Nothing To Add

I have nothing substantive to add to this piece about the despondent Democrats other than to state every time I read one of these pieces I just want to scream.

If George Bush had had the kind of legislative session Obama and the Democrats just had, the EPA would have been abolished, it would be illegal to not drill for oil everywhere it was located, capital gains and the “death tax” would be completely abolished, social security would have been privatized, medicare and medicaid would be abolished and we would all have personal health savings accounts, and the department of education would be simply in business to hand out vouchers to white kids in urban areas. The base of the GOP wouldn’t be whining and moaning that they hadn’t gotten around to outlawing homosexuality and that abortion is still legal in some cases so Bush is just a miserable failure and they are just too damned depressed to manage to whip up any enthusiasm to go to the polls.

Christ people. Health care is now a right. I know, I know. We didn’t get to punish insurance companies and tell off the Republicans while we did it. I give up.






158 replies
  1. 1
    Sue says:

    ‘Health care is now a right’
    Until next November. Then the real work begins.

  2. 2
    ronrab says:

    As a matter of fact, for six years the GOP got pretty much eveything it wanted under Bush, and they’ve totally abandoned him.

    Really poor choice of examples here.

  3. 3
    matt says:

    The difference being that Bush either not elected or only barely so do these things.

  4. 4
    bobbo says:

    Personally, I am a despondent Democrat because despite the towering achievements of this Democratic President and Democratic Congress, there is a good chance the Republicans will take the House in 2010 and the Congress in Presidency in 2012.

  5. 5
    Alwhite says:

    John,

    The health care we got was proposed by the Republican’s in 1992 to counter the Clinton plan. It is full of landmines that will cost more than expected & provide less than promised. If allowed to go forward unchanged it will be unmitigated disaster with which Republicans will beat Democrats over the head with for years.

    As a trade off for the short-term good of getting some coverage for many of the uninsured I am ambivalent. Long-term it is going to be a lose.

    If this makes me a firebagger I am sorry you feel that way. I know we could not have gotten the bill I wanted but I strongly believe that we could have & should have gotten better than this.

  6. 6
    FormerSwingVoter says:

    Yeah. On top of it all, Republicans do this weird thing called “blaming the opposition”.

    It goes something like this: when they don’t get their way, they blame the people who prevented them from getting their way instead of turning on each other at the first hint of trouble. Yeah, I don’t get it either. They’re weird.

  7. 7
    silentbeep says:

    Say what you want about Peter Suderman, but he had a point in a recent bloggingheads I saw with him. He was like “what do the democrats want exactly? they are getting a whole lot in Obama’s domestic agenda.” He wasn’t being snarky, he was seriously confused. I can’t help but be a tad confused myself.

    Yes, criticism and having an skeptical eye is always needed. But being a critical thinker does not necessarily mean being despondent. I myself am disappointed with the way Iraq, Afghanistan and civil liberties are going. I’m disappointed with Obama’s stance on gay marriage. But he’s the president and I’d like to see some more blame put on the body that ya know, actually legislates: Congress.

    One man can’t do it all.

  8. 8
    silentbeep says:

    @Alwhite:

    There is a difference between what “should” happen in the ideal sense and what can happen, right here, right now, with flawed human beings. We had to start somewhere. And I agree with you that it could’ve been a lot better, but I also believe the status quo was a whole lot worse than what we have right here, right now.

    I will never understand the liberal tendency to criticize a victory.

  9. 9
    Zifnab says:

    If George Bush had had the kind of legislative session Obama and the Democrats just had, the EPA would have been abolished, it would be illegal to not drill for oil everywhere it was located, capital gains and the “death tax” would be completely abolished, social security would have been privatized, medicare and medicaid would be abolished and we would all have personal health savings accounts, and the department of education would be simply in business to hand out vouchers to white kids in urban areas. The base of the GOP wouldn’t be whining and moaning that they hadn’t gotten around to outlawing homosexuality and that abortion is still legal in some cases so Bush is just a miserable failure and they are just too damned depressed to manage to whip up any enthusiasm to go to the polls.

    What crack are you smoking? Just for starters, health care doesn’t become a right until 2014.

    And Obama managed to lay down some respectable insurance reforms, a few much needed financial regulations, a rebuttle to the Lily Ledbetter SCOTUS case, and a sizable stimulus package.

    Compared to Bush’s double tax cut, PATRIOT Act, AUMF Resolution, No Child Left Behind Act, Medicare Plan D pharma bailout, Energy Bill, and the rest, I honestly think Obama’s performing on par with his predecessor.

    But the Obama legislation has some major holes and serious flaws. This would be like the Bush Admin abolishing the EPA, except for the parts that regulate air, water, and soil quality. Or decreeing oil can be drilled for anywhere so long as an oil company has purchased the property.

    AMAZING in theory. Baby steps in practice.

  10. 10
    You Don't Say says:

    I live in Nevada. It is an absolute dogfight here between Reid and Angle. No one here has the luxury of being despondent.

  11. 11
    cat48 says:

    Progressives, as bedrock Democrats like to call themselves, are despondent.

    Exactly why I’m not a “Progressive.” I’ll just stick with lefty or liberal who are actually “bedrock Democrats.” I could never live up to progs high standards. They are ashamed to be Dems so they invented their own little party within a party, sorta uppity to me.

    Also, too of course I’m not enthused about voting for the rotten choices I have here in SC but I WILL.

  12. 12
    joe from Lowell says:

    @ronrab:

    As a matter of fact, for six years the GOP got pretty much eveything it wanted under Bush

    Umwut?

    The right wanted the tax cuts to sunset?

    The right wanted a really expensive prescription drug benefit?

    The right wanted Social Security “reform” to go down in flames?

    No, not really.

  13. 13
    tim says:

    Oh please. More Cole comment trolling with a stupid post and the old “I give up” trope. hahaha

    “health care is a right.” please…could you be a little MORE vague in your meaning please?

  14. 14
    Tim I says:

    @bobbo:

    What makes you think that? While it is possible that they may take the House, I don’t think it likely. And i can’t imagine what their plan for winning the White House would be. The 2012 Primaries should be one of the great laugh riots in political history. I stronly suspect there will be at least one splinter candidate in the General on the Republican side.

  15. 15
    Erikthered says:

    Well said, John.

    I don’t really have anything to add to that, either.

  16. 16
    Tim I says:

    @FormerSwingVoter:

    What a crazy strategy!

  17. 17
    Jeff Spender says:

    I have to keep repeating this to all of my bitchy, whiny liberal/Democratic friends:

    I am thoroughly satisfied with President Obama and his administration despite some setbacks and letdowns.

    The simple fact of the matter is that changing things isn’t easy. Trying to shift a national dialogue or run a country isn’t a walk in the park.

    These things take time. With the current polarization of the political spectrum (not necessarily the American public–which is often deceived), it’s amazing he’s been able to do so much.

    Truth be told, I don’t fear a Republican congress or Presidency in the coming decade because I don’t think that anything they do will really matter. I can feel that things have, fundamentally, changed and there is nothing that a bunch of old, reactionary fuck-wits can do about it.

    It just takes time.

  18. 18
    Sentient Puddle says:

    Reading articles like this is sort of amusing for me because it becomes a game of see how they say Republicans are going to win fucking big, but find the aberrations in the article that the analysts gloss over as being unimportant. In this case:

    Parties with unhappy supporters, naturally, tend to do poorly in elections, says Jeff Jones of Gallup, although more because voters switch allegiances than because they do not bother to vote at all.

    There just aren’t many demographics who will realistically flip from Obama in ’08 to Republicans in ’10, which suggests that depressed enthusiasm among the Democratic base will probably cause a softer blow than most people are expecting.

    I throw this on a pile of other reasons and am led to believe that Democratic losses really are going to be a lot milder than what we’re led to believe they’ll be.

  19. 19
    KG says:

    The base of the GOP wouldn’t be whining and moaning that they hadn’t gotten around to outlawing homosexuality and that abortion is still legal in some cases so Bush is just a miserable failure and they are just too damned depressed to manage to whip up any enthusiasm to go to the polls.

    I think you underestimate how much control the so-cons have now and how much they had under Bush. There is a not insignificant portion of the GOP base that only cares about these kind of issues. Even with all the other stuff you mentioned, they’d be bitching and moaning that none of it matters because they are still losing the culture war.

  20. 20
    lethargytartare says:

    @Zifnab:

    I honestly think Obama’s performing on par with his predecessor.

    …you are aware that you’re comparing Bush’s entire 8 years in office to Obama’s 1st 18 months, right?

  21. 21
    cleek says:

    @ronrab:
    maybe the top tier GOP politicians got everything they wanted, but the base certainly didn’t feel that way. many of them felt as frustrated with their leadership as many lefties feel about Obama.

    abortion wasn’t outlawed. a flat tax wasn’t enacted. the EPA, IRS, and the teachers unions weren’t dismantled. the death tax wasn’t eliminated. etc..

    they’ve got a wish list as long as your arm (as does the left), and they got pretty much none of it.

  22. 22
    Violet says:

    @Alwhite:

    I know we could not have gotten the bill I wanted but I strongly believe that we could have & should have gotten better than this.

    Yes, but we didn’t. And you can either rejoice that we got something and moved forward, and some more people who needed help will get it, or you can forget to mention the good stuff and just be critical that we didn’t get everything we could have.

    It’s not perfect but we can work to make it better. We had to start somewhere.

    It’s like someone who wants to lose 20 pounds and only loses 15 saying they’ve done terribly and it’s all a big disaster. No! They lost 15 pounds they needed to lose! Now keep at it and lose those last five. Not losing the entire 20 pounds doesn’t make the 15 pounds they did lose irrelevant.

  23. 23
    John Cole says:

    @tim: You were probably too busy cutting yourself over the public option to notice the billions in subsidies that were provided in HCR. Yes, you still have to have insurance and we still run through that dysfunctional framework, but the mindset is now that anyone, pre-existing condition or not, has a right to insurance and health care. That is a big deal.

  24. 24
    jl says:

    No time to read comments to see if what I say is repeat, but IMHO,

    Number one, Obama went with conventional Washington Consensus economic wisdom on economic recovery policy (Rubin and Summers), which has been proven wrong once again. That means lousy jobless recovery, and I think that explains most of the Democratic worries about the election. Even the sainted Reagan could not stand against a bad economy. And I think Obama is about where Reagan was in terms of job approval in similar circumstances.

    Number two, I think Obama has not been good at leading the party, which is one of his jobs, like it or not. The high minded post partisanship business has produced problems in motivating Democratic voters and that needs to be fixed somehow. I think it is wise to dump the post partisanship stuff, since I think it is nonsense in reality, even if it helped somewhat in the presidential election. There is no presidential election now, so why continue it when it is not working either on getting stuff done or political PR levels?

  25. 25
    p.a. says:

    John, how long were you a Republican before you had had enough? Who said we (Democrats) had a less efficient party? It only took us what, five years to crank you out?

    Democrats unhappy with Democratic pols. and your dismay reminds me of the old Jeff MacNelly cartoon: Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton are standing with their pants around their ankles. Ted says to Bill “It’s tough to get around at first but you’ll get used to it.”

  26. 26
    Jeff Spender says:

    @KG:

    Even with all the other stuff you mentioned, they’d be bitching and moaning that none of it matters because they are still losing the culture war.

    This works in tandem with my ideas. I don’t accept the idea of a “culture war” because it’s nonsense (if true anything political would be a culture war); however, I think that what makes the entire movement conservative/ right-wing Tea Party movement irrelevant is that they aren’t proposing anything new. As far as I can tell, there aren’t enough people interested in the 1950s (except old people who wish to relive their glory days) to give them relevance.

    The slow march of time has always landed these people in the dustbin of history.

  27. 27
    BTD says:

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The ones you express strike me as absolutely silly.

    Obama and Dems did some good things sure. the issue of how good and how many is a matter of opinion. I certainly do not share your opinion on this.

    But one thing you state as a fact is clearly just not true – health is NOT “now a right.” Who can you sue in court for your “health care?”

    Does a doctor have to treat you? Does an insurance company have to offer you a decent health care plan at an affordable price? The answer to these question is clearly no.

    Will more people have health insurance (and thus, health care) as a result of the expansion of Medicaid in 2014 and the providing of subsidies for the purchase of private health health insurance? Yes. Maybe even 31 million more people will get health care that did not. This is a great achievement.

    Was the health care and health insurance systems reformed? Only in the most superficial way.

    Finally, on the most important issue of the last two years, the economy, Obama and the Dems did not deliver, for whatever reason (the filibuster, miscalculation, etc.).

    If Dems had gotten what Bush got in terms of the economy, the stimulus would have been 1.3 trillion – the size of the Bush tax cuts.

    I say to you what I said about Jon Cohn – if you are thrilled with the accomplishments, by all means say so.

    But it is ridiculous of you to berate people for disagreeing with you about these accomplishments. They disagree. That’s all. Argue you opinion but stop the ridiculous “people are awful because they do not agree with me” crap.

  28. 28
    Hugin & Munin says:

    OK, here is the hot sting of liberal hate I was looking for. Fuck the boomers, it’s the selfish liberals who ruin everything. YEARGGGGGHHH!

  29. 29
    bobbo says:

    @Tim I:
    It’s the fundamentals.

    Even if they don’t take the House, the Republicans will certainly increase their numbers, making any efforts by Obama and the Dems to improve the employment picture even more impossible. If unemployment and the economy still suck in 2012, the Republican nominee, even if it is Sarah Palin, will have a real shot.

  30. 30
    NobodySpecial says:

    @John Cole: Unless, of course, you fit in that category of ‘healthy, with too high an income for the Medicare expansion but too little to maintain a decent quality of life with health care under Baucus’ subsidies.’ Which I do, and I suspect a few million others do too, but you seem OK with that.

  31. 31
    taylormattd says:

    Que the comments bitching about how terrible the health care bill is.

  32. 32
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @Sentient Puddle: The paraphrased quote from Gallup sounds awfully truncated. In any event, it’s got nothing to do with the 2010 elections.

    Democrats are going to get shellacked in November, not because Democrats will switch their party, but because weak Republicans, also known as Independents, will return to the fold after flirting with voting for Democrats (again, it’s the economy, stupid), and because Republicans who didn’t bother voting for Old Man McCain and Former Half Term Governor will show up this time. Depressed Democrats are just icing on the cake (the difference between bad losses and really bad losses).

  33. 33
    taylormattd says:

    @NobodySpecial: If only we could go back to the perfect, socialist health care system we had before this bill passed.

  34. 34
    Guster says:

    Yeah, but John–isn’t it possible that you’re a smart, well-informed, fair-minded, hate-free conservative?

    Which means in the current political climate you’re a flaming liberal, of course. But the health care bill, which I agree is progress, most closely resembles what Nixon proposed, no?

    Now, Nixon proposed a sensible set of reforms, so that’s good. But I’m not sure we can expect liberals to feel a sense of real triumph at implementing an old-fashioned, intelligent, relatively-helpful Republican reform proposed in 1972 or whenever.

    Even if the alternative was hellacious. Which it was. I feel a sort of grim satisfaction that the health care bill passed. Maybe it’s the best bill that was possible, maybe not. That’s not an argument anyone can prove. But asking lefties to be positively excited about the bill doesn’t really make sense.

    And didn’t Bush didn’t have more impact than Obama in the same period? Not legislatively, no. But more impact, just the same?

  35. 35
    The Moar You Know says:

    Health care is now a right.

    Horseshit, John. Absolute horseshit.

    How the fuck is healthcare a right when the smallest rate increase my company got hit with this time around was 16%? (the largest was 43 motherfucking per cent…come on!)

    I mean, yeah, they can’t kick people off the plan for having cancer as of 2014, but they can jack up what I have to pay for that group plan with the cancer victim in it until I’m fucking bankrupt. And nevermind the hypothetical cancer victim, I’ll be fucking bankrupt anyhow after a few more years of rate increases like this, rate increases ALLOWED BY THE FUCKING BILL UNTIL THE END OF FUCKING TIME.

    And then there’s fifty-plus people with no fucking insurance at all, and no jobs either.

    Add in that as of January, my employees lose the ability to use their health savings accounts on ANYTHING that could fall under the heading of “nonpresciption” (there goes my Prilosec, goddamit) and a slew of other shit coming down the pike under the banner of “health care reform” and what you have is something more akin to the often hilarious joke about totalitarian societies where “you have the right to scream as loud as you want. We don’t mind” than anything that resembles a “right” as we understand it.

    You have no fucking idea how bad the American people, and especially the American employer, got fucked by this bill, John. None at all. But within three or four years, you’re going to – when you’re paying a third of your income for health care – and that’s IF you’re insured at all.

  36. 36
    shep says:

    The base of the GOP wouldn’t be whining and moaning that they hadn’t gotten around to outlawing homosexuality and that abortion is still legal in some cases so Bush is just a miserable failure and they are just too damned depressed to manage to whip up any enthusiasm to go to the polls.

    .
    The GOP base cheered George Bush as he shredded every principle “conservatives” previously – and subsequently – claimed to hold dear. Liberals are nothing like the GOP base. What don’t you understand about this?
    .
    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

  37. 37
    NobodySpecial says:

    @taylormattd: Fuck you. Never ever ever be caught on this board criticizing a bill again on it’s specifics as it relates to you.

  38. 38
    EvolutionaryDesign says:

    Patience people. The unholy right waged a 30+ year war against common decency. We probably have an equally long and difficult slog ahead of us. Also. Too.

  39. 39
    BTD says:

    @taylormattd:

    Do you agree with John that “Christ people. Health care is now a right.”

    Certainly passing the bill was better than not passing it.

    But John tells us the health bill made health care a right. It doesn’t.

  40. 40
    Kristine says:

    @You Don’t Say: I don’t understand how anyone could possibly vote for Angle. Do Nevadans really agree with her, or do they dislike Reid that much?

  41. 41
    taylormattd says:

    @BTD: shorter Armando: Bullypulpit. Issues, not personalities. Kill the bill. Public option WAS the compromise. Failure of leadership.

  42. 42
    Bruce (formerly Steve S.) says:

    If George Bush had had the kind of legislative session Obama and the Democrats just had, the EPA would have been abolished,

    No, in a compromise deal its scope would have been reduced.

    it would be illegal to not drill for oil everywhere it was located,

    No, in a compromise deal it would have been increased in some places with a continuing ban in others.

    capital gains and the “death tax” would be completely abolished,

    No, in a compromise deal they would have been reduced.

    social security would have been privatized,

    No, in a compromise deal they would have established a commission to study it, which is what’s happening anyway.

    medicare and medicaid would be abolished and we would all have personal health savings accounts,

    See above.

    and the department of education would be simply in business to hand out vouchers to white kids in urban areas.

    No, in a compromise deal a limited pilot program of vouchers would be established and quickly forgotten.

    I don’t get what you’re suggesting here. The Republican base would be absolutely delighted with a Ben Nelson/Joe Lieberman wet dream of endless compromises and bipartisan outreach?

  43. 43
    cat48 says:

    Well, Alvin Greene was just indicted on porn charges per msnbc so that’s one less reason to go to the polls. About right for SC Dems.

  44. 44
    BTD says:

    @taylormattd:

    Ridiculous.

    If you do not want to address what I write, please do not pretend that you did.

  45. 45
    Lolis says:

    Well on Monday in Austin I went to watch Obama’s motorcade with my mother. She likes to complain about Obama and even took her bumper sticker for him off her car, but she was thrilled to have the chance to see his motorcade and she kept saying, “I just love Obama.” The crowd was pretty big, news reports said a couple thousand people lined up, and they were fired up. It was very diverse, a lot of Latinos, Whites, and Blacks. There were only a few teabaggers with their dumb signs. I would say Austin represents Obama’s base pretty well and we are still fired up enough to stand in the sun for a couple hours on concrete to see him drive by.

    P.S. As a disabled person, the people who trash the health care bill from the left really piss me off.

  46. 46
    shep says:

    One more thing: my right to pay five grand a year for medical bankruptcy insurance, that provides close to zero medical care, seems…unchanged.

  47. 47
    taylormattd says:

    @BTD: quit glomming on to a single sentence. You know as well as I that unlike you and me, John isn’t a lawyer, and you know exactly what he means. He is using lay terms to describe the expansion of health care coverage to millions of people who wouldn’t have otherwise had it.

  48. 48
    Dork says:

    Health care is now a right. I know, I know.

    Until the GOP majorities de-fund it.

  49. 49

    Bush for all intents and purposes DID abolish the EPA AND the Dept. of the Interior, he just did it in a sneaky way but putting industry cronies in positions of power and influence. There’s the joke that was the former Minerals Management Service (THAT worked out swimmingly, now didn’t it?) and the mining regulatory agency and the Bush era DOJ obstructing all sorts of cases and finally let me remind everyone we went to fucking WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST for the oil companies.

    Hello?

  50. 50
    peter johnson cox says:

    the base of the GOP will still be whining and moaning until the last homosexual is “saved” or dead….and as long as one single stem-cell is crying out in the night they’ll be clutching their pearls

  51. 51
    numbskull says:

    @jl: Exactly.

    And as for Cole writing:

    I give up.

    On this topic, we wish.

    I worked to elect Democrats at every level with phone banking, door-to-door, house parties for candidates, and donations. DID YOU? I am continuing this work. ARE YOU?

    Like every other citizen, I’m allowed to bitch about my elected leaders. If they don’t like hearing it, and they’re concerned enough that they send their mouthpieces to whine about my whining, then maybe they should STFU and do something about it getting me to stop whining. That “something” is not telling me to STFU. See, that only works in one direction.

    Like Atrios said, if my clapping louder for their many shiny-pony successes is really all that damned important, maybe they need to make sure that I have plenty of hand lotion to keep my chapped hands in better condition.

  52. 52
    taylormattd says:

    @NobodySpecial: No, fuck you, and fuck all of you people who don’t give two shits about the millions of people who the bill helped, on grounds that you didn’t get yours.

  53. 53
    Chris says:

    I’m sort of surprised you’re doing another post on this. I agree with the sentiment but, man, am I sick of (reading) the argument. Just a suggestion — not for BJ particularly — but maybe people who support O and the Dems could start talking about actual races that are close or interesting or whatever. Just a for instance — how’s Bachmann doing?

  54. 54
    Jeff Spender says:

    I must admit that from a completely selfish point of view I would prefer to have the current health care bill than none at all because I have three pre-existing conditions that blacklist me from insurance that doesn’t annually cost me the GDP of Andorra.

    Sure it will be expensive, but at least I can have it. It’s a requirement to even step foot in a doctor’s office, these days.

  55. 55

    @The Moar You Know:

    You have no fucking idea how bad the American people, and especially the American employer, got fucked by this bill, John. None at all. But within three or four years, you’re going to.

    Nonsense. It’s not like there are no places in the US with employer mandates… or do you think that Massachusetts and San Fransisco are barren wastelands that corporations have fled?

  56. 56
    BTD says:

    @taylormattd:

    That’s nonsense. The word “right” has a very specific and important meaning, for lawyers and non-lawyers.

    If John meant to say that “31 million more people will have health insurance” then he should write those words.

    Saying “health care is a right” means something. Indeed, it is a goal for the future. We have not achieved it.

  57. 57
    chopper says:

    as my dear departed granddad used to say, if you can’t get a whole loaf, kick and scream and hold your breath til you turn blue if anyone offers you a half a loaf. or something like that.

  58. 58
    Tsulagi says:

    I give up.

    Awww, it’s hard out there for a Professional Obot. jk

    We’re all professionals now.

  59. 59
    fasteddie9318 says:

    Just to try to bring us back together again, you’ve got to love The Economist:

    a financial-reform act that increases oversight of the wayward bankers who, in the minds of many, were bailed out at humbler workers’ expense

    Yes, “in the minds of many,” or put another way, “in the minds of pretty much everybody except the douchebags who work for The Economist.”

  60. 60

    @BTD:

    Saying “health care is a right” means something. Indeed, it is a goal for the future. We have not achieved it.

    Nope, the individual mandate makes it a right. That’s the whole point.

  61. 61
    Mike in NC says:

    Democratic losses really are going to be a lot milder than what we’re led to believe they’ll be.

    Possibly. But somebody try telling that to our lazy, dishonest, brain-dead corporate media with its obsession for rigged polls, hacks with right wing talking points, and the “authenticity” of the teabagger movement and its focus on “fiscal conservatism”.

  62. 62
    Nate says:

    I understand this, I do. But there is a difference. Nearly everything Bush did had the public’s disapproval, or at least ambivalence.

    But the public option? 70% approval.
    Substantive financial reform? 70% approval
    Raising the liability cap for BP? A real climate bill? Getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Majorities every single time.

    Bush pushed his agenda through largely against the will of the American people. Obama has the wind at his back and can’t get this stuff done. That’s what’s so frustrating.

    It makes you wonder what you have to do to make progress in this country.

  63. 63
    Jeff Spender says:

    @numbskull:

    I worked to elect Democrats at every level with phone banking, door-to-door, house parties for candidates, and donations. DID YOU? I am continuing this work. ARE YOU?

    Well, I did in 2004 and in 2008, but cannot now. I regret that, but it’s just the way it is.

    I did go around in a conservative utopia to try to raise money for an environmental nonprofit not too long ago. Many a slammed door; many a grumpy old person bitching that Obama is taking away their rights.

    I had to tell one old guy to go get laid because he wouldn’t do anything but talk about the Amero and the coming “revolution.” He said I had better think about changing sides and looked hostile.

    Right.

  64. 64
    JBerardi says:

    Since this blog has been on kind of a music kick lately…

    Life’s not been good for you. It’s just not fair.
    You did nothing to deserve it. You did nothing at all.
    Sit back and watch. It turns from bad to worse.
    No matter how loud you cry it always hurts.
    Boy I’m glad I’m not in your shoes.

    How could things get any worse for you?
    You’re so fucking alone
    How could things get any worse for you?
    I don’t blame you when you piss and moan
    Everybody gets what you should’ve got
    Everybody takes your opportunities
    Everybody gets the breaks that belonged to you
    Everybody takes your just desserts

    Life’s not been good for you, it’s just not fair
    I’ve got some news for you, nothing is fair
    I wish there was a way to make it all better
    I pray for a way to make you happy
    ‘Cause I’m sick, and I’m tired
    Of your whining and complaining and bitching and moaning
    BOO-FUCKIN’-HOO!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRynP5M9qPI

  65. 65
    Patrick says:

    Since the WTFs started last summer over Democrats and independents being upset with Obama on health care and other issues, I’ve sat by and read both sides. I think Obama has abdicated some issues he specifically ran on (whistle blowers, wiretapping, and GLBT issues including DADT and gay marriage), but for the most part he’s done as good a job as possible given the Democratic coalitions in Congress he had to work with and the horrendous economic environment he inherited.

    At the same time, I don’t understand why you, John, and folks like you are so exasperated with the people who voted for him who are unhappy with him, be they Democrats or independents. Obama ran on an open-ended ticket that allowed folks to graft whatever their policy ideas of hope and change were onto his campaign. OF COURSE THEY’RE DISAPPOINTED! How in the hell can you be President and be everything to everyone?! It’s impossible! You can barely do what you want to do, much less what every single person who voted for you wants you to do!

    Still, that was the conscious choice of campaign. It was awesome as a campaign, but once you’re actually President, the hangover really sucks. That’s where all this angst comes from regarding Democrats and independents who voted for Obama staying home in 2012. It’s the natural hangover from running a campaign that was everything to everyone.

    I am pissed because I know we’re going to have to listen to this being beaten to death by the wonks when the party in power loses legislative ground this November in mid-terms. Never mind that’s what happens to most parties in power in mid-term elections, no, this will be 100% because of lazy Democrats. And no one will call them on their bullshit.

  66. 66
    chopper says:

    @numbskull:

    I worked to elect Democrats at every level with phone banking, door-to-door, house parties for candidates, and donations. DID YOU?

    you talking to cole? if so, then you haven’t been around here much.

  67. 67
    Sentient Puddle says:

    @Bobby Thomson: Uh…there’s almost no substance to what you said, meaning that I might as well be arguing whether or not God exists. But as far as what you say that actually can back up your thesis, let’s see…

    … but because weak Republicans, also known as Independents, …

    NO. This is about one degree less shallow than cable news analyzing independents. The number of independent Republicans is roughly the same as independent Democrats. No more speaking for the block of independent voters. Anyone who does that is almost always wrong.

    … and because Republicans who didn’t bother voting for Old Man McCain and Former Half Term Governor will show up this time.

    See the chart in the article John linked. If what you say is true, then the level of excitement among Republicans should exceed 2008 levels. It’s not.

  68. 68

    … I would prefer to have the current health care bill than none at all because I have three pre-existing conditions that blacklist me from insurance …

    Only and I do mean ONLY reason I did not agree with those folks who said no bill was better than this bill. Lots of people in the same boat, esp. kids with pre-existings.

    I’m still pissed that no one in the White House (until the very very end of the debate when POTUS did it) stepped up and called bullshit on the “death panels” and “socialism” BS. They waited waaay to long.

  69. 69

    … I would prefer to have the current health care bill than none at all because I have three pre-existing conditions that blacklist me from insurance …

    Only and I do mean ONLY reason I did not agree with those folks who said no bill was better than this bill. Lots of people in the same boat, esp. kids with pre-existings.

    I’m still pissed that no one in the White House (until the very very end of the debate when POTUS did it) stepped up and called bullshit on the “death panels” and “socialism” BS. They waited waaay to long.

  70. 70
    JITC says:

    I haven’t read the linked article yet, but wanted to say this first.

    I am a HUGE supporter of single payer. I believe, no, I KNOW that it is inevitable because it is simply the best way to deliver health care to all who need it and keep costs reasonable at the same time. It just makes economic as well as societal sense.

    However, I support the national bill. I know it’s incomplete. It misses the mark on so many things. But this bill absolutely changed how this country thinks and talks about health care and health insurance. And it did do some good for some of the worst health care scenarios.

    The debate, health care horror stories and very importantly the reactions of the health insurance industry give major ammunition to the single-payer cause. It gives single payer advocates real things to point to (e.g. all the CBO reports that showed the benefits of the public option prove the economic sense of large risk pools).

    It also showed that this probably can’t be done on a national level. But it can be done on a state level. There are at least 14 states actively working on it right now (there are probably more, but that’s the number I can think of right now). California is one of them.

    SB-810, CA’s single payer bill just passed the appropriations committee and will go up for a vote for the full legislature soon. It will very likely pass – again. It’s passed 2 times before, only to get vetoed by the Governator. This is expected and not a set back. It’s a call to action to get a veto proof majority in the CA legislature (due to crappy CA law, we need a 2/3 majority anyway because there will be a tax that replaces premiums).

    So, it’s no use railing on Obama and the national Democrats for not getting the public option or single payer. It wasn’t going to happen. Instead, use that energy (and donations) to get it done state by state. CA has often led the nation. It can on this issue. http://www.healthcareforall.org and http://www.californiaonecare.org are great places to start.

  71. 71
    You Don't Say says:

    @Kristine: Some of both. Nevada has two major urban centers, Las Vegas and Reno-Carson City, and the rest of the state is rural. Rurals are very conservative, Vegas is Democratic and the north, where I live, is mixed but leans conservative. Reasonable conservatives in the north, like the mayor of Reno, have come out in support of Reid.

    But Reid has a lot of enemies here. I really don’t know why. I guess he’s just accumulated them over the years. He’s been involved in Nevada politics forever. Nevada is historically a very anti-government state.

    My guess is Angle got the nomination because 1) Sue Lowden imploded and 2) Angle wasn’t that well-known outside of Reno and people voting for her didn’t realize the extent of her whackiness.

    As for the polls, I’m just hoping they’re terribly flawed and Reid prevails easily.

  72. 72
    taylormattd says:

    @BTD: No, Armando, it’s not nonsense. Non-lawyers can quite frenquently be imprecise and use generalized terms or even hyperbole to make their points. For example, over the years, many versions of health care plans have been proposed, and other than the actual medicare for all type plans, none of them actually would be able to achieve 100% coverage, yet people still spoke of them as providing “universal health care”.

  73. 73
    Jeff Spender says:

    @Mike in NC:

    Possibly. But somebody try telling that to our lazy, dishonest, brain-dead corporate media with its obsession for rigged polls, hacks with right wing talking points, and the “authenticity” of the teabagger movement and its focus on “fiscal conservatism”.

    Nobody that has an IQ higher than that of an igneous rock and can rub two braincells together takes them seriously, anyway.

    Did you know Rush Limbaugh’s ratings (per Arbitron) are usually highest during his commercials?

  74. 74
    gbear says:

    … but what can an obot do
    ‘cept to sing in the obot choir
    But in sleazy DC town there’s just no press
    ‘less you’re a wingnut liar.

    I haven’t given up on being an Obot.
    Haven’t given up on calling my MN representatives.
    I have given up on listening to the news and reading blogs except BJ, Wonkette, and Washington Monthly. Half the time I have to skip this one too. Shrill gets old.

  75. 75
    BTD says:

    @J.W. Hamner:

    You really believe that? The mandate does not create a right to health insurance – it creates a tax for people who do not buy health insurance.

    We have always had the right to buy health insurance – the mandate did not create THAT right.

    The better argument for a “right” is that the government will provide health insurance and subsidies for the purchase of private health insurance to qualifying person. The problem with that argument is that both the public health insurance and the subsidies for private health insurance are subject to the vagaries of Congressional funding decisions.

    I support the individual mandate, but I would have made it a real one – autoenrollment in a public health insurance program for persons who do not purchase or have private insurance with a payroll deduction or tax payment structure.

    What we have now is a $750 tax on people who do not have health insurance. Indeed, that’s what makes the Right Wing case that the “mandates” are unconstitutional so ludicrous.

  76. 76
    The Moar You Know says:

    Nonsense. It’s not like there are no places in the US with employer mandates… or do you think that Massachusetts and San Fransisco are barren wastelands that corporations have fled?

    @J.W. Hamner: Not sure what you mean by this. However, I can tell you as the guy paying the bills, healthcare is my number one expense – almost double the mortgage for our office building here in San Diego, which wasn’t exactly cheap.

    I have highly skilled employees. They can and do demand that I pay most of their health care costs. At some point, when I can’t, they will leave for a bigger company that has the resources to continue to feed the beast for a while longer.

    Of course, I’ll be out of business.

    Do you really think that forcing most, eventually all, of America’s workforce to go to work for mega-corporations is a good idea? I know at least one political party that sure does. From my perspective, in all honesty, it looks a lot like both political parties think that’s the way to go.

  77. 77
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @silentbeep:

    I will never understand the liberal tendency to criticize a victory.

    I think it’s from the same part of the liberal personality that drives many people I have known to declare vociferously that certain popular bands suck. It’s a _joy_ in making a pronouncement that you have superior taste and/or intelligence. (Think of how often the word “corporate” gets flung around.)

    If you liked the same shit everyone else did, how would you be able to demonstrate your edge? You have to be unsatisfied and dissatisfied or else you wouldn’t be special, would you? And if you weren’t loud about it, how would the world know?

  78. 78
    BTD says:

    @taylormattd:

    The phrase “universal health care” is simply different than “the right to health care.”

    Your argument is nonsense.

    “Civil rights,” “human rights,” “due process rights,” “voting rights” – those phrases have meaning to lawyer and non-lawyer alike.

    John should not have said what he said because it is just plain wrong.

  79. 79
    Jay Schiavone says:

    I can fully appreciate why it is that liberals are disappointed with Obama. Sadly, they expected him to be liberal without examining his record. What baffles me is why conservatives don’t like Obama. He kept Bush’s wars and even escalated one his first week in office. He kept Bush’s torture program and, like Bush, says, “We do not torture.” He kept Bush’s surveillance apparatus and seeks to get access to even more of Americans’ private information. He promised to close Guantanamo, but his solution is to move it onshore. He kept the constitutionally dubious military commissions. He is pursuing anti-gay litigation, claiming he has to uphold the law, even laws he promised to repeal. Oh, and his official public policy is to bash liberals at every opportunity and blame them for the failings of his policies. Why don’t conservatives absolutely love this guy? I give up.

  80. 80
    Toast says:

    I propose a theme song for the Professional Left.

  81. 81
    Redshift says:

    @numbskull: Exactly. When I read people saying “I would crawl over broken glass to vote,” my thought is “congratulations, you’ve committed to doing the bare minimum of your civic duty.” (Or, alternatively, “gosh, you’re better than Ed Shultz. What an accomplishment.”)

    I don’t give a damn about the whiners who think they’re accomplishing something by withholding their votes because the Democrats weren’t good enough for them. To paraphrase Ike, “they are small in number, and they are stupid.”

    The reason enthusiasm is depressed isn’t because we’re not clapping loud enough, or because firebaggers and Ed Shultz are telling people the Dems have failed us. It’s because the economy sucks, and people who aren’t political junkies tend to blame the party in power. So this means that rather than bitching about the other people who are bitching (which has no significant effect), the way to do something about this is to get out there and talk to people on the phones or door-to-door and impress upon them that if they want things to improve (even slowly) instead of taking another nosedive, they damn well better make sure to vote for the people who are fixing it, not the assholes who caused the problem.

  82. 82
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @chopper:

    as my dear departed granddad used to say, if you can’t get a whole loaf, kick and scream and hold your breath til you turn blue if anyone offers you a half a loaf. or something like that.

    Don’t forget that most of your screams should be about how it’s a corporate half-loaf.

  83. 83
    chopper says:

    @BTD:

    yeah, but only lawyers wig out over non-strict usage of the word. take a xanax or something, sheesh.

  84. 84
    chopper says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    “and it’s pepperidge farm! this stupid bullshit bread is wrapped twice! like i want an extra fuckin’ step between me and toast, asshole!” (apologies to hedberg)

  85. 85
    cleek says:

    @taylormattd:
    JC’s smart enough to know what a “right” is.

  86. 86
    dj spellchecka says:

    Lawrence Lessig: “Lefties (like me) who criticize Obama are not criticizing him for failing our Lefty test. Our criticism is that Obama is failing the Obama test: that he is not delivering the presidency that he promised……. He promised to “take up the fight.” His failure to deliver on that critical promise — the promise that distinguished him from his main primary rival — or even to try, is a failure that everyone, Lefties included, should be free to complain about …

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....=BlogEntry

  87. 87
    taylormattd says:

    @BTD: Come on, you’re niggling.

  88. 88

    […] here’s an argument I am sick to damn death of hearing: Sure, HCR may have been a mess with huge bailouts and bribes […]

  89. 89
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @taylormattd:

    Non-lawyers can quite frenquently be imprecise and use generalized terms or even hyperbole to make their points.

    For example, lay-people frequently will say the someone was found guilt of negligence in a civil trial. Lawyers know that is not the case, but everyone knows what the person meant to say. Legal terms of art are learned in law schools, hell, we have law schools, law degrees, and bar exams because words can mean different things in a legal and lay context.

    WRT BTD’s point about a legal right to health care being created, I think is is correct that it has not yet. The framework of thinking that will lead to such a right being recognized has been created. A significant step has been taken, but more is still to be done.

    Finally, @ BTD: you were being a pedant.

  90. 90
  91. 91

    I notice people objecting to John’s statement that health care is now a right.
    But John is exactly correct — this was always the real difference between Canadian and US health care.
    In Canada, our attitude is that we are entitled to health care, though we do argue about who should pay and how much, etc. In the Unites States, your attitude was that health care was just another commodity which people might or might not be able to afford. All you thought you could do was create work-arounds (like requiring emergency room treatment) but you didn’t think you were actually entitled to health care.
    By passing a health care reform bill, the US government has now changed this — it is the government (not the insurance companies or the hospitals or the doctors, etc) which is now in charge of health care entitlement, on behalf of the people. This is a profound and influential change and will have great effect over the next few years — already, for example, the Obama administration has been sending messages to health care insurers about how much they can charge and whether they can eliminate coverage. That kind of thing didn’t happen before HCR was passed.
    The insurers knew what was being changed, and this is why they were so opposed to HCR. But I was extremely glad that Obama didn’t ever actually say any of this when HCR was going through — opposition was bad enough as it was, if some of your libertarian types, and Lieberman, had actually realized the basic change that Obama was making, then opposition would have been even worse.
    I know the details of your plan aren’t all to your liking, but they can be changed later — Canadians have been changing the details of our medicare for the last 40 years, and pitched battles are always being fought here about one thing or another, so now you guys get to join the club. But making health care a right and not a privilege was why passing some kind of health care reform in the States was so absolutely important, and such a significant accomplishment by Obama.

  92. 92
    taylormattd says:

    @cleek: meh, it’s niggling. Largely by people who hate the bill and refuse to acknowledge giving 30 million more people access to health care coverage is a good thing.

  93. 93
    J sub D says:

    Christ people. Health care is now a right.

    You can call a requirement to purchase health insurance or pay a fine many things, but calling it a “right” seems a bit of a stretch.

  94. 94
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @Sentient Puddle: Well, you’ve certainly handled the low-hanging fruit quite well (my crack about independents was simply a cheap shot), but not the most important part of my thesis, which is that depressed Democratic turnout is not going to be the key driver of this election. (And we actually agree on that – you just conclude from that fact that losses will be low.) It will make a difference at the margins, sure, but most of the elections will be explained by other factors.

    It’s still the economy, stupid, and whether independents are deemed to be independent, Republican, Democratic, Marxist, Nazi, or anarcho-syndicalist, they’re voting their pocketbooks.

    Yes, Republicans bear the majority of the blame for the sorry state of the economy, but without good challengers ready to paste them for it with a coherent strategy, it won’t make a difference. It probably wouldn’t, anyway, because most of the blue and borderline districts have gone Democratic already. Because of that, Democrats will necessarily bear the brunt of it this time around.

  95. 95
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Redshift:

    It’s because the economy sucks, and people who aren’t political junkies tend to blame the party in power.

    I think there’s also a regression-to-the-mean effect in play. 2006 and 2008 were the peak of long-building frustration against Bush and Republicans. A lot of people turned out to express that sentiment who aren’t typically politically engaged; some of them were excited in a positive direction, and some were pissed off in a negative direction. Democrats practically ran the table. Like a long run of coin-flips coming up heads, I’m not sure it was sustainable to begin with, even under the best of circumstances, which these haven’t been.

  96. 96
    Svensker says:

    Can we somehow combine the Hatin’ on Boomers thread with the Hatin’ on Disgruntled Progressives thread? Cuz that would really cause tempers to flare and I wanna watch. (Patek Philippe, if anyone’s asking.)

  97. 97
    Kerry Reid says:

    @Jeff Spender:
    I always say that anyone who thought change could happen in one year, much less 100 days, clearly has never sat in on a homeowners’ association meeting or a local zoning hearing to witness the ridiculous lengths people will find to justify dying on an anthill.

  98. 98
    russell says:

    Obama is not on track to be my favoritest President evah, but he sure as hell is a kick-ass executive.

    And I can’t think of anybody even remotely in the picture who I think would be better.

    Maybe Dean on the issues, but Dean doesn’t have the temperament to get shit done.

    Obama does.

  99. 99
    BTD says:

    @Cathie from Canada:

    This is just wrong on the status of health care regulation in the US. On PAPER, every state was doing what you say the federal government will now do.

    The problem is the cure is no better than the status quo on the regulation of the health insurance industry – regulatory capture happens at the federal level too.

  100. 100
    BTD says:

    @taylormattd:

    I think not. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course.

  101. 101
    Sentient Puddle says:

    @Bobby Thomson: Alright, I can agree with a lot more of this. The economy will be a big drag that, no matter what else, means Democratic losses.

    I just think that there’s all kinds of things happening that will really soften those losses. Voters not crossing over to Republicans, the Republican party being quite a bit more unpopular than the Democratic party, regional breakdowns of the generic congressional ballot showing Republican leads only in the south, fundraising problems, mismanagement at the RNC, sub-optimal candidates in many races, no platform to speak of…I see all these kinds of things (and more that I’m probably forgetting) and think that there’s no way they can even think of retaking the House.

  102. 102

    @BTD:

    You really believe that? The mandate does not create a right to health insurance – it creates a tax for people who do not buy health insurance.

    Absolutely. By requiring people to buy health insurance the government has implicitly taken responsibility for making them be able to afford it. The distinction between paying for it indirectly through taxes or writing a check for it is meaningless… you’d be “buying” single payer just as much as you might a policy from Kaiser Permanente. I don’t really care who the middle men are… I care that people get covered for an affordable price.

  103. 103
    Will says:

    ARGHH, Bush had a Congress controlled by Democrats to brake what he wanted to do. Obama put the brakes on himself. This IS the key difference.

  104. 104
    taylormattd says:

    @BTD: very true.

  105. 105
    S Brennan says:

    Using John’s tortured* logic:

    The draftees of the Viet Nam era were “given” the “right” to die in the war…while the “poor” rich kids were denied the same “right”.

    File under: “Up is now down” / Orwellian Logic

    Torture, now a “post-partisan” value.

  106. 106
    Chrisd says:

    Again with this?

    One more time:

    If Obama’s accomplishments are as manifestly groovy as you believe them to be, you got nothing to worry about.

    If they aren’t, pissy progressives are the least of your worries, although it couldn’t hurt to stop insulting them, at least until midterms are over.

    That’s all.

  107. 107

    @The Moar You Know:

    Not sure what you mean by this.

    I’m not going to comment on the specifics of your business… I was just pointing out that there are similar but worse systems out there, like Massachusetts, where it doesn’t appear that mandating coverage has caused disruption in the business community.

    If you’re merely commenting that this bill doesn’t do enough to control costs, then you are undoubtedly correct… but no bill that was on the table was going to. Any public option that was ever considered was meaningless in terms of cost controls. This was always about covering people first and controlling costs once we firmly established that it is the government’s responsibility to do so.

  108. 108
    J sub D says:

    @Jay Schiavone:
    You forgot to mention he has deported more illegals than Bush the Lesser as well as 1500 National Guard troops headed for the border. A true friend of the downtrodden, Obama is.

  109. 109
    Scratchie says:

    A friend of mine responds:

    what a lot of hot air. when given a political opportunity on the scale of the financial meltdown (I mean 9/11), Bush started two wars (one for purely personal reasons, apparently), permanently suspended habeas corpus, stripped the 4th amendment of any meaning for electronic communications, legalized torture, and made it so the government never has to reveal anything to its citizens if it does not want to. And, I have to mention, he made me take off my shoes every time I go through an airport for the rest of my life and shave with hand soap when I travel.

    plus, he DID completely abolish the inheritance tax, if only temporarily, and lower capital gains so that the richest people in the world (hedge fund managers) pay the
    lowest tax rate.

    Oh yeah, I almost forgot. The financial meltdown DID happen during his term and he did not waste it. He used it to give away $750 billion to his friends on Wall Street.

  110. 110
    John Is Willfully Lying to Us says:

    I don’t think you understand irony in the slightest.

    Your linking to Greenwald a couple posts later, but you conveniently left out all the SANE AND RATIONAL reasons Glenn laid out and I know you read, that Democrats should be screaming in the streets about Obama!!!


    “You may think that the reason you’re dissatisfied with the Obama administration is because of substantive objections to their policies: that they’ve done so little about crisis-level unemployment, foreclosures and widespread economic misery. Or because of the White House’s apparently endless devotion to Wall Street. Or because the President has escalated a miserable, pointless and unwinnable war that is entering its ninth year. Or because he has claimed the power to imprison people for life with no charges and to assassinate American citizens without due process, intensified the secrecy weapons and immunity instruments abused by his predecessor, and found all new ways of denying habeas corpus. Or because he granted full-scale legal immunity to those who committed serious crimes in the last administration. Or because he’s failed to fulfill — or affirmatively broken — promises ranging from transparency to gay rights.”

    And on Healthcare, the one thing you site, we didn’t even get the Public Option Obama campaigned on. He wouldn’t even come out publicly in favor of it during negotiations. WHAT A WIN!!!!!!!!!!

    Seriously, you chose to be willfully ignorant quite a bit and you get less and less relevant every day.

    To ignore all of that in your argument shows the level of thinking you are not capable of.

    It’s truly pathetic.

  111. 111
    ruemara says:

    @JITC:

    Thank you for turning the stepping stone of this initial bill into a path to real health care reform.

    @J sub D:

    I’m not sure what you’d like the president to do. Not deport people who are working here illegally with no right to be within the US? Tell everyone he will not uphold current immigration law? Not refocus on preventing employers from using illegal labor, turning them into de-facto slaves? Leave the border unsecured as rightwing factions use this and his race to practically re-start the civil war? I heard about Univision’s anchor proclaiming him a disappointment. How about the community acknowledge that people here without papers, you know, can’t legally work?

  112. 112
    Erikthered says:

    @jl:

    The fact that we have a HCR bill at all is because the Prez showed some leadership and got his party to show at least a small amount of spine and pass the Senate version rather than let the GOP fearmongering scuttle it all.

  113. 113
    Chrisd says:

    I can fully appreciate why it is that liberals are disappointed with Obama. Sadly, they expected him to be liberal without examining his record. What baffles me is why conservatives don’t like Obama.

    God, I used to wonder the same thing about the right and Clinton. NAFTA, welfare reform, DOMA… He was working on social security privatization until Monica came and spoiled everything.

    And people think the left is impractical.

  114. 114
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @dj spellchecka:

    Lawrence Lessig: “Lefties (like me) who criticize Obama are not criticizing him for failing our Lefty test. Our criticism is that Obama is failing the Obama test: that he is not delivering the presidency that he promised……. He promised to “take up the fight.”

    If you believe that taking up fights you can’t win makes it harder to win future fights, that stance makes sense. And I think that’s where we are. The politicians whom you persuade to back you in one fight, a fight you end up losing, aren’t going to stay there. They get gun-shy. They don’t want to be affiliated with the “losers.”

    Furthermore, taking up the fight for policies that liberals inside Congress and in the general public would really like could alienate the Blue Dogs and ConservaDems, and while it’s gratifying to think, “So what, fuck them,” it would mean getting nothing passed due to internecine squabbles, which is probably even _more_ off-putting to the general public than getting compromised and imperfect things passed after the conservative members of the caucus extract their concessions. Unless you can find a way to get the public to pressure conservative Dems _really damn hard_, so hard that they realize it’s in their best interests to tack left when all their instincts tell them to tack right, I don’t think this “fight harder” idea will ever manifest as better policy.

  115. 115
    Dave says:

    I’m sorry, John. But since it wasn’t exactly perfect, it sucks and therefore fails. Because Obama should have been able to correct 30 years of fucking 90% of this country in the ass in 18 months. Duh…

  116. 116
    Sheila says:

    I don’t have statistics for all the primaries, but I believe that the Democratic turnout was far larger than the Republican turnout, at least in the set of primaries which gave us Rand Paul. Furthermore, the anti-incumbent meme has no basis in reality if one pays attention to the actual primary results. Of course Republicans are more enthusiastic; they are always far more paranoid and noisy than the Democrats, though I admit, some on the “progressive” left, mostly limited to the blogosphere and other media, could give them a run for their money these days in the latter two categories. If shouting actually brought results, we would have a far right or far left administration given to browbeating rather than governing, and I find this undesirable even if I agreed with their policies.

  117. 117
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Also, I think the significance of “taking up the fight” from the Obama perspective is that it includes hard-fought _small_ victories, as opposed to grand ideological showdowns.

  118. 118
    BTD says:

    @J.W. Hamner:

    the middle man matters a ton in this discussion imo.

  119. 119
    Bruce (formerly Steve S.) says:

    @J sub D:

    but calling it a “right” seems a bit of a stretch.

    To say the least. Many words have both technical and colloquial meanings, and John is clearly using the latter here, and even then it’s a stretch. Myself, I’m not fond of talking about health care in these terms at all, because crafting it as a true and meaningful right in the Constitutional sense would be hopelessly convoluted.

  120. 120
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @John Is Willfully Lying to Us: Yeah, Glenn Greenwald pretends not to notice the critical mass of conservative Democrats in Congress too. It’s one of the things that leads him to careen from sensible points about executive power to screechy fuckwittery about why he has been failed.

  121. 121
    S Brennan says:

    Sorry folks, Obama has been “taking up the fight” to continue/expand Bush’s [the 2nd] wars, FISA,TARP, Torture, destruction of SSI/Medicare…and other extremist right wing policies. He is the mostly widely supported right winger this country has had since Reagan…good stuff if you are connected, or wealthy…or want to see this empire crumble

  122. 122
    Dave says:

    @S Brennan:

    Congratulations. You win the 2010 award for “Dumbest Fucking Thing Ever Said on Balloon Juice”.

  123. 123
    gene108 says:

    @Zifnab:

    NCLB and Medicare Part D weren’t really part of core conservatives goals for government. That sort of domestic interventionism is one reason conservatives want to disavow Bush, Jr.

    Of course these conservatives forget NCLB and Medicare Part D were things Bush & Co. adopted as part of their new brand of conservatism called “compassionate conservatism”, because in 2000 voters didn’t want to vote for the mean old Republicans, unless they pledged to do something for middle class voters. Republicans still remembered how mean they seemed in the 1992 convention and how that turned off voters.

    The Energy bill that was passed in 2005, still didn’t open ANWR up for drilling, though Republicans tried and tried. The Democrats did manage to block that part of the legislation.

    As much as people want to believe Bush & Co. were hardcore right-wingers, who ran over Democrats their agenda also aligned with liberals such as expanding Medicare coverage. So you ended up with a lot more bipartisanship during Bush, Jr.’s tenure than President Obama has enjoyed. You had the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, Sarbanes-Oxley, and the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill, which went down in flames because of right-wing Republicans, though Bush, Jr. really wanted to pass it.

    The Democrats didn’t take to total obstruction, when some of their policy goals could be enacted, such as campaign finance reform and Medicare expansion.

    The biggest difference between conservatives and liberals in managing the successes and failures of Bush, Jr. versus President Obama is conservatives only talked about their successes.

    Conservatives don’t endlessly dwell (at least not in public) about all the things they didn’t get. The conservative movement – the think tanks, media, etc. – keep plugging away to move the country to the right and realize the Republican party is the party, which will give them an ear and a stage on their platform.

    The groups, who want to deregulate the crap out of businesses, weren’t giving up because Sarbanes-Oxley passed and didn’t bitch about how Bush & Co. sold them out by signing SOX into law. You didn’t have days and days of right-wing blogs crying about how they worked so hard for Republicans, only to be sold out because Bush & Co. had to “look tough” because of Enron and WorldCom.

    Liberals on the other hand seem to only focus on failures or perceived failures, somehow want their own Party in a country, which has only really supported a 2 Party system over the course of 200+ years of elections (i.e. the Nader voters in 2000) and are willing to throw their hands up and say “I quit”, because the one Party willing to listen to them doesn’t do everything they want.

  124. 124
    Tlaloc says:

    Christ people. Health care is now a right.

    No, you fucking tool, it’s not a right. It’s a threat. “Buy health insurance or we’ll punish you.” Some right. You’d probably be less of a douchebag if you stopped pretending that you’re convincing enough to pull off these kinds of lies, Cole. We know what Obama’s term has consisted of and it’s been 100% sucking wallstreet cock and coddling torturers while pissing on progressives, gays, latinos, and civil libertarians.

    But go ahead and scream at just how unappreciated you and the other obots are for al you’ve done for us. I’m sure it must just hurt your tender fee fees.

    Oh and fuck you. Enjoy November.

  125. 125
    gene108 says:

    @S Brennan:

    I get annoyed with friends in finance, who work in NYC because they are convinced huge tax increases and potential government take over of something is lurking around the corner. I think they are being paranoid because somewhere, someone speculated on how a VAT would work in the U.S., for example.

    I think liberals accusing President Obama of the: “destruction of SSI/Medicare”, are just as culpable for giving into paranoia because a commission made some suggestions. There isn’t anything tangible to indicate Democrats will act to change Social Security and Medicare anytime soon.

    As far as FISA, TARP, etc. go, President Obama has been disappointing (for lack of a better word) in doubling down on Bush & Co.’s security state, though he did make effective use of TARP funds in bailing out GM and Chrysler.

  126. 126
    Kerry Reid says:

    @dj spellchecka:

    Gosh, if only Lessig and other members of the Professional Left were smart enough to understand that candidates for president ALWAYS run for office AS IF they don’t have to deal with Congress. Whining “But … but .. he PROMISED!” shows one up as a naive idealist who has never given a moment’s though to how strategy plays out in the real world.

    But hey — here’s a quote from a guy who made a hard promise to America on the campaign trail:

    With the nation facing huge deficits, Mondale told the voters that a raise in taxes was inevitable. “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I,” he said. “He won’t tell you, I just did.”

    Remind me how that 1984 election turned out, again?

  127. 127

    Three words, John:

    Global fucking warming.

    We didn’t do it in this Congress, and even if the Dem losses this November are fairly small (let’s say we wind up with 230 House seats and 55 Senate seats in January), there’s still almost no chance we’ll do anything about climate change in the next Congress.

    It’s getting harder and harder to visualize a political path to doing something about global warming before it gets into a self-reinforcing feedback loop. I may be in my 50s, but barring surprises, I’ll live long enough to see whether we succeeded or failed, and unfortunately, right now failure’s favored by about 6-1 odds.

    My son, my little boy who is the apple of my eye, might well live to 2100. (He’s just turned 3.) He’ll get to spend most of his life in a world suffering the consequences of our failure.

    It really wasn’t my plan for my son to spend his life in that sort of world.

    Yeah, I’m despondent. Please don’t tell me to get over it. It’s unlikely that that will be possible.

  128. 128

    @BTD:

    Only if you’re obsessed with semantics and sticking it to corporations for the fun of it… which sadly seems to define many progressives these days.

    If you care about getting health care to people who need it, then the perfect is the enemy of the good.

  129. 129
  130. 130
  131. 131
    BTD says:

    @J.W. Hamner:

    What the fuck does that even mean? Are you now stating that the issue of regulating the private insurance companies is just a figment of my imagination?

    Sheesh.

  132. 132
    Tone in DC says:

    @You Don’t Say:

    I cannot believe the race is even close. This Angle person is damn near certifiable.

    Then again, so are George Allen and Bob McDonnell. :-/

  133. 133
    Pussin says:

    Yeah, I’m despondent. Please don’t tell me to get over it. It’s unlikely that that will be possible.

    Jesus F. Unbelievable Christ, what a narcissistic whiner. I tell you, I have never seen such a group of people that loved wallowing in their own shit as much as the ones that post here. You all really that bad off? Try ECT, or alcoholism, or maybe spending the weekend in Somalia.

    And go fuck yourselves and get a life while you’re at it. Honest to god.

  134. 134
    DPirate says:

    Health care is a right? Isn’t that like saying a driver’s license is a right? Or that I have the right to pay taxes?

    Tlaloc is insulting, but disregarding the personal remarks I agree with his basis. Health care reform is great but overall, when I think of Obama, I am reminded of that cartoon about the difference between dems and reps: that the dems just paint smiley faces on the bombs. Meet the new boss…

    What kind of government targets people for assassination, anyway? Or declares a lawyer a terrorist for giving legal advice to his client? Is this somehow rolling back “excesses” of Bush? Is it ok now because we are forced to purchase health insurance? You know, so when they torture me I can get myself looked at…

  135. 135
    DougJ says:

    The base of the GOP wouldn’t be whining and moaning that they hadn’t gotten around to outlawing homosexuality and that abortion is still legal in some cases so Bush is just a miserable failure and they are just too damned depressed to manage to whip up any enthusiasm to go to the polls.

    What on earth makes you say that? Of course they would.

  136. 136

    @BTD:

    What the fuck does that even mean? Are you now stating that the issue of regulating the private insurance companies is just a figment of my imagination?
    Sheesh.

    Well, now I don’t know what you mean.

    I am stating that a lot of people are obsessed about distinctions without differences, and lose sight of what the real issue is, in favor of dreams of putting insurance agents heads on pikes.

    Regulating private insurance is hard, but there is no reason it can’t work… certainly the Netherlands seem to provide an example of such.

    However, some people seem to believe that any solution to getting coverage to people that leaves a private insurance system in place as an utter failure. I really, and honestly, can’t comprehend such a position. I can agree that single payer is the best choice, but I find it immoral to prefer the status quo to what was passed, simply because someone thinks it’s a better path to single payer.

  137. 137
    numbskull says:

    @chopper:

    you talking to cole? if so, then you haven’t been around here much.

    I’m talking to Cole, but mainly, to everyone else. Not sure about how long I need to have been around to ask those questions, but I’ve been around here since the Shiavo days. And my equipment is 12 inches long and I crap bigger turds than you. What’s your point?

    For all the bitching back and forth, how many of you here actually do something that will actually move your positions forward in the real world? I’ve done and continue to do what I posted above. I’ve also made several trips to the Hill and sat in Congresspersons’ offices advocating for positions with staffers. So let me pin a big fucking medal on my chest. Woo hoo!

    And if you’re asking “well, does that mean your opinion holds any more weight in this conversation?” I’d have to respond “is there any doubt?” :)

    Seriously, a lot of people are arguing here as if their stance, one way or another, makes any difference. It doesn’t, beyond maybe helping you and me think further about our positions. That’s the beginning, middle, and end of the impact of everything that happens here or on other blogs.

    There are legitimate reasons for voters to be unhappy with the Administration. It is also legitimate for people to the left of the President to criticize his policies as being sub-optimal. That’s pretty simple. I am less than impressed when a bunch of whiners tell me that there is some problem with this. It’s a feature of democracy, not a bug.

    And if you don’t like my opinion, or if you don’t like how it’s presented, BFD. Why don’t you get good and mad and go open the next bag of chips and fire off another zinger telling me why I shouldn’t bitch about getting a quarter loaf when I know damned well a half loaf was never even put on the negotiating table.

    Or, why don’t you get good and mad and get off your ass and actually start doing what it takes to get your policy positions enacted? I phone banked 14 people last night and spent half this afternoon dealing with county officials on worker compensation. What the fuck did you do?

    Of course, it may be that everything that’s happening is perfectly in line with your political concerns. Good, I honestly am pleased for you. I disagree with you, but I’m please that at least one person is happy.

  138. 138
    Bob Loblaw says:

    Christ, this place gets clownshoey all over the place.

    Cole, you need to work out your schizophrenia. You can’t go three hours from bemoaning the failed economic policies of the administration to then saying he’s a shining beacon of light in a sea of darkness that we should all be lucky to have in our lives. You’re going to get whiplash.

    This fearful path you’re on is no way to continue. You’re going to lose your mind. Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, that’s because the $787B “insurance policy” never had a Plan B attached to it. I’m sure the politics on the ground had a lot to say on that, but it is what it is. The nasty libruls got it right again. They do that sometimes.

    The HIR is a great bill, not an amazing one, but it does its job. It’s a new floor to build off of, mostly through HHS. But neither is health care any more of a right than it was before. You’ve obviously never seen how Medicaid works. If it was really a right, it wouldn’t be so easily disenfranchisable.

    The two points are neither competing nor incompatible. People need to chill out and try developing a coherent worldview for a change. Or at least, not bitching about short term news cycles and impetuous voters. Consistency motherfuckers. Consistency.

  139. 139
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @numbskull:

    I phone banked 14 people last night and spent half this afternoon dealing with county officials on worker compensation.

    I like this as an example of the distinction between having big claims and complaints and an overarching agenda, on the one hand, and working hard to get shit done while navigating the monster of a system that currently exists, on the other. I have nothing but respect for people who do both. What I feel like I get online is a lot of bewailing that big transformation hasn’t happened fast enough, _without_ the corresponding sense of praxis for how to make small, positive adjustments in the meantime.

  140. 140
    JITC says:

    As has been pointed out a number of times in this thread, I am surprised by the number of people who thought Obama was a liberal when his record wasn’t particularly liberal (it was left of center) and he campaigned on left of center policies.

    More to the topic of the thread IMO the health care reform process did more for the single payer movement than anything in a long time. It did so in these ways and more:

    1) Despite it not being “on the table” and single payer activists being shut out of the official proceedings, influential blogs, groups and more DID talk about it. More people were educated about single payer in the last couple years on a national level than in the 2 years before that. That’s a good thing.

    2) To Cole’s statement that “Health care is now a right” I agree in the sense that now many, many more Americans believe that. More and more Americans see it as fundamental as food and shelter.

    3) The insurance industry is correctly perceived as a hindrance in delivering health care. They realize that more insurance company profit = less health care. A lot of people still don’t see that we can’t have for profit insurance in the equation (they just don’t want the government to be in the “insurance business”). But once the majority recognize that profiting from health insurance ALWAYS increased health costs and decreases health care services to patients we can move on from there.

    4) A large number of Americans realize that there are millions of uninsured people in this country and that it is a problem EVEN FOR THE INSURED (E.R. costs get passed onto the insured, taxes are used to reimburse E.R.s, etc.).

    5) A large number of Americans know about “under-insurance and are no longer content to believe that “I have mine so it’s all good.” They are beginning to notice that their premiums and co-pays are going up and they are getting less and less care. They are beginning to notice that they are stuck in crappy jobs so they don’t lose coverage. They realize that if they are unemployed, they can’t just take a part-time job (or 2 or 3) to make ends meet because part-time jobs offer no insurance.

    6) What was passed does indeed help some of the most worse off in our society in terms of access to health care. Given all of the above, our mission is to cover the rest of the worst off and improve coverage and cost for ALL Americans.

    I don’t think it can be done nationally. I’m impressed we got what we got (though I do think with more support, we might have got the public option).

    But we have to get single payer state-by-state. Google “Health Care For All” and your state. There is http://healthcareforamericanow.org/ nationally. There is http://www.healthcareforall.org and http://www.californiaonecare.org. Check out the Mad As Hell Doctors, an off shoot of Physicians for a National Health Plan which also recognizes the strategy of working state-by-state.

    If your state isn’t working on single payer, support organizations working in states that are (e.g. California). That’s how Canada did it (province by province). We can do it here too.

  141. 141
    Douche Baggins says:

    @low-tech cyclist: My son, my little boy who is the apple of my eye, might well live to 2100. (He’s just turned 3.) He’ll get to spend most of his life in a world suffering the consequences of our failure.

    It really wasn’t my plan for my son to spend his life in that sort of world.

    Yeah, I’m despondent. Please don’t tell me to get over it. It’s unlikely that that will be possible.

    Boo freakin hoo. I have an apple tree of my own — 6, 4, and 2, and 6 days old — and I’ll be fucked sideways if my kids don’t spend their lives being part of the solution, not part of the whiny-ass problem.

    Dude, you won the birth lottery. You’re (presumably) a white male born on the North American landmass in the 1950’s. You don’t have the right to whine anymore; you have nothing to complain about.

    And (and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but) our species has the hardiness of cucarachas. We’re not orchids. We will adapt to whatever nature throws our way. Your son, also a winner of the lottery, will lead the way, if you let him.

  142. 142
    shep says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    It’s a joy in making a pronouncement that you have superior taste and/or intelligence.

    Trust me when I tell you that nothing sucks worse for a liberal than always being right, despite the incredible joy of feeling superior to people who are sure Barack Obama is a Muslim Socialist who was born in Kenya. And many of the things we’re right about right now would scare the living shit out of you, especially if you knew you were right about them.

  143. 143
    JITC says:

    Oh, and per the lame graph in the article? Really? We should be surprised that there is less interest in a mid-term election than a presidential election?

    More interesting and relevant would be comparisons of 2006 to 2010 interest levels.

    True, the graph does show over all that liberals, Obama voters, blacks and young voters are all less interested in the elections than Republicans. But that comes with the “I want to vote the people I hate out” territory.

    One of the many problems with 2010 Democratic campaigning is that they are allowing it to be about whether Democrats should continue to hold the House, Senate and White House. Instead, it should be about individual Republicans who are running at all levels of government who simply suck (think Meg Whitman, Sharon Angle, Carley Fiorina, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ken Buck in Colorado and more).

    Want to bring out the “passion” in Democratic voters? Point out all the candidates that have Sarah Palin’s endorsement.

  144. 144
    BTD says:

    @J.W. Hamner:

    Now we neither know what each other means.

    Actually I think we do. You favor a market based exchange approach to health care reform.

    I favor an expansion of a public insurance based approach.

    There is no reason for you to be upset with HCR in the least.

    We have a different view of the issue.

    You think that males you “pragmatic.” I think it makes you foolish.

    And vice versa.

    Time will tell who was right.

    But more importantly, it explains our divergent views on how wonderful the health bill was. You of course love it, rightly so, given your views on the private insurance industry and the ability of the government to regulate it.

    People disagree about shit. Where’s the fire?This is sort of my point about how ridiculous Cole is to be upset with people who don’t see it his way.

  145. 145
    Bill Hicks says:

    Cole is part of the Bob Cesca/Ezra Klein/Matt Yglesias cabal. You know, the people who just blindly pull the Democrat lever and get mad and pouty at people who don’t. They get especially mad at anyone who holds Democrats accountable.

    Please note that Cole’s comments contains NO FACTS. NONE. Just conjecture. Alternatively, one can read Greenwald’s recent work which documents numerous instance of Obama completely reversing himself on campaign promises. Promises that HE MADE. Promises that HE ALONE had the power to keep. No matter to apologists like Cole. It’s much easier to whine and pout at progressives for pointing that out.

    The problem with the Cole/Bob Cesca/Ezra Klein/Matt Yglesias is that they don’t get it. They are not progressives. Being a progressive is not synonymous with pulling the Democrat lever every time. That’s what Cole wants, no matter what. Sorry Cole – unlike you, we like to use our brains.

  146. 146
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @shep:
    Is this a parody?

    @Bill Hicks:

    Sorry Cole – unlike you, we like to use our brains.

    I’ll refer you to my earlier comment. Are you a “progressive,” or just smug? There’s actually a difference.

  147. 147
    Robert Waldmann says:

    I’m not sure I agree that if Bush had such a legislative season that there would be no more capital gains ever — just losses until the economy returned to the stone age.

    Seems plausible at first, but I’d guess the economy would have recovered within a century at most.

    Or did you mean to write that capital gains taxes would have been eliminated ?

    Never mind

  148. 148
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    I still haven’t figured out why I need to put a skimpy cheerleader outfit on and shake pompoms just because a Democrat is President. If he delivers, I’ll spread my legs. If he doesn’t, I won’t.

    You sycophants disturb me.

  149. 149
    lawnorder says:

    OK let’s see why I’m despondent.

    Obama and his team were brilliant during the campaign. They came from behind with zero odds against the natural incumbent ant obliterated Hillary. Without having even to resort to right wing tactics. I saw nothing not even close to 10% of the skills he and his team had on the campaign, after he got sworn in.

    Obama and his team were to the left of Hillary during the campaign. Now he is to the right of Arlen specter.

    All the laundry list of accomplishments you mention is just that. A list of labels. It’s good. But after Bush just good isn’t enough.

  150. 150
    Ruthless says:

    Shorter John Cole:
    “You guys should just shut up and be thrilled that with total control of the House, 60 seats (at least at one point) in the Senate, plus the White House, the Democratic Party managed to pass the 1994 House Republicans’ health care proposal.”

    Seriously?!

    Do I think that’s good reason for Democrats to stay home on election day? No. But let’s not pretend we don’t have reason to be unenthusiastic.

  151. 151
    Alan in SF says:

    John, health care is a “right” that my family pays $20,000 a year for, as long as we don’t actually use it. When the ACA finally kicks in 3 or 4 years from now, my family will, if current trends hold, pay $30,000 a year for, if we don’t use it.

  152. 152
    S Brennan says:

    Oh yeah…it’s gonna be another campaign season…

    August 13th, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    S Brennan

    Sorry folks, Obama has been “taking up the fight” to continue/expand Bush’s [the 2nd] wars, FISA,TARP, Torture, destruction of SSI/Medicare…and other extremist right wing policies. He is the mostly widely supported right winger this country has had since Reagan…good stuff if you are connected, or wealthy…or want to see this empire crumble
    ReplyReply
    #
    122
    August 13th, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    Dave

    @S Brennan:

    Congratulations. You win the 2010 award for “Dumbest Fucking Thing Ever Said on Balloon Juice”.

    Dave represents one of Obama’ s most eloquent speakers

  153. 153
    S Brennan says:

    “It’s hard to believe that a two-year senator from Chicago with a background in “community organizing” presides over this elaborate and opaque system of imperial rule. He doesn’t, of course. The real leaders remain hidden behind the cloak of democratic government and all of Washington’s phony institutions. Obama is merely a public relations hologram, a friendly face that conceals the machinations of a global Mafia. Other people–whoever they may be–control the levers of power moving the pieces as needed to assure the best outcome for themselves and their constituents.”

    http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney08102010.html

  154. 154
    DPirate says:

    @S Brennan: Well, duh. Point being, if he was worth his salt he would do something about it. He isn’t; he wants his place in Paraguay, too.

  155. 155
    Socraticsilence says:

    @BTD:

    I’m sorry but you actually consider the Clinton Budget in 1993 a bigger accomplishment than HCR that’s insane- given this position its hard to take your other analysis of the Obama admin’s achievements without a grain of salt.

  156. 156
    johnny walker says:

    @Lolis: As a disabled person, I have a variety of opinions about people who trash the bill from the left depending on what their criticisms are and how they go about making them. I am generally sympathetic to their arguments.

    Obviously I don’t know you, so I can’t tell if you’re just giving an opinion or doing the “well I’m from interest group X and therefore my opinion is more valid” thing, but I’ll just say that disabled people are not monolithic.

  157. 157
    johnny walker says:

    @Sentient Puddle: Well I looked at the chart and you’re correct, but they are pretty close to 2008’s level of enthusiasm. Now let me ask you: how have you missed the massive discrepancies in enthusiasm between Republicans and every other group shown on that chart?

    Are you really saying that having Republicans lose a very small amount of enthusiasm while democratic-voting groups go in the tank is not a bad sign? …really? I think maybe you missed the forest for the (singular) tree there bud.

    @taylormattd: Maybe you’re a lawyer but I’m guessing you’re not a trial lawyer? Yes, good job. People often use phrases inaccurately. It’s almost as though that’s the point of what BTD said! Crazy, I know.

  158. 158
    CreativeAnarchy says:

    I’m confused about this. I haven’t ever met one of these anti-Obama democrats. Many of us wish that the Obama Administration would show a little more backbone but nobody is unhappy that they’re making the pendulum swing back closer to the center. I’ve seen democratic criticism on TV but I’ve also seen a talking car that seems to think David Hasselhoff is cool. I wouldn’t dwell as much on what the media thinks or wants you to think.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] here’s an argument I am sick to damn death of hearing: Sure, HCR may have been a mess with huge bailouts and bribes […]

Comments are closed.