Teh new hotness politics thread (good thru Fantastic Friday)

by **CrashburnAlley** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 13:42:09

Laexile wrote:I certainly can't judge the religious beliefs of people I've never met and who died before I was born nor was I trying to. What I was saying is that there are people who think that a self-professed Atheist would have the toughest time getting elected over anyone who professes belief in any religion.

Survey: U.S. trust lowest for atheists

Based on a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households and in-depth interviews with more than 140 people, researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexuals and other groups as "sharing their vision of American society." Americans are also least willing to let their children marry atheists.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 13:44:51

I'm bummed the Republicans aren't nominating Romney.

by **traderdave** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 13:48:16

Thought I'd share this with the rest of the class:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1202349 ... d_outlooks

Very informative, I think.

by **momadance** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 13:59:19

lol @ garnishing wages. If we take more of their money then they'll be able to afford it! Basically, it's the Romney plan, which is a disaster.

by **Disco Stu** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 14:04:32

traderdave wrote:Thought I'd share this with the rest of the class:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1202349 ... d_outlooks

Very informative, I think.

Except that it ignores the people who have health insurance but can't afford other things because of the cost. I am not really sure how they expect these programs to be paid for, but rasing taxes on the top 10 percent should be able to pay for the bottom 25% without a problem and then go from there.

by **Laexile** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 14:06:02

On the Republican side, decisions on how to allocate delegates is left to the state parties.

National party rules say that a candidate who "drops out" keeps any district-level delegates he or she has won so far but loses any statewide delegates he or she has won.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 14:08:02

traderdave wrote:Thought I'd share this with the rest of the class:

I thought you would know by now... we have no class :!:

by **CrashburnAlley** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 14:08:10

Disco Stu wrote:
traderdave wrote:Thought I'd share this with the rest of the class:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1202349 ... d_outlooks

Very informative, I think.

Except that it ignores the people who have health insurance but can't afford other things because of the cost. I am not really sure how they expect these programs to be paid for, but rasing taxes on the top 10 percent should be able to pay for the bottom 25% without a problem and then go from there.

But DS, that gives them no incentive!!1!!11!

by **traderdave** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 14:12:15

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
traderdave wrote:Thought I'd share this with the rest of the class:

I thought you would know by now... we have no class

Yeah, the garnishing wages bit really sold me. Is it too late to change my vote :roll:

by **Laexile** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 14:12:59

In the next month there will be a number of caucuses, a Romney strength, and several states with Christian conservatives, a McCain weakness. Only Ohio and a couple of smaller states are the moderate McCain strongholds. If Romney remained in the race, it was possible that with so many winner take all states McCain would have had trouble getting 1,191. At least it probably would have taken him well into May.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 14:27:26

it is unfortunate but there is no vocabulary to capture the insoluable paradoxes of 'universal healthcare'.

I increasingly lean on those theorists who assert that any nation-state's domestic programs are, to a greater or lesser degree, parceled out only to the extent necessary for the state to retain its monopoly over violence.

the state has no particular incentive to install or enforce anything resembling universal healthcare even if such a thing is legislated into existence. Better to leave open the opportunity to take credit, endlessly, for special-case, high-profile, miracle-cure interventions than to struggle to articulate the virtues of urging that everyone walk more & consume more roughage.

Perhaps as tough is determining a narrow range of health interventions the state SHOULD cover the costs of, as a matter of national security or reasonable public health management.

Our nation does not even agree 'universally' on the merits of floridation, f'er chrissakes; it's ludicrous to pretend we can arrive at a set of treatments to be applied 'universally'.

I'm not saying I have a better idea; I'm saying the entire public discussion of health is intellectually bankrupt. Our best hope of solving matters pertaining to the health (and cost of care) of a broad swath of society is to begin the conversation anew, restating exactly what it is that we would, as a society, promise to ourselves, health care/health spending-wise.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 14:31:03

drsmooth wrote:
Our nation does not even agree 'universally' on the merits of floridation, f'er chrissakes; it's ludicrous to pretend we can arrive at a set of treatments to be applied 'universally'.

There really are no good reasons to fluoridate water.

by **Disco Stu** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 14:31:52

TenuredVulture wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
Our nation does not even agree 'universally' on the merits of floridation, f'er chrissakes; it's ludicrous to pretend we can arrive at a set of treatments to be applied 'universally'.

There really are no good reasons to fluoridate water.

Teeth isn't a good reason?

by **dajafi** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 14:38:35

I agree with a WSJ editorial.

Must bathe.

But this does get to something I've figured out over the course of this campaign: other objectionable traits aside, Clinton is a bit too orthodox-liberal for my tastes. She has too much faith in what government can do, not enough skepticism or mindfulness of how it tends to screw things up.

Ezra Klein crystalized it nicely in this article:

In my talks with his advisers, the term "iPod government" repeatedly came up, a reference to Obama's desire for a sleeker, easier-to-use state. This guiding principle helps explain how he came up with a health-care plan without an individual mandate. Obama's fears that care would prove unaffordable and individuals would be left begging for exemptions from some unconcerned bureaucrat outweighed concerns that the healthy would opt-out of the system and that the insurers wouldn't cover everyone at a fair price if "everyone" meant only the sick. It's that thread that reconciles his philosophical preference for single-payer with his programmatic eschewing of universal care. Single-payer is simple. Mandates are more complicated, and Obama fears that a mismatch between affordability measures and care costs will leave individuals fighting with the state for coverage. Better the policy be meeker and the experience smoother than risk a strong policy's potential to force the unsuspecting into unwanted dealings with an unfamiliar bureaucracy.
...
In this, as in much else, Obama betrays a universalist streak. Government is simplest when it is unspecific—it's when it starts trying to subdivide the population and impact only targeted groups that it becomes hard to administer (think of how little trouble seniors have accessing a universal program like Social Security versus how much trouble the poor have trying to determine eligibility for a means-tested program like Medicaid). If Kennedy wanted a rising tide to lift all boats, Obama wants us all in one boat to better navigate the waves. But before he can rehabilitate the universalist approach to government, the experience of interacting with government must be bettered. In a world where a trip to the DMV is such a Kafkaesque odyssey that you can actually hire individuals to undergo the torment for you, unifying the public square first means beautifying it. So Obama's detailed plans for more government accountability and transparency precede and even take priority over his plans for what the newly accountable and transparent government should do. Till that day when government is reformed and citizens' trust is ensured, that new government must be used with care, and its capabilities should not be overestimated.

Aside from the way-too-cute "iPod government," this sounds about right to me. Part of the task is simply to re-legitimize government after eight years in which the Bush/DeLay Republicans both relentlessly told us how incompetent, useless and corrupt government was, and went to such extreme measures to prove it. Obama's relative or theoretical incrementalism on health care is of a piece with how effective presidents move the needle: Hillary's plan will be more contentious (as in, harder to enact), higher-risk, and more difficult to tweak or correct when, as is inevitable, its flaws emerge in implementation.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 15:12:49

Something that concerns me about Obama is... his voting record ranked as the most liberal of all the Democratic candidates that are/were running. Even further left than Kucinich. Factoring in his state legislative record, it's even more to the left. What concerns me is, we all know the GOP election machine will focus on that if Obama is the D candidate. Between this and the "Hillary Hate" ("Chillery", et al), I expect "Maverick McCain" will likely be our next POTUS.

by **Grotewold** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 15:15:37

Phan In Phlorida wrote:What concerns me is, we all know the GOP election machine will focus on that if Obama is the D candidate.

I honestly think a "liberal" candidate, Obama especially, can and will win in '08, after eight years of Incurious George, and that the talk radio blowhards are losing influence. What hurt Gore and Kerry isn't that they were liberal but that they were seen as pussies.

by **traderdave** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 16:00:51

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Something that concerns me about Obama is... his voting record ranked as the most liberal of all the Democratic candidates that are/were running. Even further left than Kucinich. Factoring in his state legislative record, it's even more to the left. What concerns me is, we all know the GOP election machine will focus on that if Obama is the D candidate. Between this and the "Hillary Hate" ("Chillery", et al), I expect "Maverick McCain" will likely be our next POTUS.

Three polls completed between 2/1 and 2/3 show the following:

Clinton V. McCain
CNN (2/3) Clinton +3.0%
Cook (2/2) McCain +4.0%
ABC/Fox (2/1) McCain +3.0%

Obama v. McCain
CNN (2/3) Obama +8.0%
Cook (2/2) Obama +2.0%
ABC/Fox (2/1) Obama +3.0%

FWIW...

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 16:01:54

A house seat in Oregon opened up as a Dem retired in a swing district for the first time this cycle*

An actual pickup opportunity for Republicans. May wonders never cease.

*Might not be the first, but it sure seems like it.

by **Laexile** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 16:13:51

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Something that concerns me about Obama is... his voting record ranked as the most liberal of all the Democratic candidates that are/were running. Even further left than Kucinich. Factoring in his state legislative record, it's even more to the left. What concerns me is, we all know the GOP election machine will focus on that if Obama is the D candidate. Between this and the "Hillary Hate" ("Chillery", et al), I expect "Maverick McCain" will likely be our next POTUS.

That sounds wonderful, but the "GOP election machine" is unlikely to be attacking Obama or Clinton. The architects of such attacks were Karl Rove and his cronies. These people don't support John McCain and aren't going to pull out all their tricks for him.

Even if they did McCain would put an end to it. It isn't the way he operates. Much to the disappointment of Conservatives McCain praised Obama and Clinton in his speech Tuesday night. Over a year ago he made a deal with Obama that neither would use negativity if they ran against each other.

While smear campaigns might work for Bush they'd be a disaster for McCain. His chief appeal is his character and integrity. Anything that would taint that would drive people away from him. Swift Boat ads would hurt McCain more than help.

You do make a good point. Obama keeps talking about bringing in disaffected Republicans and how he'll accomplish his new vision working with everybody. He can say this because most people don't know where he stands. Republicans in Congress aren't going to vote for his ideas just because he's a good guy or popular. You can't reach across the aisle being very liberal. The only way he'd be able to pass such an agenda would be to have an overwhelming majority in both houses.

McCain, on the other hand, has a history of reaching across the aisle to pass legislation. His ability to bring Republicans and Democrats together is something that is hurting him with the Conservatives.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 16:42:25

There is and will always be a Democratic and Republican "election machine." The extent to which Rove gets credit/blame for being nasty is nuts, IMO. Having worked with several of his "lieutenants" and having seen some of the shadowy third party groups operate from behind the scenes, it's not something marshaled by any one person. Lots of rich conservative folks and rich liberal folks like to spend money to advance their causes/beliefs/interests. That didn't begin and won't end with Karl Rove.

McCain isn't going to beat Obama by being positive all the time. He'll have to draw clear contrasts on issues, and calling him the most liberal senator in the history of the world will be a big part of that. McCain showed with Romney that he wasn't afraid to get in the mud a little during their fight over timetables at the end of the Florida primary.

To bring up the Swift Boat thing, I don't know if there's some similar vulnerability in Obama's past. Maybe the Muslim thing people are talking about in this thread. If some conservative wants to toss a few mil on TV to talk about his Muslim connection, McCain can (and will) say he disapproves all he wants, but he can't get it taken down.

Archived

Teh new hotness politics thread (good thru Fantastic Friday)