructive ?

Thank you, sir. You have a memory. Well said.

273 Odahi  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 4:20:32pm

Well, all- I’m off. I need to iron my hood for the cross-burning this weekend.
///

274 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 4:42:38pm

i had sooo much ready to go - but, really, “bame america first” and the “tenther” movement really don’t warrant it.

pages and pages have been written.

seriously - i had hundreds of words down, ready to hit send. and then, thought - hang on. is it worth it?

is it really worth it, on the tenth amendment? when you have to go into Geico, and state farm and Auo Insurance. I’m not an actuary - biether are most of the the tenthers.

“for blame america first” - please. just please stop. Some people call it “honest reflection” or “nuance” or just plain “thought”.

275 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 4:50:19pm

re: #274 wozzablog

re. the Poles, whom you seem to disparage.

Maybe you should check out their record as allies. They sent troops to Afghanistan - right ? How many Russians there ?

More seriously - check out what the Poles contributed in WW2. Over 100 experienced Polish pilots managed to escape to Britain in 1939/40, without their augmentation of the 500 mostly-inexperienced young RAF pilots the Battle of Britain would have been lost. It was touch-and-go anyway - without those Polish pilots, most of whom died in action, Hitler would have won.

Period.

Maybe its because I am ex-RAF that I hold the Poles in higher esteem than you seem to.

276 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 4:55:32pm

re: #275 JohninLondon


Merely commenting that their Politics will rebound from this.

Polish politics is - at present - highly ethnic and very very nasty. Cameron’s friends in the European parliament are hardly high enlightenment.

I have a lot of time for Polish history and the Polish war memorial near Perth in Scotland is somewhere i visit regularly when iam there on family business as my Grandfather served with many Poles in WW2. The latest all Polish forces memorial in the South is long overdue.

277 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:14:21pm

re: #252 JohninLondon

I watched many many Obama speeches and never saw him arguing for the huge reforms now proposed. That is what I said initially, and I stand by that.

This is exactly what you said initially:

I never saw Obama say a single word about a public option during the election.

As was pointed out to you, this is not true. He spoke about the public option virtually every time he spoke about health care reform. In fact, this is one of the reasons why the far left is unhappy with him now.

278 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:29:23pm

I saw a lot of Obama speeches on the ‘net- I did not see ONE about health care reform.

279 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:47:16pm

re: #278 JohninLondon

Obama stumped for DAYS neigh weeks about the iniquities of the presnt healthcare system.

His manifesto included

* Establishing a new public program that would look a lot like Medicare for those under age-65 that would be available to those who do not have access to an employer plan or qualify for existing government programs like Medicaid or SCHIP. This would also be open to small employers who do not offer a private plan.
* Creating a “National Health Insurance Exchange.” This would be a government-run marketing organization that would sell insurance plans directly to those who did not have an employer plan or public coverage.
* An employer “pay or play” provision that would require an employer to either provide health insurance or contribute toward the cost of a public plan.
* Mandating that families cover all children through either a private or public health insurance plan.
* Expanding eligibility for government programs, like Medicaid and SCHIP.
* Allow flexibility in embracing state health reform initiatives.


From The Healthcare Blog.com march 2008

280 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:51:24pm

re: #279 wozzablog

I repeat :

In all the speeches by Obama I saw I did not see healthcare stuff. Nor did I see this issue highlightwed in any of the UK or US press I was reading.

That suggests to me that it was not up-front-and-central in his campaign.

If it was - how come the McCain and Palin speeches I saw were not covering healthcare either ?

281 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:56:16pm

re: #278 JohninLondon

about 20 seconds on youtube.

obama health care, from 2007 promising to sign a comprehensive and universa bill into law by the end of his first term.

Youtube Video
282 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:58:40pm

re: #281 wozzablog

Obama was not the candidate in 2007.

Any prime-time speeches from the actual campaign ?

283 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 5:59:49pm

re: #280 JohninLondon
no one will be able to convince you otherwise that he was elected on a platform of wanting some plan to get all americans covered.

not a video from 2007 (which it took 20 seconds to find) or a blog posting from march 2008 that lays out the plan.

how about the demoractic Candidates debates?. where the minute policy differences were on painful and coal raking display between Hilary and Barack.

Those cemocratcic debates were broadcast on BBC News24…

284 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:05:43pm

re: #278 JohninLondon

I saw a lot of Obama speeches on the ‘net- I did not see ONE about health care reform.

It appears that no one is going to be able to convince you but I can assure that it was a prominent part of his campaign platform. I honestly don’t know what speeches you saw but healthcare reform was a major part of the 2008 presidential campaign.

285 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:07:03pm

re: #282 JohninLondon

5th of february 2008 any good for you where he says he will set up a national plan to insure anyone who needs it?
(within the first 30 seconds of the video)

Youtube Video
286 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:10:17pm

re: #284 3kids3dogs

It appears that no one is going to be able to convince you but I can assure that it was a prominent part of his campaign platform. I honestly don’t know what speeches you saw but healthcare reform was a major part of the 2008 presidential campaign.

So much so that even McCain’s platform had to include it. I wonder how these anti-Obama, anti-health care reform people manage to forget that.

287 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:11:56pm

re: #285 wozzablog

Thank you for doing the research to show what I thought was common knowledge.

288 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:13:43pm

re: #282 JohninLondon

Obama was not the candidate in 2007.

Any prime-time speeches from the actual campaign ?

You’ve already been given evidence from 2008, but Obama was already campaigning in 2007 in any case.

289 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:14:09pm

re: #285 wozzablog


Thanks for that link. I had not seen that before.

Interesting that at the end, the cost tags being discussed were just $20 - 40 billion - the implication being that it is all readily affordable.

Not a hint that the price tag would exceed $1 trillion. And not a hint that existing programmes would be raided.

Typical Dem false prospectus.

290 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:14:44pm

re: #286 iceweasel

So much so that even McCain’s platform had to include it. I wonder how these anti-Obama, anti-health care reform people manage to forget that.

It’s almost unimaginable to me that anyone that paid even the slightest attention to the 2008 presidential campaign can now imply that healthcare reform is some kind of stealth issue that Obama is trying to spring on the American public. IMO, it’s probably one of the main reasons people voted for him.

291 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:15:27pm

re: #287 3kids3dogs

no worries. i take an extremely perverse pleasure in using teh googles and teh series of tubes… and teh internets in trying to make common knowledge common.

anyone half tuned in to US politics from the UK - should know that the Democratic platform included achieving universal healthcare coverage through giovernment intervention.

292 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:16:47pm

re: #289 JohninLondon

just have to throw in the final twist… after first complaining there was no prospectus and then that the prospectus laid out was a false one.

It’s getting dizzy in here.

293 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:16:49pm

re: #288 iceweasel


With all due respect - the focus was not on Obama in 2007.

I have been trying to search YouTube for 2008 stuff, big public speeches - can’t find any with health care up-front-and-central.

And the clips I have scanned never make any mention of the crippling costs now being proposed.

294 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:18:42pm

re: #293 JohninLondon

Obama had been a national player since 2004 convention speach. His race against Alan Keyes for the senate in 2006 (and the GOP failure to find a viable candidate) secured national status.
He began campaigning for the white house not long after moving into his office in the Capitol.

295 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:21:11pm

re: #287 3kids3dogs

What was NOT common knowledge was a price-tag of $1 trillion-plus, and existing programmes being raided.

Either Obama had not done his sums properly - or he was hiding the true costs.

296 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:21:23pm

February 11th 2007. New York times, Obama enters the presidential race.

The BBC news channel covered it live.

[Link: www.nytimes.com…]

297 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:22:56pm

re: #294 wozzablog

sorry, 2004 senatorial race against alan keyes. brain is fried at 2am

298 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:24:14pm

re: #290 3kids3dogs

It’s almost unimaginable to me that anyone that paid even the slightest attention to the 2008 presidential campaign can now imply that healthcare reform is some kind of stealth issue that Obama is trying to spring on the American public. IMO, it’s probably one of the main reasons people voted for him.

Same here. i almost literally find it unbelievable. It was such a central concern that even McCain had to promise some form of it. I don’t understand how people missed that — unless they were never very interested in the platform of either candidate, or the issues involved, as opposed to sheer partisan loyalty. (without even knowing what the party officially endorsed). Mindboggling.

And I’d agree that it was one of the main reasons people voted for him, just as it’s one of the main reasons why the GOP seeks to block it at all costs. they know perfectly well that passing any is going to translate into electoral success for the Dems for a long time to come— just as enacting Social Security did. that’s why we’re even seeing the return of the same arguments made then: it will socialise the nation, etc.

Along similar lines, I’m always amazed to see the latest poll purporting to show that Americans don’t want reform. Rubbish.

299 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:25:10pm

re: #295 JohninLondon

it was under estimated greatly. pretty sure even el prez would admit that now looking back.

300 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:26:23pm

re: #295 JohninLondon

What was NOT common knowledge was a price-tag of $1 trillion-plus, and existing programmes being raided.

Either Obama had not done his sums properly - or he was hiding the true costs.

The wisdom and cost of the current proposals are certainly open to legitimate debate. That wasn’t what I commented on. You stated that he never brought up health care reform during the campaign with the implication being that the American public wasn’t aware of his plans regarding this issue before electing him. That is patently false. It was a major issue.

301 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:27:57pm

If the health reform costings were patently false - how does that add up to a true mandate ?

It is plain as a pikestaff that huge numbers of Americans are appalled at the price tags now revealed, and the raids on existing programmes.

302 cliffster  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:28:23pm

re: #298 iceweasel

Good analysis. Other than the fact that people don’t want it (that’s why the polls show people don’t want it), it WILL socialize the nation, and if it passes the democrats will get creamed, you’re absolutely right.

303 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:28:28pm

re: #293 JohninLondon

With all due respect - the focus was not on Obama in 2007.

Sure it was. As pointed out above, he’d started campaigning in the beginning of 2007. He had to receive secret service coverage earlier than any other candidate too. May 2007 IIRC.

304 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:29:49pm

re: #302 cliffster

Good analysis. Other than the fact that people don’t want it (that’s why the polls show people don’t want it), it WILL socialize the nation, and if it passes the democrats will get creamed, you’re absolutely right.

No, they do want reform. Polls are being worded in such a way as to ask them if they want death panels and to ‘socialise’ health care, and they say no.
The actual reforms proposed will do nothing of the sort.

305 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:29:52pm

re: #301 JohninLondon

i’m tired of debating a plan you refused to believe existed - regardless of cost.


i’m out of here.

306 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:31:46pm

re: #300 3kids3dogs


I did NOT say that healthcare was not part of Obama’s programme. I said, and say again, that I had not seen Obama talking about it in the major speeches I saw - or the extracts I saw.

If he had been talking about a $1 trillion price tag, which he honestly should have declared, there would have been headlines over here too. And McCain would have been all over it like a rash.

The true costs of the whole business have only been revealed during the course of this year.

307 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:31:52pm

re: #295 JohninLondon

What was NOT common knowledge was a price-tag of $1 trillion-plus, and existing programmes being raided.

Either Obama had not done his sums properly - or he was hiding the true costs.

I’ve no idea where you’re getting the notion of existing programmes being raided. Where do you imagine that will happen?
And how could a cost be estimated before any proposal was even written?

308 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:32:14pm

re: #298 iceweasel

Same here. i almost literally find it unbelievable. It was such a central concern that even McCain had to promise some form of it. I don’t understand how people missed that — unless they were never very interested in the platform of either candidate, or the issues involved, as opposed to sheer partisan loyalty. (without even knowing what the party officially endorsed). Mindboggling.

And I’d agree that it was one of the main reasons people voted for him, just as it’s one of the main reasons why the GOP seeks to block it at all costs. they know perfectly well that passing any is going to translate into electoral success for the Dems for a long time to come— just as enacting Social Security did. that’s why we’re even seeing the return of the same arguments made then: it will socialise the nation, etc.

I’m often amazed at how often what was old is new again. Many of the arguments against gays in the military are the same that were used against intergrating the military. Some of the arguments that were used against interracial marriage are now used against gay marriage.

309 cliffster  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:34:43pm

re: #304 iceweasel

No, they do want reform. Polls are being worded in such a way as to ask them if they want death panels and to ‘socialise’ health care, and they say no.
The actual reforms proposed will do nothing of the sort.

I do know that you believe strongly in your position, so labeling the “reform” as socialism or not is immaterial to you, and that’s good. Labels are often used as scare tactics.

However, I don’t believe people want the reform, especially as is being presented, and I think that the WH & dems are pulling out all the stops to make it seem like there’s great demand for it.

From my observation most polls say that people don’t want this to pass. Do you have evidence that these polls are worded in the way you’re saying? I’m not saying are there any polls worded like this, because you can probably find them and soil the topic. I’m saying, evidence that most of the polls showing contrary sentiment being worded like this?

And - yes, this bill represents yet another step towards socialism. And in this case, it’s not even baby steps.

310 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:36:09pm

re: #305 wozzablog


I have never said he had no plans. I said I had not seen him highlighting them. And if anyone had known the true price-tag and the threats to existing programmes, they would have been headline news week in, week out.

Either Obama did not know the true costs, or he was hiding them. Now the costs are out in the open, little wonder there is such opposition to them.

I think it was Theucides who said “Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad”.

311 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:38:33pm

re: #308 3kids3dogs

I’m often amazed at how often what was old is new again. Many of the arguments against gays in the military are the same that were used against intergrating the military. Some of the arguments that were used against interracial marriage are now used against gay marriage.

YES! I’ve noticed that too!
And speaking of how everything old is new again, my favourite article to point out along those lines is Richard Hofstader’s The Paranoid Style in American Politics. from 1964, yet it perfectly recaptures the dynamic we see today, including even the resurgance of the John Birchers.

American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wind. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics., In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant.

312 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:39:16pm
The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms—he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millenialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date fort the apocalypse. (“Time is running out,” said Welch in 1951. “Evidence is piling up on many sides and from many sources that October 1952 is the fatal month when Stalin will attack.”)
As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader. He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated—if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.

[Link: karws.gso.uri.edu…]

313 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:41:31pm

re: #312 iceweasel

That sounds like a good summary of Dem attitudes towards Bush and Cheney.

314 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:43:06pm

re: #309 cliffster

did you not see Obama - above - in magic moving pictures say what he was in favour of - and what he was running as - and from when and to and (not so much the how much… but gloss over that)…


but but but but but but… election… won… him…plan…government…big…won…healthcare…big…plan…win…he…election… there …was… a… Palin/McAin lost…


(end exasperation)

315 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:45:05pm

re: #314 wozzablog


Yes I watched your link.

And I watched Obama lie through his teeth in suggesting that the price tag was a score of billions or so.

316 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:45:22pm

re: #306 JohninLondon

Well obviously want to move the goal posts to the costs of reform. Again, I took issue with your notion that it was not a major part of the campaign. I’m not sure how anyone that paid the slightest attention to the campaign can say that it wasn’t.

317 cliffster  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:46:31pm

re: #314 wozzablog

Your histrionics do not add to your point. There were many, many topics that were front and center during the election. Obama getting elected doesn’t mean that people side with Obama, strongly, on each and every one of those issues.

318 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:49:38pm

re: #316 3kids3dogs


I said and repeat - in the stuff I saw by Obama I saw nothing about healthcare. Mea culpa.

I am sure if there had been $1 trillion cost figures flying around at the time, it would have been central to the news I saw.
Up there with Iraq and the economy. Especially when the economy took a nosedive.

319 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:50:16pm

re: #309 cliffster

I do know that you believe strongly in your position, so labeling the “reform” as socialism or not is immaterial to you, and that’s good. Labels are often used as scare tactics.

However, I don’t believe people want the reform, especially as is being presented, and I think that the WH & dems are pulling out all the stops to make it seem like there’s great demand for it.

Yet health care reform was so important to all Americans that both POTUS candidates had to include it in their platforms. You may not believe Americans want it, but that isn’t true.

As for polls, obviously the results you get depend on the questions you ask.

Asked which healthcare problem was most serious – keeping costs down or covering the uninsured – 59 percent of Americans said providing insurance, according to a CBS News poll. Only 35 percent chose “keeping health care costs down for average Americans.”

But it’s complicated, because no one wants to pay for it.
 Have a look there and start looking around at the way the poll questions are worded.

320 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:51:07pm

re: #317 cliffster

Using that logic no Government would ever be able to draft new plans after an election and only the best focus grouped of the pre-election promises woul be allowed to be drafted by the gimps under capitol hill with the quills…

and then - also - have a fair vote - but only the ones that tested well in key demos.

the guy won the election. on a platform that strongly included healthcare reform and until the GOP started tenthing and deathing and engaging in Abstinence Only debate the numbers started going down. Right on cue with Fred Luntzes plan…


hey - are you secretly Fred Luntz? ;-)

321 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:51:17pm

Has Obama dropped his previously-stated aim to end up with a single-payer system ? Or is that all lost in the smoke-and-mirrors ?

322 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:52:04pm

re: #321 JohninLondon

O-F-F-S

he said - if starting from a clean slate he would go for single payer.

there is no clean slate - ergo no single payer

323 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:52:17pm

re: #314 wozzablog


but but but but but but… election… won… him…plan…government…big…won…healthcare.. .big…plan…win…he…election… there …was… a… Palin/McAin lost…

(end exasperation)

“But just because he won, and by an electoral landslide, doesn’t mean people really support him…” //

Dude. Do what I’m doing. Reading some sweet tasty Schadenfreude-y threads from a year ago tomorrow night. :-)

324 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:52:20pm

re: #322 wozzablog

simples

325 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:54:49pm

re: #320 wozzablog


Obama put such low cost estimates on his proposals that he was virtually offering folks a free lunch.

Now the chickens have come home to roost, as they say.

If the Dems get stuffed tomorrow - how will the BlueDog Dems feel about Pelosi’s bill ? Not too warmly ?

326 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:55:40pm

re: #320 wozzablog

Using that logic no Government would ever be able to draft new plans after an election and only the best focus grouped of the pre-election promises woul be allowed to be drafted by the gimps under capitol hill with the quills…

and then - also - have a fair vote - but only the ones that tested well in key demos.

the guy won the election. on a platform that strongly included healthcare reform and until the GOP started tenthing and deathing and engaging in Abstinence Only debate the numbers started going down. Right on cue with Fred Luntzes plan…


hey - are you secretly Fred Luntz? ;-)

Fully admitting that I’m picking a nit, I believe his name is Frank Luntz. I’d guess that anyone still reading this thread knows who you mean.

327 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:56:25pm

re: #325 JohninLondon

Really>??? did you not notice that the Blue dogs already hate the pelosi bill… the whole up or down 60 vote thing in the senate not happening may have been a clue. The Bill is all but sewn up in the House.

328 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:57:02pm

re: #326 3kids3dogs

upding for nit picking. and because i like you.

329 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:57:30pm

re: #320 wozzablog

The numbers started going down when the true costs were revealed.

330 cliffster  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:58:13pm

re: #319 iceweasel

But it’s complicated, becausefeatures.csmonitor.com...]>features.csmonitor.com…]> no one wants to pay for it.

I think that was a good highlight. In elections, it’s all about promises. Of course I want everyone to have health care. And I want everyone to have a house. And I want everyone to have a car. And it needs to be an environmentally friendly car. Elections don’t talk about paying for things. It’s just politicians talking about what free shit they’re going to give to people.

331 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:59:02pm

re: #327 wozzablog

Of course the BlueDogs hate the Pelosi bill. By definition, they are not extremist.

332 cliffster  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 6:59:22pm

re: #320 wozzablog

See my 330 below. 330 does not, however, cover your Fred Luntz question. I’m going to let you continue wondering about that one. :)

333 cliffster  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:00:05pm

re: #326 3kids3dogs

Haha, fell for it

334 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:01:01pm

re: #332 cliffster

See my 330 below. 330 does not, however, cover your Fred Luntz question. I’m going to let you continue wondering about that one. :)


Are you by chance Frank’s brother Fred?

335 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:01:47pm

re: #331 JohninLondon

the money from pharma and insurance firms also helps ginny up the epidural into their backbone.

336 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:02:09pm

re: #335 wozzablog

cue the Trial Lawyers and Tort…

337 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:03:06pm

re: #336 wozzablog

and where we all came in about 12 hours ago

338 cliffster  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:03:12pm

re: #334 3kids3dogs

Are you by chance Frank’s brother Fred?

And I covered that in my 333. :^)

339 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:05:55pm

Obama is attempting little short of a social revolution. Last time anything like that happened in the UK, under Thatcher, she was blunt BEFORE the 1979 election about her plans, especially union reform.

She then extended her reform agenda to include privatisation, cutting whole swathes of British industry free of state ownership and control. But at least she had the grace to spell out her plans fully eg in the British telecom White Paper of 1982 - and then fight for them in the 1983 election.

Obama did NOT spell out the implications of his proposals. That is why so many people reject them as unaffordable and damaging to existing health care arrangements

340 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:06:37pm

re: #333 cliffster

Haha, fell for it

Forgive me for being dense or humor impaired regarding this post. I’m trying to watch a football game, baseball game, and just finished watching “The Big Bang Theory” all why trying to post here and keep up. Fell for what?

I guess #338 clears that up. ;-)

341 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:08:17pm

re: #339 JohninLondon

you sir - are not for turning.

i still fail to grasp what part of “i want total health care coverage” (even for the great unwashed, “i want higher taxes for the rich and all while cleaning up an economic shitstorm” passed you by before the election?

all of it?

342 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:12:19pm

re: #339 JohninLondon

Thatcher consigned vast swathes of the UK to employment and opportunity oblivion while the South East roared away to the stock market collapse and housing bubble of 1987-1989.

If Herself had put into place adequate training and new employment opportunities when she decided that lage areas of the country didn’t need industry or actually - employment of most sorts - then maybe - just maybe she could be a roll model.

Adult education/night schools fell off a cliff while she was in charge. People could not dig themselves out of the holes she dug for them - then she sold off the pick, shovel and ladder.

343 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:12:42pm

re: #342 wozzablog

and i am not endorsing Bennite economics.

344 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:13:34pm

re: #341 wozzablog

I saw the “I want higher taxes” bit. But only a weensy bit. No hint of running up $1 trillion-plus bills on healthcare reform.

And I was able before the election to follow those who traced the roots of the economic storm back to Dem interference in the housing market. Sure it was then compounded by greed on Wall Street and other financial centres - but I also saw the US press blithely ignoring the root causes and Obama’s own role in the debacle.

345 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:13:35pm

re: #328 wozzablog

upding for nit picking. and because i like you.

I regret not having dinging capability yet or you would have earned a couple yourself. Only a few posts left to go. I only hope that I have the wisdom to use this power wisely.

Before this looks like some kind of mutual admiration society, I’ll point out that you only like me because you don’t know me!

346 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:15:23pm

re: #345 3kids3dogs

ha. just keep posting. i trust your judgement,

347 3kids3dogs  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:18:35pm

re: #346 wozzablog

In all seriousness, nice talking with you. I’m going to check on some of the newer threads.

348 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:19:30pm

re: #342 wozzablog

I was in Whitehall in 1979 when Thatcher took over. And I had been in the Cabinet Office in 1976 when the International Monetary Fund had to bale out the British economy. The bailiffs.

To this day, few people realise what what a near-terminal mess the UK economy was in. And no idea how ridiculous it was for the state to own half of British industry.

349 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:20:08pm

re: #344 JohninLondon

with past experience of people saying Obama was personally involved in the genesis of the housing crisis i generally hold to the belief that within the next 5 comments there will be a reference to:

1) a land deal under his wifes name and some chicago crim,
2) ACORN
3) some seekrit gay fling with Bernie Sanders while he was head of Fanny/Freddie oversight.

None of which will help very much.

350 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:22:40pm

re: #348 JohninLondon

nicely dodging that Thatcher didn’t set up support structures for the communities she landfilled.

351 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:24:17pm

night/morning or whatever it is.

352 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:26:29pm

re: #349 wozzablog

Your 1 and 3 look irrelevant to the housing debacle.

2 fits. Plus Obama’s record in the Senate as a big recipient of Fannie Mae funding, plus the Dems blocking any attempt to tighten up regulation of Fannie Mae - indeed denial that there was any problem.

McCain was too wet to go for him on it properly.

353 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:28:54pm

re: #350 wozzablog


Thatcher had huge spending on regional aid. Problem is - most new types of firms simply don’t want to locate in the smokestack areas, no matter what the incentives.

354 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:33:37pm

#2 rates no higher than a meme with me. ACORN is consistently raised as a bogeyman.

#1 is a wingnut favourite fantasy that they will use to destroy the Obamas.

#3 is a complete snark that i just use to piss off American wingnuts.


Fanny and Freddie were poorly managed and overseen by administrations and crongresses of all stripes. Hanging the genesis of the crisis on the dems is completely disengenuous when there is so much blame to go around in the feeding frenzy. Complete oversite failure on Mortgage Backed Securities amped this up beyond anything it ever needed to be when it was just a supply & demand fiasco.

355 JohninLondon  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:52:14pm

re: #354 wozzablog

The roots of the housing bubble go back to legislation in Carter’s time and more intervention under Clinton.

And in Bush’s time the Dems blocked attempts to tighten up regulation of Freddie Mae etc. “There’s nothing amiss”. While rampant fraud was going on, all part of the bubble.

[Link: www.powerlineblog.com…]

[Link: www.powerlineblog.com…]

Truth’s a chiel …

356 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:59:33pm

re: #355 JohninLondon

The housing bubble was going to happen regardless. Bubbles happen. Everybody had a hand in it. I’m not denying that.

Corporatist Republicans constantly refused to increase oversight of wall street.

I try not to post purely partisan links - i don’t post to Kos pieces, or C&L or Townhall or redstate. Powerline is a conservative blog promoting an agenda that gets conservatives off the hook and increases the “Democrats ownership” of all problems since coming our of Egypt.

357 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:05:30pm

re: #356 wozzablog


I try not to post purely partisan links - i don’t post to Kos pieces, or C&L or Townhall or redstate. Powerline is a conservative blog promoting an agenda that gets conservatives off the hook and increases the “Democrats ownership” of all problems since coming our of Egypt.

I think that Kos and C&L are highly variable; it depends who the diarist/blogger is on each site. CJ has linked some Kos pieces in the past. Sometimes C&L is a good source for certain video clips before they hit youtube, etc.

Powerline is persona non grata in terms of linking btw, I believe (apart from other reasons not to link them) — they were pretty shitty to Charles and delinked him, as well as allowing commenters to run wild there trashing him. Any links ought to go to google cache.
Clownhall has increasingly lent support and cover to very questionable people (of the RSM variety), so again, if you must link I think google cache is the preferred method.
RedState is purest hackery, IMO, but sometimes good to mock.

358 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:10:07pm

i may soften my stance on C&L if just linking to video clips. But reaction to kos pieces being posted tends to drown out the piece itself.

i alays try to find a second source in those ocasions.

359 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:17:38pm

re: #358 wozzablog

i may soften my stance on C&L if just linking to video clips. But reaction to kos pieces being posted tends to drown out the piece itself.

i alays try to find a second source in those ocasions.

Well, it really depends. I usually just point out that Charles has linked Kos posts too. If the piece itself has merit and is sourced, usually people will tolerate it.

C&L I consider very useful for certain things— Neiwert’s extremism coverage mostly.

But yeah, sometimes the reaction to a particular source outshouts discussion of the topic. I just try to make sure that anything I link, regardless of source, is itself well sourced, if you know what I mean.

360 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:19:47pm

i do know whatcha mean.

*we are both sooo old media with quaint stuff like sourcing*

361 iceweasel  Mon, Nov 2, 2009 8:21:38pm

re: #360 wozzablog

i do know whatcha mean.

*we are both sooo old media with quaint stuff like sourcing*

Heh. So true!

And so to bed…

Youtube Video

Warning: may contain Obama.

362 bombarafat  Fri, Nov 6, 2009 9:30:54am

I’d take the conservative party over the republicans or dhimmicrats any day.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 128 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 290 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1