Birthers, Deathers, and the Muddled Middle: POLITICS THREAD

by **pacino** » Wed Aug 19, 2009 18:16:01

Barney Frank now my #1 congressman

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:01:04

I know I should stop trying to gauge the pulse of the right by reading redstate, but I can't help myself. Anyway, spending a few minutes over their, I began to wonder if with Sarah Palin damaged goods by now and Huckabee probably still an annoyance to a chunk of the base, might they try to nominate...wait for it...Michelle Bachman of Minnesota? Oh, we can only dream.

by **Werthless** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:12:32

TenuredVulture wrote:I know I should stop trying to gauge the pulse of the right by reading redstate, but I can't help myself. Anyway, spending a few minutes over their, I began to wonder if with Sarah Palin damaged goods by now and Huckabee probably still an annoyance to a chunk of the base, might they try to nominate...wait for it...Michelle Bachman of Minnesota? Oh, we can only dream.

Why would you want one party to mount such a terrible candidate? Is there not a single person in the GOP you'd be ok with as President? Since re-election campaigns are largely a referendum of the sitting President (as I understand it), a terrible candidate may have an outside chance of winning if stuff goes to shit.

by **dajafi** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:16:56

I could imagine wanting to see a terrible candidate like Bat-Shit Bachmann nominated for one reason: it might, just might, serve as a mirror to the Republicans (or Democrats, if we were talking about someone like Kucinich and if a guy like that could get nominated by the Dems) showing just how far they've diverged from the political mainstream and valid governance traditions.

That said, most of the time I just want to see someone who has a claim on merit and is likely to do minimum harm, even if I strongly disagree with him/her. I was happy to see the Republicans nominate McCain last year, for instance. (Though as the campaign went on I became increasingly concerned that, if he won, we really might see "four more wars.")

by **Harpua** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:22:06

Who knows what the GOP's going to do for nomination in 2012, maybe offer up some sacrificial lamb and gun for 2016. But even now it's probably too early to tell. Obama certainly wasn't the front-runner for the Dem nomination in 2005. Still, it would be hilarious, Palin times infinity, to see a Bachmann nomination.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:24:33

I have as good of a chance of being the nominee as Bachmann.

Paul, stop reading RedState, or at least stop taking it seriously.

by **jeff2sf** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:28:17

dajafi wrote:I could imagine wanting to see a terrible candidate like Bat-$#@! Bachmann nominated for one reason: it might, just might, serve as a mirror to the Republicans (or Democrats, if we were talking about someone like Kucinich and if a guy like that could get nominated by the Dems) showing just how far they've diverged from the political mainstream and valid governance traditions.

That said, most of the time I just want to see someone who has a claim on merit and is likely to do minimum harm, even if I strongly disagree with him/her. I was happy to see the Republicans nominate McCain last year, for instance. (Though as the campaign went on I became increasingly concerned that, if he won, we really might see "four more wars.")

That was my biggest fear with McCain as well, but ultimately I believe it would have been unfounded. Unlike some bloodthirsty guys (Cheney comes to mind), McCain served and trusts the military. I believe they could have reined in his excesses such that MAX we might have bombed Iran. Yup, rest easy.

I'm being a little glib obviously, but I believe that it could have been managed. Now, Palin being in the catbird seat for a 2012 nomination ruined the McCain love, but I think, in concert with a Dem Congress, he could have been managed and we would have had an okay presidency.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:46:23

Werthless wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:I know I should stop trying to gauge the pulse of the right by reading redstate, but I can't help myself. Anyway, spending a few minutes over their, I began to wonder if with Sarah Palin damaged goods by now and Huckabee probably still an annoyance to a chunk of the base, might they try to nominate...wait for it...Michelle Bachman of Minnesota? Oh, we can only dream.

Why would you want one party to mount such a terrible candidate? Is there not a single person in the GOP you'd be ok with as President? Since re-election campaigns are largely a referendum of the sitting President (as I understand it), a terrible candidate may have an outside chance of winning if stuff goes to $#@!.

I think we need a viable and credible Republican party. But I'm not sure what the path is to get there.

But one possibility (one I've thought was a good one for some time now) is that such a nomination would split the Republican party. As I see it, the best way to understand the main factions in the Republican party right now are religious populists on the one hand and a more cosmopolitan conservative party on the other.

And only the cosmopolitan faction can win. But in order to do so, they need to either silence or cast out the populists. Rove tried to string them along, and was successful for a time. But Rove was limited. He understand the numbers (if the Republicans don't bring in significant Hispanic voters, Texas becomes a blue state probably by 2016, and I don't see any electoral college map that gets the Republicans to 270 ev without Texas) but he did not understand the nature of the "true believers".

Right now, I just don't see the Republicans nominating a Romney or anyone like that. You're talking about a party where having a passport is a liability these days.

The historical parallel I'm thinking of is 68 and 72. If McCain is the Republicans Humphrey, the next step (and the rhetoric is clear this is the direction the base wants) is to nominate a McGovern. To be sure, this will be a political season of turmoil, and it won't be pleasant. But I really don't see any other scenario at this point.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:47:30

jerseyhoya wrote:I have as good of a chance of being the nominee as Bachmann.

Paul, stop reading RedState, or at least stop taking it seriously.

I can't help myself. I really want to stop.

While I was coming up with a dissertation topic, I kept reading these crazy tracts from the English Civil war by nut jobs like Abeizer Coppe. And I was all set to do my dissertation on that stuff. I couldn't help myself. But eventually, I did get over it, though in part with what amounted to an academic intervention of sorts.

by **dajafi** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:48:48

Liberal activist Jame Hamsher connects the dots:

On May 11, "stakeholders" including the AMA, PhRMA, the hospitals and the device manufacturers delivered proposals to the White House promising to "voluntarily" reduce cost increases over the next 10 years. In an effort to keep them "at the table," Baucus's Chief of Staff Jon Selib and Finance Committee staffer Russell Sullivan told stakeholders at a May 20 meeting that their participation in the process of crafting a health care bill was contingent on them "holding their fire":

Sources familiar with the lobbyist meeting described it as collegial, but they said Baucus’ aides made clear that any public opposition to the proposed financing of a reform package would be at their clients’ peril. The staffers’ message to K Street was clear: Tell your clients to let the process work and don’t torpedo it with advertisements, press releases and Web sites.

The goal of keeping stakeholders at the table was threefold:

1. Keep them from advertising against the White House plan
2. Keep them from torpedoing vulnerable Democrats in 2010 so there isn't a repeat of 1994
3. Keep their money out of GOP coffers
...
Just as it was during the bank bailout, the goal of the White House was clear: more important than saving the financial system was keeping the financial institutions happy and stop them from financing Republicans.

Who would think that way? Whose primary objective would be to keep anyone from funding a GOP ascendancy, to sell out health care reform worth billions for a hundred fifty million in pro-reform advertising? Who would think to ask PhRMA to run ads in the districts of vulnerable freshmen, as well as Blue Dog Mike Ross, who is anything BUT vulnerable? Certainly not some policy wonk.

But ask yourself -- would consider it a victory to use the "public plan" as little more than a political pawn with which to threaten stakeholders and force them to stay at the table, with no thought as to the emotional and moral consequences suffered by the people who had pinned their hope on having one?

Someone who had worked as the head of the DCCC. Who remembered the 54 seat swing to the GOP in 1994 after the failure to pass health care reform. Someone whose sole goal was a "political victory," so the White House could be 14-0 not "13-1."

Someone like Rahm Emanuel, who works through the Blue Dogs in the House to make the House bill conform to the deals he sets up in the Senate.

I'd really like to dismiss this as paranoia. But on the merits, I think she's probably right.

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 09:07:46

Does anyone (dajafi) know when the last time NYC's gun laws, sentencing in particular, have been strengthened? Basically, has Bloomberg increased them more than Giuliani?

by **drsmooth** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 09:47:41

dajafi wrote:....I'd really like to dismiss this as paranoia. But on the merits, I think she's probably right.

Help me make the further connection to Krugman's interpretation. He's as dotty as anyone - so wrong on health care, so seemingly right on a lot else:

Krugman in NYTimes wrote:Obama's Trust Problem
...One purpose of the public option is to save money. Experience with Medicare suggests that a government-run plan would have lower costs than private insurers; in addition, it would introduce more competition and keep premiums down.

wrong, b/c medicare is essentially unmanaged ffs. lower admin costs is not lower system costs. He's consistently an idiot - worse, a bald-faced liar - on this.

But what follows seems related somehow to the "Rahm is wheelin' & dealin' storyline:

....Meanwhile, on such fraught questions as torture and indefinite detention, the president has dismayed progressives with his reluctance to challenge or change Bush administration policy.

And then there’s the matter of the banks.

I don’t know if administration officials realize just how much damage they’ve done themselves with their kid-gloves treatment of the financial industry....I’ve had many conversations with people who voted for Mr. Obama, yet dismiss the stimulus as a total waste of money.....it turns out that they’re really angry about the bailouts rather than the stimulus....there’s a growing sense among progressives that they have, as my colleague Frank Rich suggests, been punked. And that’s why the mixed signals on the public option created such an uproar....[T]here’s a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line.

by **jeff2sf** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 09:53:52

Smooth, I recognize this isn't 100% correlated. I also recognize my view is different from many. But I find when the liberals are mad at a dem president (and when the religious right is mad at a Republican president), that's often when the greatest good is happening for the country.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:11:08

jeff2sf wrote:Smooth, I recognize this isn't 100% correlated. I also recognize my view is different from many. But I find when the liberals are mad at a dem president (and when the religious right is mad at a Republican president), that's often when the greatest good is happening for the country.

I'd ordinarily agree, Jeff - really, I would.

But my feeling is health reform has to be strong, simple & sharp to achieve needed behavior change - a pry bar inserted at the right point, balanced at the right fulcrum, to gain the needed leverage. Compromise certainly will enter in, but compromise as usual is very unlikely to get it done.

by **dajafi** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:27:38

jeff2sf wrote:Smooth, I recognize this isn't 100% correlated. I also recognize my view is different from many. But I find when the liberals are mad at a dem president (and when the religious right is mad at a Republican president), that's often when the greatest good is happening for the country.

Your faith in the Magic Middle isn't far off, in terms of credulity, from how those extremists you disdain view the political world.

What the "centrists" did to the stimulus, for instance, might have been good politics ("huzzah! We got the total cost under $800 billion!") but it awful policy in that what they cut would have the most stimulative effect, aid to state and local govt.

Similarly, if Hamsher is right, the "reform" we'll get will allow Obama to claim that hes kept the letter of his campaign pledge, but sacrifices efficacy on the altar of campaign funding. Rahm is protecting industry profits rather than getting at the root of the financing problem. It might expand coverage, but won't "bend the cost curve," meaning that the budget outlook will get even worse. This is sustainable until it isn't.

What kills me is that this is pretty much how DeLay ran the government. The goal was power perpetuation, not good public policy.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:34:00

dajafi wrote:What kills me is that this is pretty much how DeLay ran the government. The goal was power perpetuation, not good public policy.

& Rahm would protest that we'll get to good policy "later"; a later that never comes.

by **dajafi** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:35:15

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Does anyone (dajafi) know when the last time NYC's gun laws, sentencing in particular, have been strengthened? Basically, has Bloomberg increased them more than Giuliani?

He's definitely been more visible and outspoken about gun laws, and there's a real argument that if he weren't up for reelection Burress might not have even gone to trial. Can't remember if the law itself has changed though.

by **jeff2sf** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:38:11

dajafi wrote:
jeff2sf wrote:Smooth, I recognize this isn't 100% correlated. I also recognize my view is different from many. But I find when the liberals are mad at a dem president (and when the religious right is mad at a Republican president), that's often when the greatest good is happening for the country.

Your faith in the Magic Middle isn't far off, in terms of credulity, from how those extremists you disdain view the political world.

What the "centrists" did to the stimulus, for instance, might have been good politics ("huzzah! We got the total cost under $800 billion!") but it awful policy in that what they cut would have the most stimulative effect, aid to state and local govt.

Similarly, if Hamsher is right, the "reform" we'll get will allow Obama to claim that hes kept the letter of his campaign pledge, but sacrifices efficacy on the altar of campaign funding. Rahm is protecting industry profits rather than getting at the root of the financing problem. It might expand coverage, but won't "bend the cost curve," meaning that the budget outlook will get even worse. This is sustainable until it isn't.

What kills me is that this is pretty much how DeLay ran the government. The goal was power perpetuation, not good public policy.

"If Hamsher is right" is not unlike "if CD is right".

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).

Yes, great, we'd have "coherent" policy, but it wouldn't work for most of the country.

By the way, from what I understand about the "right" healthcare solution, it's not purely a lib solution. Again, angering the libs isn't the worst thing here (though of course I'll stipulate here that it's very likely Obama could produce a solution that doesn't work and no one likes)

by **dajafi** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:29:40

jeff2sf wrote:
dajafi wrote:
jeff2sf wrote:Smooth, I recognize this isn't 100% correlated. I also recognize my view is different from many. But I find when the liberals are mad at a dem president (and when the religious right is mad at a Republican president), that's often when the greatest good is happening for the country.

Your faith in the Magic Middle isn't far off, in terms of credulity, from how those extremists you disdain view the political world.

What the "centrists" did to the stimulus, for instance, might have been good politics ("huzzah! We got the total cost under $800 billion!") but it awful policy in that what they cut would have the most stimulative effect, aid to state and local govt.

Similarly, if Hamsher is right, the "reform" we'll get will allow Obama to claim that hes kept the letter of his campaign pledge, but sacrifices efficacy on the altar of campaign funding. Rahm is protecting industry profits rather than getting at the root of the financing problem. It might expand coverage, but won't "bend the cost curve," meaning that the budget outlook will get even worse. This is sustainable until it isn't.

What kills me is that this is pretty much how DeLay ran the government. The goal was power perpetuation, not good public policy.

"If Hamsher is right" is not unlike "if CD is right".

I gave that some thought (and hence the less than oblique "connects the dots" line--c'mon, jeff, what are we paying you for here?). And I'm willing, eager even, to be convinced she's wrong. But saying "she's a nutty lefty" isn't enough to get me there. Tear apart her argument. Please.

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.

jeff2sf wrote:By the way, from what I understand about the "right" healthcare solution, it's not purely a lib solution. Again, angering the libs isn't the worst thing here (though of course I'll stipulate here that it's very likely Obama could produce a solution that doesn't work and no one likes)

You maybe misunderstand me here. I'm not of a "public option or death" view. But everything I've read about how they're doing this aligns with Hamsher's premise: co-opt potential industry opposition (avoiding Clinton mistake #1), let Congress take the lead (avoiding Clinton mistake #2), and (Rahm's words) "put points on the board" rather than necessarily solve the big underlying problem of structurally out-of-control costs.

They will make progress on the other big problem, which is the uninsured. But letting the even more institutionally corrupt Congress take the lead and making promises to insurance companies, Pharma and the rest suggests to me that cost control isn't going to happen. If you worry about deficits, as we both do, that's scary. And if your focus, like doc's, is on systemic behavior modification, it's very depressing. We could wind up reinforcing almost everything that's wrong with the status quo, and doing it in the name of "reform."

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:34:00

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 shit for a decade or two.

Archived

Birthers, Deathers, and the Muddled Middle: POLITICS THREAD