Commenter metrico suggests that I’m setting up for a public switch from Obama to McCain in the hopes of an Instalanche (dude, I’m not nearly that cheap…). I kind of liked my reply, so thought I’d promote it:
hey, metrico – bite me. That’s all the answer your insult deserves.
It’s kinda funny – I get about a dozen emails a week from R’s who push me to come over to their side – they make arguments, suggestions, and at worst gently mock me. I get about as many from the D side – who want me to get the hell out of their party and make that desire really really clear.
I’m kind of reminded of the line from ‘High Fidelity’:
“Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t know it was classified information. I mean, I know we don’t have any customers, but I thought that was a bad thing, not like, a business strategy.”
I always thought the goal was to grow the party and win elections by big margins, not purify it in the cleansing fire of our righteousness.
Obviously, metrico, we ought to belong to different parties. I suggest you leave.
A.L.
A.L., the problem with inviting metrico to leave “your party” is that the people paying for the party seem to prefer the metrico demographic to the Armed Liberal demographic.
Until the buying power of MoveOn et.al. is somehow countered, expect to see more of the banana republic tactics you’ve been seeing from their command-and-control model of operation. After all, that’s how Big Business has traditionally worked.
(As an aside, what really disturbs me is the lemming-like way the troops follow their marching orders over the demographic cliff. But then again, a number of people are perfectly happy to pay 4X the price for a pair of shoes with the hip label, so I guess it isn’t an isolated phenomenon. In Darwinian terms, I guess it’s like sacrificing aerodynamic performance for the mating advantage of a really rockin’ peacock tail. Gotta wonder what the Irish Elk tipping point will be.)
One side is looking for converts and the other is looking for heretics. Not tough to figure out which is which.
“One side is looking for converts and the other is looking for heretics. Not tough to figure out which is which.”
So then both want the flow to go in the same direction. Why the fuss?
I am rather confident that AL will become a “Lieberman” and change from Democrat to Independent at some point in the near future. I do not approve of Republicans armtwisting him to join the GOP. That is not what we are about. Voluntary support is the only proper kind.
“I always thought the goal was to grow the party and win elections by big margins, not purify it in the cleansing fire of our righteousness.”
Indeed, that is what the Republican party does. The party that goes for ideological purity ensures a rapid alienation of their voters.
1) Zell Miller, a Democrat, spoke at the RNC while still in office.
2) Joe Lieberman almost became VPOTUS in 2000. Now, he speaks at the RNC just 8 years later. Would anyone have predicted that?
3) And now, who would have ever believed that fervent supporters of Hillary Clinton may actually vote for the Republican candidate?
Earlier today, I drew the parallel between Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the hard left. Each one courted disaster by alienating their less extreme supporters. The parallels are uncanny, and the hard left will suffer a defeat much like AQI did.
An AL sentence from earlier :
“And as much as I may prefer Obama and liberal domestic policies, I value the Republic more.”
Go to an Obama/DNC campaign or fundraising event, and utter the above sentence, and then see if the people there are still friendly with you. Try it.
Fight them if you wish, but be honest with yourself about whether most of them are really like you.
My “I didn’t move away from the DCrats, they moved away from me” Reagan-moment was in 2002, when 9/11 was still fresh in the mind, but leftists were excusing it/condoning it/blaming America. That is what did it for me (and I was an Ohio voter in 2004). Very costly mistake, Dems.
Doesn’t matter your registration, just how you vote in the general. So keep your D and vote the way you want.
That is from a Republican.
A.L. – The way that I look at it, the chances of major changes in social policy with a Dem-dominated congress and McCain as president is about zero.
The way I figure it, McCain would prevent the congress from indulging in their worst excesses of the left while being powerless to force the worst excesses of the right. Obama, on the other hand, will not only permit but would actively encourage the worst excesses of the left. Put that together with 2nd amendment issues and this election is a no-brainer for me.
_I am rather confident that AL will become a “Lieberman” and change from Democrat to Independent at some point in the near future._
I wouldn’t bet on it. Zell Miller has never left the Democratic Party, and neither have I. I’m not sure what AL’s reasons are, but in my case, the Party used to stand for something worthwhile — the yeoman farmer, the small farmer, the independent businessman, the intersection of Jefferson’s and Jackson’s approach to individual liberty and service to the nation. Maybe it will again: but even if it doesn’t, I’m here to remind them of what they’re supposed to be.
There’s reason to believe that it might even work. A lot of the Democratic victors in 2006 were relatively conservative, which is one reason that the Democratic Congress hasn’t been able to accomplish much: the party leadership is WAY to the left of the party base.
At some point, that electoral calculation will work itself out. The party is being paid for by radicals, even foreign radicals through NGOs like Soros’ money-laundering operation. Yet they can only govern when they win votes, and they win votes by moving right. Someday that will sink in, and the money will dry up — because it’s wasted.
I recall Jim Leach and a number of other Republicans endorsing Obama at the Democratic Convention, just without so much media interest.
As usual, GK confuses fantasy with reality. The overwhelming majority of Clinton supporters are lining up behind Obama.
The reason I left the Republican party in 1992 was that it was obvious to me that the social conservatives were not going to stop expanding the areas of my life they wanted control over until they had the whole thing. Apparently a lot of other people made the same decision, and the Republicans lost the Presidency in 1992, and didn’t get it back in 1996. (And frankly, the reason that the Republicans gained the House in 1994 was the same reason they lost it in 2006: corruption of the majority party.) It was only when the social conservatives were removed from the party’s leadership positions after 1996 (sadly, followed by the Gingrich type economic conservatives/social libertarians a couple of years later) and the East Coast Establishment types put back in charge that the Republicans started winning elections again. Even now, my votes tend to go about 2/3 independent, 1/3 Republican and a very small number of Democrats (mostly at the local level).
Right now, the frothing progressives are in control of the Democratic Party, and until they are driven out by the DLC types or some similarly less nutty group, the Democrats will continue to lurch leftwards, attempting to destroy free market capitalism, socialize everything they can, and generally communalize the country. (That’s not meant as a slur, exactly. Just as the Religious Right wants control of social behavior, so does the progressive Left want control of economic behavior.)
It’s yet to be seen whether people will generally tolerate that. It seems that, for now at least, AL will do so, including with his vote. That’s his call, of course. I just hope, AL, that you don’t expect that voting for the people you are hoping will lose control of the Party, won’t cause them to lose control of the Party. Only losing does that.
AL, you are going to find yourself a disarmed liberal if Obama/Biden get in the white house with a Democratic majority in Congress. This is THE dream ticket for the gun-banning crowd, Supreme Court be damned. Those “reasonable restrictions” are going to be pushed so hard Americans will be lucky to end up with a single shot black powder musket (you know, just like the one the second amendment guarantees….)
The crux of the matter is this- It does NOT MATTER what the “rank and file” believe, or if they are not really in sync with the leaders- the leaders call the shots.
Frankly, Obama scares the shit out of me- he is the perfect celebrity – and nobody really knows a thing about him. His work as a “community organizer”? (efforts? successes?) His work as a Lawyer? (any case records?) His stand on issues as a legislator? (voted present??? ) He has twisted and turned like a fish to follow any possible public opinion, immediately gutting any old allies who prove embarrassing. If this were a spy novel we would call him a mole.
“Hope” aka “wishes” and “pipedreams”
“Change” must always be for the better, eh?
I guess it must fall in line with the general victim culture to assume everything in the US is “broke” , and therefore needs “fixing”. Better hope those doing the “fixing” know which end of the screwdriver to hold.
So, I’m trying to not feed the trolls that feel the american left is the epitomy of stalin… but it’s so hard…
To be fair, I’ve been…. frustrated by the democratic party. Many times I like the things they say and the ideas they put forward. Furthermore, I want those ideas to come in rational form, I want a democratic regime to tame republican impulses (and vice versa).
The (main) problem is that things are so partisan that it has become impossible to share and moderate ideas. The minority sits quietly on its hands while the fringe elements of the “majority” tries to shove legislation down their throat. Doesn’t matter if we’re talking R’s or D’s here.
And after 8 years of Bush, liberals are just dying to get their hands back on the agenda and shake the etch-a-sketch clean again.
I agree with you, that’s not going to work. We need to go past the present, build partnerships that reward liberal and conservative thought. My biggest hope for Obama is that he would try to bring back that melding. Hopefully he will try, though I have some doubts. And even if he tries, will republicans be willing to listen? (posts above give me doubt).
So to tangent the conversation, my questions are:
1) How do we get a major politician elected that can lead us away from (total) partisanship?
2) How does that politician even take the first step?
Well, it’s a broken record by now – but – the reason why liberals and democrats criticize you strongly, has nothing to do with being an “innate” democrat. It has to do with your constant concern troll criticism of democrats. That you always see the mote in democrats, while most of the time, ignoring the beam in Republicans.
It would be the same thing, if you were a conservative always criticizing conservatives. These conservatives here wouldn’t be giving you such a great time. I can bring you example after example of, say McCain, back when he hadn’t bent knee to the Dobson’s of the republican party, metaphorically getting the stuffing knocked out of him on conservative sites.
It’s what you DO, and to think you are innocent in this, and can’t see that YOU are generating this reaction from liberals, bespeaks either a massive blind spot, or engaging in crocodile tears.
And I’ve been reading you enough to believe you are emotionally aware enough, to realize that you know that constant criticism, in the name of “helping” your friend, your party, a member of your family, and a lack of fairness and justice in the criticism, INEVITABLY generate a very human reaction.
Try doing that with your two kids, by the way. If you have standards, and both don’t live up to your standards, but you are silent on the one’s misbehavior, while constantly criticizing the other. See what that does for you.
Of course, you know all this. Why in the world, you maintain this fiction, when EVERYONE who reads this site knows it, is unknown, but clearly a conscious strategy of yours. I have guesses on the reason why you have this strategy. One day, maybe you’ll come clean about the reason for your strategy. But after, what, a couple of years now, of me reading this site, I’m not holding my breath.
But, note – you are insulting our intelligence by pretending otherwise.
hypo:
I don’t know who EVERYONE is, but I read this site and I flatly deny what you’re saying.
I like to joust at A.L. for his Democratic loyalties, but I respect him because those loyalties are thicker than water. Reasonable people can differ in their judgments, believe it or not.
I certainly don’t know it to be a fiction or a strategy, and if that’s what you think I wonder why you bother.
Alchemist (#11) has a pair of very good questions.
My initial impulse answer is that the gerrymandering system has to go before we’ll see any progress. When politicians can choose voters, the incentive for nutbars to change, or for parties to pull out all the stops to cut them off before they become candidates, drops sharply. I mean, it’s not as if you’re all that likely to lose that well engineered district anyway. So why expend the political capital?
GIGO, as they say.
“As usual, GK confuses fantasy with reality. The overwhelming majority of Clinton supporters are lining up behind Obama.”
er….I have obliterated you in every debate we have had. This is why you are too afraid to engage further.
And yes, you have jumped the sea-cucumber long ago.
I did not say ‘majority’ (see how leftists need to lie and erect a strawman). I do think 1 million out of the 18 million will cross over, which is still devastating.
As usual, your strawman does not even have enough straw in it.
The problem is, the block of voters that Democrats get automatically, without having to ‘earn’ the votes, has reached critical mass.
About 40% of the US population will vote Democrat no matter what, as they are not politically mature. 90% of African-Americans vote Democrat, even though, historically, Democrats have caused almost all the injustices that blacks have suffered in the US, from the Civil War to George Wallace, and have a KKK Kleagle as their seniormost Senator to this day.
Since the Democrats will get a certain block of votes no matter what, they have no incentive to improve or deliver anything.
This, in turn, worsens the GOP as well, as we no longer have a system where two parties are competing on who can improve America more.
A third party could cause disruptive change, but could backfire spectacularly as well (as how Clinton won in 1992 with just 41% of the vote).
GK, our earlier debate was silly. The short version rank like this.
GK: Palin is awesome, Reps got $7MM.
AJL: Obama is even more awesome, he got $10MM.
GK: Money doesn’t matter that much because the GOP is more efficient.
Let’s face it. You thought Palin as a money draw was something to crow about. Then Obama’s numbers came out and you got pwned.
As far as Hillary voters, if Obama gets 17 of the 18 million, he will win in a huge landslide. That’s probably higher than his own internal target.
I appreciate the black Democrats==immature claim. You forgot to mention that the Democratic candidate is uppity, though.
To comment on 14,
Insightful comment.
Joe, what’s up with the (mostly) sensible comments you’ve made recently? You REALLY have to stop making sensible comments – it’s going to ruin my image of you.
🙂
Alchemist #11 – I really agree – in fact that original impulse to bipartisanship was what originally attracted me to Obama back when the Kossacks were slagging him for being insufficiently pure (before he was magically transformed into The One). And I retain hope that he can/will do that although that hope is getting tarnished…
I genuinely believe that the place for this is at the local (state legislature/Congress) level, because I really do believe that someone who said, look this is all stupid and unproductive would get shunned by the party apparatus, but the stakes are small enough that a combo of volunteers and ‘net fundraising/activism could compete with it.
I’m sniffing around my area tossing out bait, trying to see who I can induce to run, but nothing yet. I’ll make a big deal of it if I find it.
hypo #12 – you just haven’t read me far back enough I guess. I’ve said forever that lots of people are doing a better job than I can (or care to) of being partisan hodcarriers for the Democrats; what’s needed is a reformation of the party, and I’ve taken as one of my blog projects figuring out what that might look like and throwing some pebbles in that direction.
If that makes me a concern troll, meh. It’s a stupid meme set up be people who figure if they shout enough people down they can transform from astrologers to major party spokesmen, and to be honest I don’t value their opinions all that highly.
A.L.
A.L.,
Again, you ignore your responsibility in the reaction you are getting. You say:
_I always thought the goal was to grow the party and win elections by big margins, not purify it in the cleansing fire of our righteousness._
As if your ACTIONS have nothing to do, with getting that response.
I’m saying, again, that this is human nature, the reaction you are receiving, GIVEN your actions, and what you criticize (unfairly).
Don’t pretend that you are innocent victim here of ‘stepping out of line with orthodoxy’. No. You are the agent, and are generating these reactions, based on simple psychology of how you treat “your” side.
He is the agent, because he stepped out of line with orthodoxy? How are you not making his point for him. It’s functionally the same response as “she wouldn’t have gotten raped if she hadn’t dressed provocatively.” If that’s the message (the partisan one, not the rape one; that was just an analogy), then go for it, but don’t be surprised when moderate voters fall away from the Party.
The reality is that there are poles of partisanship, and the closer someone is to a partisan pole, the more likely that they are to criticize someone further from it. So you, hypo, are apparently fairly close to the Democrat pole, and are criticizing AL for being further from it. He wants to move the pole; you want him to come to where it is. The Libertarians and Republicans have their own poles, with the Libertarians generally having succeeded in driving off all but the most committed partisans and the Republicans being in a cycle of winning them back.
Frankly, from my experience with those near the Republican and Libertarian poles, it is very likely that AL’s observation is correct, and that Democrat partisans, feeling themselves strong enough to not need those who only agree with them most of the time, are driving off the moderately Democratic types. You are somewhat lucky, in that AL is apparently a masochist, and is still voting Democrat and presumably donating that way.
Jeff,
Are you even trying to see my point? I’ts not that hard.
Once more – he criticizes the mote in the democrats eyes, while ignoring the mote in the Republicans eyes.
There is no fairness, no objectivity, no good judgment, a double standard, and – BIASED, BIASED, BIASED. To make an example –
Armed Liberal is like Cinderella’s stepmother. She was incredibly BIASED towards her three children, while treating Cinderalla with criticism, contempt, and double-standards (Cinderella did all the chores, while the her natural kids got off scotfree.)
But A.L. is even worse – he is treating Cinderella (the democratic party) horribly, and with a double standard over the other daughter (the Republican party), and yet, claims to be CINDERELLA’S mother!!
Rightfully, liberals and democrats bash A.L. for the DOUBLE-STANDARD – which he – of course, as is his right – says is because “he chooses to focus on reformation of the democratic party”.
And that’s fine.
Nevertheless, it’s a double standard – and so again, his choice to always be applying a double standard, be critical, etc, is OF COURSE going to generate a negative reaction.
Don’t take this analogy too literally, of course.
But it’s perfectly understandable, and A.L. shouldn’t be shocked that people complain about his double-standard, when his double standard always favors Republican talking points.
Also, I’ve stopped making this point in the various posts – no point anymore, and I concentrate on the content of that post – but since this PARTICULAR post is about this subject, and initiated by A.L. – it’s worthwhile making it again.
I’m a Democrat, and I routinely criticize Democrats. I’m a Zell Miller Democrat from the Great State of Georgia, and nobody ever says boo about it. I’ve even been known to support a Republican when the alternative was worse (Bush v. Kerry) or if I particularly liked them (Gov. Palin).
I don’t get this kind of reaction.
It’s not about the party, but the ideology. The hate that AL encounters isn’t really about him calling himself a Democrat. It’s about him calling himself a liberal, without kowtowing to every line of the usual creed.
It’s not about politics. It’s about heresy.
So, he’s not biased in the sense you mean. He’s a committed liberal, who is worried that the religion-style approach, the heretic-punishing approach, will destroy the movement he’s interested in seeing advanced.
I’m actually biased against liberalism (although not, I hope, against liberals). I think you’re just plain wrong. And I’m also a Democrat. But I never get this kind of garbage from people, which he gets all the time.
But hypo, I’ve explicitly said I don’t care what happens to the GOP. Why should I try and improve them?
A.L.
hypocrisyrules:
So by your argument, all the people who criticize America while ignoring the faults of other countries really aren’t patriotic and their protestations to the contrary can be dismissed because their simply “concern trolls”.
Good to know.
“…when his double standard always favors Republican talking points.”
NO.
AL favors PRO-US, LOGICAL talking points. These should be characteristics of both parties. Sadly, this is now only a characteristic of the GOP, by hypo’s own admission.
Both parties should be pro-US and logical. Until early 2002, I thought they were.
Here in the Bay Area, when anyone has a US flag bumper sticker or a flag in their front yard, the natural reaction is “he must be a Republican.” Thus, the Bay Area lefties themselves admit that they are no longer pro-US.
I would like nothing more than for the Democratic party to reflect AL’s views. I would gladly vote for such a party. AL thinks he can still fight to make it so. I think the noble effort cannot succeed.
AL’s earlier sentence, if uttered at an Obama fundraiser or event, would invite hostility or even violence :
“”And as much as I may prefer Obama and liberal domestic policies, I value the Republic more.””
“I’m a Zell Miller Democrat from the Great State of Georgia, and nobody ever says boo about it. ”
Guess what. I am an Indian-American almost-vegetarian atheist/agnostic, who is big on evolution, transhumanism, technological singularity, econo-geekdom, and a registered Independent. I have never fired a gun, and things like shooting an innocent animal would be unthinkable to me. But I would never even think of voting for Kerry, Obama, etc. I only voted for the first time in 2004, aged 30.
Many people in the Bay Area HATE me, because I don’t fit the identity politics narrative. Of course, these people think that the US interior (Ohio, Georgia, Texas, etc.) is a worse place to live than a developing country like India or the Phillipines (even though the latter have very shoddy roads, electricity rationed to be available only 6 days a week, traffic beyond what any American can imagine, etc.)
I haven’t been to India, but I hear good things about it. I liked the Philippines just fine.
Georgia is still better, though: but only because God saved back His best work for her.
“I haven’t been to India, but I hear good things about it. I liked the Philippines just fine.”
The point is, if you tell the typical San Franciscan that you are moving to Atlanta, the reaction will be “Ewwww…..”
If you tell them you are moving to a poor country, the reaction is “Oh wow! That is wonderful!!”.
Compare the life of the *average* Filipino or Indian, to that of the average Ohioan or Georgian, for an accurate comparison. The top 1% in these countries have it made. A Western tourist there can have a great time. But living the life of an average person, or starting a business there, is a very unenviable experience. It is improving, but it still sucks. In India for example, even the rich have horrendous roads, and electricity rationing (no electricity on Sundays). Hotels that Westerners stay in have their own generators.
India and the Philipines are the second and third largest sources of immigrants to the US, presently (Mexico being the first).
You’re right, but only half right.
Try moving from San Francisco to the Philippines. If you could make a living in Fricso, you’ll be a king in Manila. It’s a fun town, and extravagantly cheap by Western standards.
Move to Atlanta, and… well.. the experience just isn’t the same. 🙂
“Try moving from San Francisco to the Philippines. If you could make a living in Fricso, you’ll be a king in Manila. ”
For me and you, yes. In aggregate, no. The direction of human migration between India/Phpines and the US is one-way.
India : Very cheap. Bombay and Bangalore are quite safe too (which I understand is not the case for Manila). Nightlife sucks as this is a sexually conservative society, and most women marry in their early 20s and start having kids. This is changing, but not fast enough.
But if you like restaurants – the variety is amazing, and the cost is about one-fifth of the equivalent caliber in the US.
The place that ‘had it all’ among those I have been to in Asia was Taipei. It is developed, clean, and safe, and ALL women were at least average looking, with many quite amazing. There were no uglies, just averages and hotties. Thus, the ‘median’ level of prettiness was high, probably higher than anywhere else I have been (which includes Sweden and France).
This is not in answer to Armed Liberal so much as to metrico, hypocrisyrules, and others who’re naturally turned off by AL’s long-running martyr routine: really, the best approach at this point is to sit back and let history prove AL wrong.
Think about it: especially in the wake of the 2004 elections, AL was preaching to any and all that’d listen to him that the Democrats were doomed, and _could not win_, unless they followed his electoral playbook, which basically means being pro-Iraq war, rolling over on abortion, and adopting what Kevin Drum pointed out were some fairly weird policies.
Come 2006, Americans, tired of one of the most inept administrations imaginable, kick out the Republicans from Congress and the Democrats win in a landslide. AL’s doomsaying is thus proved wrong.
Now it’s 2008, and while Sarah Palin’s got some media buzz, Obama’s still ahead in the polls, still ahead in the money game, and still has the big structural advantage of running against the legacy of George W Bush. The odds are still excellent that McCain will lose and the Democrats will increase their margins in Congress, and while the most important result from that’ll be that we finally have a chance to get this country back on track, a nice side benefit is that it’ll pretty conclusively undercut AL’s “the Democrats need to listen to me or they’re DOOMED” schtick.
Chris:
Obama’s still ahead in the polls
The current polls I’ve seen put Obama and McCain neck and neck, with maybe a one point spread. And they are 60 days out, so basically anything can happen. Seems to me you have your work cut out for you.
As for Kevin Drum vs Marc Danziger, Kevin’s description of AL’s expressed views in the post you linked to, parsed for relevant content, totals 20 words by my count. AL posted a response in the comments as follows:
Hardly a fair description of what we actually discussed, Kevin.
So it’s he-said, he-said. We know you don’t need any details from either side, right? Kevin said it, you believe it, that settles it.
I don’t have much to add to what hypocrisyrules said, except that criticism need not be always “constructive,” as AL like to style it.
If you want your side to win, then attack the other side for its faults. Tear the bastards down. Certainly in the case of the Republicans over the last eight years it’s warranted, isn’t it? You can find something?
Don’t sit on the bench and express a series of mealy-mouthed critiques of your own team that mirror the other sides attack axes.
If the D party is ever going to get back in the game it is going to have to stop being the party of victims.
Obama is starting to pull back from some states. Not the sign of a campaign flush with money.
He also appeared on O’Rielly. Not the sign of a guy who doesn’t need Faux News voters.
If the Rs run against the Do Nothing Congress (re: energy and oil) there is a possibility that the Rs could take at least one house. After all Congress is in lower esteem than Bush. By 3 to 1. That has taken some effort.
BTW the Ds need to purge the Marxists and learn some economics. I don’t see that happening because the Marxists represent about 1/2 the base.
And BTW Shrinking media is going to shrinking a lot more. Some have posited that a significant number of the newly unemployed came from the newspaper industry. Which had a huge round of layoffs this summer. In my town (150,000) the local Gannet rag laid off 13 in August. The NYTs laid off a bunch. etc.
Let me add that in non-caucus states O! outspent Hillary by 3:1 or more and still got beat.
In a year that the Ds should have owned they have found a way to lose.
But let me tell you the essence. O! is a weak man and the voters can smell it.
Here is my comment on Spengler’s take on the election with a link back to Spengler.
Midway for Obama
NM: So it’s he-said, he-said. We know you don’t need any details from either side, right? Kevin [Drum] said it, you believe it, that settles it.
It’s not as if the only evidence we have of AL’s opinions is a disputed account of a dinner-table conversation. AL has written quite a lot over the years. Kevin Drum’s account is quite believable – as a description of AL’s initial presentation of his views. But AL tends to start a discussion with a strong claim which invites dissent and then substitute a much weaker one when pressed. The dialogue goes something like this:
AL: Black is white.
Critic: That’s untrue.
AL: I’m quite comfortable with my claim that there are many shades of grey. If you disagree I can only conclude that your vision is defective.
In this latest round, AL started by attacking the principle that nobody is above the law (Joe Biden having repeated that quintessentially liberal doctrine). But in subsequent comments it became clear that all AL is saying is that the Democrats shouldn’t go on a fishing expedition in order to put Bush administration officials behind bars. Of course Joe Biden never said that they would, so AL’s post was just an assault on yet another straw man.
If you believe the polls, D party identification is dropping and R party identification is rising.
The polls say 20% of the 18 million will cross over. That is 3.6 million. Some think that by election time it may be up to 30%. That is 5.4 million. Sarah, brighter than 10,000 suns, has attracted a lot of women. One of the reasons is that the Ds used the same play book on her that they did on Hillary. The D women can see it and they are furious. I hang out at PUMA sites. I have seen a fair number of women who are not just going to vote for MP but also give money and work for their election.
The Ds could be looking at a 40 state rout. Or worse.
It would be the same thing, if you were a conservative always criticizing conservatives.
Well no. The R party just nominated a guy whose acceptance speech was a very hard criticism of the R party. And the crowd went wild.
BTW I’m in total agreement with Johnny Mac’s criticism of the R party.
How do we get a major politician elected that can lead us away from (total) partisanship?
Vote for Johnny Mac who has actually walked the walk. O!? No evidence of it.
M. Simon: Yes, that’s why I voted for McCain twice as my senator. As a presidential candidate? Not so much. He seems to be backtracking and changing his opinions on everything he said before in order to put himself in better opinions with Republicans. As long as he keeps this road, he’s no longer a maverick to me. He’s gone from unusual to typical.
Yes, Obama’s current campaign is also wedging out the parties, to my dismay. Still, McCain talks about uniting the parties, but how does he plan to accomplish this? Both parties have gotten caught up in a neck-to-neck race that could easily be won or lost. Tempers are running high. Getting your VP on stage to hurl (mostly unneccessary) insults, and calling your opponent a “self-professed messiah” is straying from cooperation. And Obama’s (non-record) attacks on Palin also make things worse.
These were two politicians who seemed ideal to take the vitriol out of a presidential race. In contrast, it seems that vitrol has consumed their campaigns. So I ask again, how do we change this culture that wedges us apaprt?
Nortius:
bq. The current polls I’ve seen put Obama and McCain neck and neck, with maybe a one point spread. And they are 60 days out, so basically anything can happen. Seems to me you have your work cut out for you.
Oddly enough, the last polls I’ve seen put Obama ahead by six. That said, while we can argue endlessly about polling methodology, it unarguably the case that Obama has had a slight but very statistically significant lead the entire summer. (When one poll puts you ahead by five with a four percent margin of error it doesn’t mean much; when dozens of polls do the exact same thing, it’s highly likely that you do, in fact, have a five point lead.)
If Obama starts trending down after the Republican convention, it’ll be a bummer, but that hasn’t happened yet… and I notice that you didn’t even try to dispute my points about the money and positioning advantages Obama has. So yes, it’s not a cakewalk, but the momentum is still very much on our side, Nortius.
bq. As for Kevin Drum vs Marc Danziger, Kevin’s description of AL’s expressed views in the post you linked to, parsed for relevant content, totals 20 words by my count. AL posted a response in the comments as follows:
bq. “Hardly a fair description of what we actually discussed, Kevin.”
bq. So it’s he-said, he-said. We know you don’t need any details from either side, right? Kevin said it, you believe it, that settles it.
Hell, I’ll go you one better than that, Nortius: here’s AL’s own defense of his ideas. I repeat that some of those ideas are pretty off the wall, and/or unfeasible, with the sales-tax-paying-lower-bracket-income-taxes leading the way (note to conservatives: doesn’t really get much more tax-and-spend than that, does it?)
But the details here are almost beside the point, Nortius- my argument was essentially that AL’s ideas are pretty far outside the liberal mainstream, and while I didn’t make the case exhaustively, it does say something that Kevin Drum – about as mainstream and respected a liberal blogger as you’ll get – thinks AL’s ideas are pretty odd, for whatever reasons. Especially since, in years past, AL’s repeatedly pointed to his friendship/correspondence with Kevin as proof that he’s _not_ outside the liberal mainstream.
That said, rather than trying to dispute relatively petty details, Nortius, it’d probably make more sense for you to note that my argument cuts the other way too, and move on: if McCain _does_ win, then AL will be able to declare vindication and insist that, had we listened to him, Democrats _would_ have won.
I wouldn’t hold my breath on that, though.
Obama has dropped 3 points in the RCP poll average since the Democratic convention ended. This is not what we call “momentum” on our planet.
Obama has no momentum, or even traction; he had none against Clinton, either. What he does have is inertia – he does a good job of hanging in the 2-3% range.
That’s not high enough to be planning the inaugural ball, even if the the Bradley Effect is nonsense – which it isn’t.
These were two politicians who seemed ideal to take the vitriol out of a presidential race. In contrast, it seems that vitrol has consumed their campaigns. So I ask again, how do we change this culture that wedges us apaprt?
While I would like to see less vitriol and irrelevant attacks I’m not convinced that partisanship per se is bad for the country. There are a wide range of (reasonable) opinions out there that deserve strong advocates. I think it’s good for the country when people feel they’re beliefs and values are being represented, and it’s bad for the country when they’re not.
I point to 2002-2006 as a prime example. Without an meaningful opposition (the Dems didn’t hold any significant power), the left side went largely nuts AND the Reps went off the rails. While I don’t support Pelosi & Reid’s political agenda, I have to admit the country has benefited from their opposition. I think they forced Bush to change tracks in Iraq and find his veto pen. FISA reform became bipartisan and therefore promptly forgotten. If the Dems were forced to be part with the Gitmo, Detainee Treatment Act, etc. I think much of the current craziness (war crimes trials and the like) would be blunted.
Likewise, I think the Rep. Congress in 1994 forced Bill Clinton away from Hillarycare and towards welfare reform. Our system requires checks and balances. Not just structurally in the three branches but politically as well.
That’s why I’m supportive of McCain – because we’re going to have a Democratic Congress. If it were to be a Republican Congress, I’d prefer Obama. Truth be told I think we’re probably better off overall with a Republican Congress and a Democratic President, but that’s not in the cards this cycle.
Hmmm, Kevin D – the main thing that Drum was – shocked! just shocked! – by was my notion that if we couldn’t reform the schools to take power away from the teachers unions we should just fire everyone and start over.
Shockingly, Obama came out and suggested that the unions needed to be defanged as well…just to demonstrate out ‘out there’ my ideas really are.
Color me crazy…
A.L.
hypo – so, obviously I agree with SG, but let’s skip that and make a simpler analog…when a football team is playing, does the coach sit down and yell “kill!kill! at the team, or talk to them about what they need to do to run the play better??
Or even more accurately, do the specialty coaches act as motivators and cheerleaders or critics?
You can have all the pom-poms you want; cheerleader is a role I’ll happily hand over to others.
Me, I’d like to – in the long run, which is to me over the next ten years – see a Democratic Party that isn’t in a tie with a 72-year old Republican and a governor who 5% of the country knew about two weeks ago.
Now the GOP collapsed back in 06 and they haven’t really come back. And yet – it’s going to be a tossup election for President. What does that tell you?
It tells me that the Democratic brand is effed-up and needs to be fixed. You just keep telling yourself it’s OK, and we can go to McCain’s inauguration together.
A.L.
My sense has been that we need a revitalized Federalism, and a restrained Federal judiciary.
The Founders believed that regional differences could be solved by letting people have different solutions to problems — what worked in Boston might not work in Virginia, but that was OK.
As the Federal judiciary has been more and more willing to overturn local solutions on hotbutton issues — abortion being the clearest example, but not the only one — we’ve seen the stakes in Federal politics go higher and higher. The stated hope of the gay marriage movement is that they’ll be able to get a Federal judiciary decision to force every state to do ‘full faith and credit’ on their marraige in California, for example. I don’t care strongly about gay marriage (I’m opposed to it, but it’s not something I normally think about); but if you did, you’d have to take every Federal election as a referrendum on your point of view (which is true whether you are pro- or anti- gay marriage).
Since this is also true for every other hot button issue, the effect of the judiciary’s overreach in Roe v. Wade is to radicalize American politics. Every hot button issue is now relevant to every single Federal election.
That’s why there is so much vitriol, and it’s the only way to solve it. We need to find a way to return to the Founder’s vision: to let California do one thing, and Kansas do another.
bq. so, obviously I agree with SG, but let’s skip that and make a simpler analog…when a football team is playing, does the coach sit down and yell “kill!kill! at the team, or talk to them about what they need to do to run the play better??
AL, the problem with that analogy is that a football coach who’s not satisfied with how his team is playing generally doesn’t go over to the other side and cheer for them… which is what you did in ’04, and what you may still do in ’08.
bq. Now the GOP collapsed back in 06 and they haven’t really come back. And yet – it’s going to be a tossup election for President. What does that tell you?
I don’t think it’ll be a tossup election for president, but, as I’ve said before on this thread, we’ll see how that plays out. And the GOP collapsed in ’06 because they largely followed the kinds of foreign policy ideas that you support… so what does that tell you?
bq. It tells me that the Democratic brand is effed-up and needs to be fixed. You just keep telling yourself it’s OK, and we can go to McCain’s inauguration together.
Funny, it tells me that there are huge numbers of Republican voters who’ll keep voting for the same party no matter how corrupt, incompetent, insane or outright malign it gets. And sadly, that’s a problem that’s a little beyond the power of the Democratic party to fix.
bq. Me, I’d like to – in the long run, which is to me over the next ten years – see a Democratic Party that isn’t in a tie with a 72-year old Republican and a governor who 5% of the country knew about two weeks ago.
Nitpicking, perhaps, but Obama is not in a tie with McCain. He is leading in state-by-state polling and even in generic and less reliable “likely voter” national polls. However large a margin you imagine he should have is really not a rational or testable position, really. If anything, the discrepancy points to a problem in your expectations or understanding of current politics rather than one with the policies of the Democratic party.
You seem to be suggesting that the panacea to this nearly even political party split in America is that the Dems need to adjust their policies somehow to fit some hypothetical swatch that you now believe they do not represent.
What’s interesting to me is that in poll after poll, it is becoming clear that the majority of the electorate 1) generally agrees more with Democratic positions then Republican, and 2) is becoming increasingly Liberal in its leanings (for example, a greater acceptance of same-sex unions).
So in my view the problem is not that the Dems need to adjust their policies to fit a different demographic, but rather that the public is not sufficiently informed on the sharp divergence in the Republican’s policies compared to theirs. For example, the public still thinks of John McCain as a “Maverick” and a “straight-talker” despite abundant evidence to the contrary. Or that tax cuts for the wealthy increase government revenue. It’s reminiscent of the shocking fact that far too many American’s still think Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Given that, the problem seems to be one of public access to unbiased information rather than specific policy details between parties.
Which brings us to what I think is the main reason for the near-parity in the polls: the Media, who love a horserace and who give a disproportionally larger platform Republicans to transmit their message and want this to be close. Which major outlets have pointed out the numerous lies in both Palin’s and McCains speeches, and post-convention comments? And how boring and bad for ratings (and therefore revenues) would it be if Obama was ahead by 20 points?
Whatever the effect you think your policy prescriptions or suggestions you may have on the Dem parties popularity still need to be transmitted to the electorate, and the failure to recognize this problem (the greatest threat to our Democracy in my view) is the gaping hole in your position.
(Sorry about not providing links: internet connection is painfully slow at the moment.)
And the GOP collapsed in ’06 because they largely followed the kinds of foreign policy ideas that you support… so what does that tell you?
I think this is a wishful thinking reading of 2006. The GOP lost because they were perceived as venal and corrupted by power. Their foreign policy positions were the only thing that kept anyone voting for them at all.
And I think this narrative is buttressed by the fact that the Democratic controlled Congress was unable to force the US out of Iraq. In spite of the tidal wave for Dems, forcing a change in foreign policy wasn’t good politics.
Funny, it tells me that there are huge numbers of Republican voters who’ll keep voting for the same party no matter how corrupt, incompetent, insane or outright malign it gets. And sadly, that’s a problem that’s a little beyond the power of the Democratic party to fix.
Really? The fact that Democratic positions are sufficiently unpopular that roughly half the country will continue to vote for a “corrupt, incompetent, insane or outright malign” party just to keep Democratic policies from being implemented is not something that Dems can address?
Clearly there’s no great affection for Republicans right now. There’s a great opportunity for Dems to compromise on some policy positions to gain advantage, but to hear you say it compromise is a vice, not a virtue.
_What’s interesting to me is that in poll after poll, it is becoming clear that the majority of the electorate 1) generally agrees more with Democratic positions then Republican, and 2) is becoming increasingly Liberal in its leanings (for example, a greater acceptance of same-sex unions)._
Well, no: gun control is also a loser across the electorate, outside of a few urban markets.
What’s happening is what is supposed to happen: that the broader society is negotiating a compromise between liberal and conservative positions. Gay marriage? We’re talking a percent or two of people? Well… we could probably let that slide. Gun rights? The experience shows that crime rates either fall or hold steady where there are shall-issue licenses? Well… why not let people do what they want?
There’s movement, but it tends to be away from the “control” faction of both liberalism and conservatism, and towards the “let people do what they want” faction.
Hondo lives.
Grim, I’m not so sure. Most Americans support paying more taxes to provide National Healthcare Insurance, for example. I actually think that the “less government is better” idea is another good example actually of a misinformed electorate, since when polled about specific programs people generally want the government to support them (Social Security as a very prominent example, although there are many others. Roadways and air traffic control, weather, etc.).
That there is any general principled opposition to “government control”, as you put it, is really the product of corporate lobbying as they’ve been successful at confusing people into adopting their view that less government control is better. Because in practice there have been even more restrictions on personal liberty and freedoms (i.e., more government control) and less on corporations. So the distinctions have been intentionally blurred.
I’d like to know how you reconcile many of the positions of the current Republican party with “letting people do what they want”, because to me this makes a nice counter-issue with the thread point that the Dems are moving away from representing an important or majority view in America. As I see it, they support, and have enacted, more government intrusion into the personal lives and freedoms of most of us.
I think people are worried about health care issues, to be certain. Doctors are worried about them, for that matter. It’s a problem that arises from a combination of lawsuits, insurance rates, and the fact that there’s just more health care to be had now — all kinds of new treatments are being developed for previously untreatable conditions — with the result that health care is occupying a larger part of people’s budgets.
For example, if you’re providing insurance to your employees and there are only 10 treatable diseases, you can offer X level of care. When there are 20, assuming treatments are roughly equal in costs, you need to be able to offer 1/2X level in order to be in the same position as a company.
In a way it’s a nice problem to have: we’re able to live longer, better lives, and just have to sort out how to pay for it.
However, it’s also a very complex problem. I think the “have government just do it” concept is a product of that environment: I can’t sort it out myself, so pass it off to someone whose full-time job is to make it work. I can understand how (in the absence of an actual plan to do that right now, whose details we have to consider) that would be conceptually attractive.
The problem is that “have the government force doctors to provide us with what we want in exchange for what we are willing to pay” is obviously an unworkable plan: you can nationalize the market in the short term, but you can’t force people to continue to enter the market as providers in the long term.
In answer to your question, then, I think most Americans expressing that wish are really saying, “Please make this issue go away.” If you present them with a formal plan to make it go away, though, you’ll find that it has far less support. Nobody is going to like the details of any of the plans that the government could really enact.
Grim,
Lawsuits are not responsible for runaway healthcare costs in America. High priced pharmaceuticals and HMO administrative costs have a lot more impact than that.
This is a side issue and I do not wish to digress. But I will engage one or two points. Providing universal healthcare has nothing to do with the government “forcing” doctors to do anything at all, certainly no more than HMOs are already doing. In likelihood it would be even less onerous as profit motive would be removed from the equation.
It’s actually not such a complex issue as you make it sound. If you’re sick and don’t have insurance, you go see a doctor. To receive payment for their services, the doctor submits his bills to the government instead of an HMO. This very system is already in place for seniors and members of congress and many people who qualify based on certain income and health condition criteria.
One of the main issues that needs to be accepted, which I think most Americans are prepared to do, is that government payouts would have to increase, potentially leading to higher taxes. This bumps up against another one of those “principles” that have been overly simplified and obfuscated by a cadre of very wealthy people who have been successful at, once again, convincing everyone that less taxes=better government. I think if people realized that their overall expenditures could be higher even when their taxes might be lower (i.e., the cost becomes distributed, and offset, by a host of other increases) then support for this principle too would dissipate.
It really isn’t that hard to understand that when you let uninsured people get sick or suffer illness or injury without early intervention or treatment, then there is a higher likelihood that these same individuals will suffer more long-term debilitating conditions that might prevent them from working or require even greater intervention at a much higher cost at a later date. Trading a short term savings for a long term higher cost does not make sense to most people. This is a view held by most of the doctors that I know from profession contacts, and it is based on solid evidence.
Vista, thank you for sharing your superior knowledge and explaining to us all that the average American is deluded, because they don;t see the world as clearly as you do. It’s an interesting idea, and you could build a whole ideology around it. maybe you could call it “false consciousness”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness or something like that.
Have fun…
A.L.
And as a further sidenote to Vista (although I don’t believe I’ve her this from s/he) – it’s always a treat when I’m told to support something because the masses of people want it, until I’m told by the same people to support something else in spite of the fact that masses of people don’t want it, because they are – uh – deluded.
A.L.
The Democrats are reaping the rewards of choosing to run against Vietnam (Iraq was the reincarnation of Vietnam, remember?) instead of running on their core strength; governmental protection of the individual against the worst consequences of the free market.
In other words, FDR built the Democratic majority with the New Deal; and he sure wasn’t anti-war.
FDR’s Democratic Party I could respect, even though some of the basic principles would have infuriated me. Hell, even LBJ’s party I could respect. I could have respected Clinton’s party, but the dirty little secret is that he was in the Party but never of it, sort of a jock crashing the Drama Club’s big bash…
But Pelosi’s party, Reid’s party, and now Obama’s party really stands for nothing except opposition to Evil Republicans. Sorry, there are Evil Republicans, and the party has drifted alarming close to the same nihilism that has devoured the Democrats, but because occasional Palins and Jindals exist and win within their party I will pull that lever nine times out of ten (the one time being when an evil bast**d is actually on the line).
#55
Misinformed does not equal deluded.
And this is quite an interesting comment coming from someone whose main thrust here appears to be that the Democratic party is deluded because they do not see the issues as clearly as one “Armed Liberal” does, is it not?
If the tables were turned and I were the administrator of this site and you the anonymous commenter, I would be posting an admonition to you right now to keep the comments on topic and free from pointless ad hominem attacks.
Not that this will make a difference, of course – but A.L., your analogy misses by a mile:
1. The coach is ALWAYS dissing on the other team – “Let’s go out there, and kick their ass!!”. So even though he is trying to improve his team, he is ALWAYS looking for the weakness in the other side. He certainly “doesn’t care” what the other team is doing.
2. Most of the improvement and criticism of the “same team”, is done while in the process of actively helping the main team, with praise, “good jobs” at things well done, modeling, keeping the flaws “inside” so to speak, while addressing them.
NOT – as you do – basically hanging out WITH the opposing team, most of the time, going to their events, hanging out with the opposing team members.
I’m glad you brought up this analogy, actually, because it brings into relief, just HOW FAR you are from a good coach! If you were a coach, and THIS is how you treated your team, you would be canned!
At any rate, again, I’m not trying to change you, or expect some admittance of this. In fact, I respect you enough, to think you know exactly what I’m saying. Your game is different, and this pose you affect is for other , non obvious reasons.
#54:
_…High priced pharmaceuticals and HMO administrative costs have a lot more impact than that…_
I mentioned that there were treatments for things previously untreatable as one of the chief causes of the problem of rising health care costs. Obviously, pharmaceuticals are a very big part of that.
But, just as with doctors, the concept of “removing the profit motive” doesn’t work in reality. Yes, you can remove the profit motive in the short term: you can tell people that they will produce the drugs they have developed, and we’ll pay them what we decide they are worth. What you can’t do is make them continue to invest in producing new drugs — and therefore new treatments — if there is no profit in it.
You’ll tell them that you’ll see they get a “fair” profit, but what if they want more? “Tough.” Well, then you can watch their development dollars go elsewhere — China, say.
As for HMO ‘administrative costs,’ you should really rethink that talking point. HMOs exist solely for one purpose: to bring down overall health care costs. If they fail at that, then there is no reason to belong to one: you can just go to the doctor when you need to, and pay market rates. Their administrative costs, then, have to be less than the total savings they produce for their members. That’s the whole economy of HMOs.
So, that really can’t be the reason.
As for insurance issues, Doc Russia at least says they’re a major question. You can drop by Bloodletting and ask him about it. He’s a former Marine who is currently an MD, so I tend to believe him when he says they’re a serious consideration for doctors trying to make ends meet.
The system we have certainly has problems. Government mandates can force the hand of part of the system, but they will create costs — and not just new taxes for everyone, which will harm the economy as a whole. We may also see less development of new treatments, which may mean a life in which we all become sicker, earlier, and die younger than we would have otherwise. We may find that potential doctors, deciding they prefer to have a “profit motive” in their lives, become lawyers or politicians instead. (God save us from that!)
Vista – I’m not criticizing the people who make up the Democratic Party – not remotely. I think they are horribly led, and have been so since the 1970’s. Shockingly, the new cadre – the netroots that I had a lot of hope for – has proven to be just as bad, and simply angling for a seat at the trough (see Armstrong, Kos, etc.).
Shockingly, the vast majority of the voters seem to have been in agreement with me – note the long string of D losses at the White House and state house levels since then. I think they are in agreement with me this year – narrowly in favor of Obama, but worried.
hypo – I’d love to find more to be constructive about the Democratic Party for. I don’t see a lot just yet. I’ve been assuming that there are people in the Party who will get sick of banging against walls and start asking what needs to be done differently, so I can cheerlead for them. Not happening just now, but we’ll see. I’m patient, as I’ve noted.
And I love the sly dig at the end. In the same note, personally I’ve always wondered – are you guys assigned to this blog, or what?
A.L.
People talk about the profit motive in health care like it’s a bad thing. Would you prefer no pharmaceuticals to high priced pharmaceuticals? Eventually drugs go off-patent and become cheap. Sure there’s a period of time were only some can benefit, but that’s still better than if it never existed.
Which is not to defend the current health care funding system. It’s a mess, and as genetic testing continues to improve, the private insurance model is going to collapse. But any system that seeks to eliminate the profit motive and/or completely isolate people from the cost of the goods and services they consume will be worse that what we have. Not necessarily right out of the gate, but that’s where it will end up.
Today’s “piece on cancer survival rates”:http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-doctor-is-in-investing-in-fighting-cancer/ in the US and Europe makes the point. Even accounting for all Americans, not just those with health insurance, Americans are far more likely to survive cancer due to earlier detection and better treatment.
So yes, there are problems: but problems that have to be solved without undercutting the basic motive for doctors to enter the medical profession, and for innovation in treatment to continue (or expand!).
I left the Democratic Party at the same time Al Lieberman did and have never looked back. What’s left of the party is really a European ‘Social Democrat’ party, not the party I grew up in.
You are deluding yourself if you think people like ‘metrico’ will ever leave it–they run the asylum now. And they’ve managed to foist the most radically leftist and self-centeredly hubristic nominee in US political history on the rest of you.
Um, Joe Lieberman, duh.