jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Further, I don't remember Delay doing lots of things the Dems liked that the Reps didn't to "perpetuate power". If he just ran things the way the religious right wanted them, wouldn't we be WORSE off (of course it's arguable he DID run things that way, but I'm using your terms and worldview).

One could argue that's exactly what Medicare Part D was (though that particular one was much more Rove than DeLay). It was a "Democratic purpose"--expanding prescription drug coverage for the elderly--done with the goals of 1) pulling seniors toward the Republicans 2) protecting pharma profits by banning the government from negotiating 3) keeping pharma campaign money from going to the Dems who might otherwise push this issue.

I think you're mostly right on this, and it's a good example, but I would add a 4) Pass a less expansive version of the program that costs 40% less than the version the Democrats were proposing and hope that's enough to stop the seniors for begging for more free $#@! for a decade or two.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Further, I don't remember Delay doing lots of things the Dems liked that the Reps didn't to "perpetuate power". If he just ran things the way the religious right wanted them, wouldn't we be WORSE off (of course it's arguable he DID run things that way, but I'm using your terms and worldview).

One could argue that's exactly what Medicare Part D was (though that particular one was much more Rove than DeLay). It was a "Democratic purpose"--expanding prescription drug coverage for the elderly--done with the goals of 1) pulling seniors toward the Republicans 2) protecting pharma profits by banning the government from negotiating 3) keeping pharma campaign money from going to the Dems who might otherwise push this issue.

I think you're mostly right on this, and it's a good example, but I would add a 4) Pass a less expansive version of the program that costs 40% less than the version the Democrats were proposing and hope that's enough to stop the seniors for begging for more free $#@! for a decade or two.

I don't remember the specifics of the Dem proposal, though I think you might be referring to the "doughnut" nature of the coverage under what was passed, annual prescription costs between about $2000 and $6000 that the government didn't cover. (My recollection is that seniors could buy supplemental coverage for that.) Of course, if they'd let the feds negotiate prices, it stands to reason that major savings could have accrued.

Stepping back from that, though, you've put your finger on something really interesting: how far are we as a society going to go in subsidizing the elderly at the expense of the rest of us? And how will the politics of that play out?

The traditional orientation of older voters toward the Democrats might be reversing itself, given that they don't like Obama, The Gays or most disruptions to a status quo that's pretty kind to them.

If one were to analyze matters from a purely utilitarian perspective, one could find ways to justify the White House's attempt to write a health care plan that accommodates the desires of the pharmaceutical and drug industries [mandates (i.e., 50 million forced new customers) plus government subsidies to pay their premiums plus no meaningful cost controls (i.e., no public option)]. All other things being equal, it's better -- from the White House's political perspective -- that those industries not spend vast sums of money trying to defeat Obama's health care proposal, that they not pour their resources into the GOP's 2010 midterm effort, that they not unleash their fully army of lobbyists and strategists to sabotage the Democratic Party. That's the same calculating mindset that leads the White House to loyally serve the interests of the banking industry that caused the financial crisis (we don't want to make enemies out of of Goldman Sachs or turn investment bankers into GOP funders). Indeed, that's the same mindset that leads the White House to avoid any fights with the Right -- and/or with the intelligence community and permanent military establishment -- over Terrorism policies (there's no political benefit to subjecting ourselves to accusations of being Soft on Terror and there's plenty of reasons to cling to those executive powers of secrecy, detention and war-making).

In essence, this is the mindset of Rahm Emanuel, and its precepts are as toxic as they are familiar: The only calculation that matters is maximizing political power. The only "change" that's meaningful is converting more Republican seats into Democratic ones. A legislative "win" is determined by whether Democrats can claim victory, not by whether anything constructive was achieved. The smart approach is to serve and thus curry favor with the most powerful corporate factions, not change the rules to make them less powerful. The primary tactic of Democrats should be to be more indispensable to corporate interests so as to deny the GOP that money and instead direct it to Democrats. The overriding strategy is to scorn progressives while keeping them in their place and then expand the party by making it more conservative and more reliant on Blue Dogs. Democrats should replicate Republican policies on Terrorism and national security -- not abandon them -- in order to remove that issue as a political weapon.
...
But that isn't what Obama pledged he would do when he campaigned. He repeatedly vowed he would do the opposite -- that he would reject that thinking and battle aggressively against domination by what he called "the interests of powerful lobbyists or the wealthiest few" who have "run Washington far too long" -- and he convinced millions of people that he was serious, people who, as a result, became fervent devotees to his cause.

dajafi wrote:Greenwald picks up the Hamsher/Krugman ball:

If one were to analyze matters from a purely utilitarian perspective, one could find ways to justify the White House's attempt to write a health care plan that accommodates the desires of the pharmaceutical and drug industries [mandates (i.e., 50 million forced new customers) plus government subsidies to pay their premiums plus no meaningful cost controls (i.e., no public option)]. All other things being equal, it's better -- from the White House's political perspective -- that those industries not spend vast sums of money trying to defeat Obama's health care proposal, that they not pour their resources into the GOP's 2010 midterm effort, that they not unleash their fully army of lobbyists and strategists to sabotage the Democratic Party. That's the same calculating mindset that leads the White House to loyally serve the interests of the banking industry that caused the financial crisis (we don't want to make enemies out of of Goldman Sachs or turn investment bankers into GOP funders). Indeed, that's the same mindset that leads the White House to avoid any fights with the Right -- and/or with the intelligence community and permanent military establishment -- over Terrorism policies (there's no political benefit to subjecting ourselves to accusations of being Soft on Terror and there's plenty of reasons to cling to those executive powers of secrecy, detention and war-making).

In essence, this is the mindset of Rahm Emanuel, and its precepts are as toxic as they are familiar: The only calculation that matters is maximizing political power. The only "change" that's meaningful is converting more Republican seats into Democratic ones. A legislative "win" is determined by whether Democrats can claim victory, not by whether anything constructive was achieved. The smart approach is to serve and thus curry favor with the most powerful corporate factions, not change the rules to make them less powerful. The primary tactic of Democrats should be to be more indispensable to corporate interests so as to deny the GOP that money and instead direct it to Democrats. The overriding strategy is to scorn progressives while keeping them in their place and then expand the party by making it more conservative and more reliant on Blue Dogs. Democrats should replicate Republican policies on Terrorism and national security -- not abandon them -- in order to remove that issue as a political weapon.
...
But that isn't what Obama pledged he would do when he campaigned. He repeatedly vowed he would do the opposite -- that he would reject that thinking and battle aggressively against domination by what he called "the interests of powerful lobbyists or the wealthiest few" who have "run Washington far too long" -- and he convinced millions of people that he was serious, people who, as a result, became fervent devotees to his cause.

One can argue with this or that specific point in this analysis, as in the other ones, but for myself I can't deny that the most dispiriting thing about the administration through its first seven months has been that after running on "change," it's been about as strongly Beltway Establishment in staffing, approach and tactics as one could imagine.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Further, I don't remember Delay doing lots of things the Dems liked that the Reps didn't to "perpetuate power". If he just ran things the way the religious right wanted them, wouldn't we be WORSE off (of course it's arguable he DID run things that way, but I'm using your terms and worldview).

One could argue that's exactly what Medicare Part D was (though that particular one was much more Rove than DeLay). It was a "Democratic purpose"--expanding prescription drug coverage for the elderly--done with the goals of 1) pulling seniors toward the Republicans 2) protecting pharma profits by banning the government from negotiating 3) keeping pharma campaign money from going to the Dems who might otherwise push this issue.

I think you're mostly right on this, and it's a good example, but I would add a 4) Pass a less expansive version of the program that costs 40% less than the version the Democrats were proposing and hope that's enough to stop the seniors for begging for more free $#@! for a decade or two.

I don't remember the specifics of the Dem proposal, though I think you might be referring to the "doughnut" nature of the coverage under what was passed, annual prescription costs between about $2000 and $6000 that the government didn't cover. (My recollection is that seniors could buy supplemental coverage for that.) Of course, if they'd let the feds negotiate prices, it stands to reason that major savings could have accrued.

Stepping back from that, though, you've put your finger on something really interesting: how far are we as a society going to go in subsidizing the elderly at the expense of the rest of us? And how will the politics of that play out?

The traditional orientation of older voters toward the Democrats might be reversing itself, given that they don't like Obama, The Gays or most disruptions to a status quo that's pretty kind to them.

My recollection isn't great on it, but I seem to recall the GOP proposal was estimated to cost $400 bil or so over 10 years, and the Dem was like $800, but after the GOP passed it, the estimate was revised upward to $500 bil or so, much to the consternation of the conservatives who were ranting against it.

As for spending on the elderly, it is pretty annoying, isn't it? If I end up making 40k this year, paying both sides of FICA out of my own pocket is like six grand, which is a lot of money that I wish I could keep for my own damn self. Inter generational compacts can go screw themselves. I know everyone "pays" both sides, but when you actually write the check yourself, it burns more.

Old folks vote, and are to some extent a swing group depending on who is going to give them more free stuff. I can only hope their latent or open racism and homophobia is enough to overcome their irrational fear that the GOP will take away their social security checks in 2010 and 2012.

In 1967, Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb, as a student at the U.S. Naval Academy, lost a boxing championship to Oliver L. North, who would later become a household name for his role in the Iran-Contra affair.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) trails Republican Danny Tarkanian by double-digits, according to a new poll released Sunday.

Tarkanian, the former University of Nevada-Las Vegas basketball star and son of the school’s longtime basketball coach, leads Reid 49 percent to 38 percent, with 13 percent undecided.

Prospective challenger Sue Lowden, the state GOP chairwoman, also leads Reid in a head-to-head match-up, 45 percent to 40 percent, with 15 percent undecided.

The poll, conducted Aug. 17 and 18 by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, surveyed 400 Nevada registered voters and had a six percentage point margin of error.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) trails Republican Danny Tarkanian by double-digits, according to a new poll released Sunday.

Tarkanian, the former University of Nevada-Las Vegas basketball star and son of the school’s longtime basketball coach, leads Reid 49 percent to 38 percent, with 13 percent undecided.

Prospective challenger Sue Lowden, the state GOP chairwoman, also leads Reid in a head-to-head match-up, 45 percent to 40 percent, with 15 percent undecided.

The poll, conducted Aug. 17 and 18 by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, surveyed 400 Nevada registered voters and had a six percentage point margin of error.

TenuredVulture wrote:Conservatives are the new hippies. They're all about anger and resentment and grievances over feigned slights. At this point, they aren't just anti-establishment, they're anti-civilization. 2012 is gonna be like 1972.

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Conservatives are the new hippies. They're all about anger and resentment and grievances over feigned slights. At this point, they aren't just anti-establishment, they're anti-civilization. 2012 is gonna be like 1972.

I've been saying for a year now that the great irony of American politics today is that the Republicans have fallen into all the Democrats' old traps: dogma, identity politics and the particular kind of rage that comes from not being taken seriously.

Doesn't mean they can't win the occasional policy battle, as the Democrats did in the '80s (and I think this year and next are going to be good for them politically, like '82 was for the Dems), but it does mean they'll start out as underdogs every time until the basic dynamic changes.

TenuredVulture wrote:But I think there's something else--they really seem to have forgotten the one thing that to me anyway defined conservatism--civilization is fragile, and its institutions (including, indeed especially government) are essential for its maintenance. I think the current crop of town hall screamers want the collapse of civilization.

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:But I think there's something else--they really seem to have forgotten the one thing that to me anyway defined conservatism--civilization is fragile, and its institutions (including, indeed especially government) are essential for its maintenance. I think the current crop of town hall screamers want the collapse of civilization.

The line from Burke to Buckley to Beck can't be drawn, since it doesn't exist.

jerseyhoya wrote:At least we shower

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:At least we shower

Have you been to rural America recently? The limousine conservatives shower, but not so much the rednecks.