drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote:Trying to decide how much I agree with this take on the healthcare debate, from Kevin Drum of Mother Jones....The point about Social Security is a really good one: the initial form of a law isn't what it has to be forever.

I'm on board with this. And unless I miss my guess, Len Nichols would be, too.

Drum is totally right. That whole perfect and good thing. The goal should be is this something that can serve as a foundation for future improvements? I think we have that.

I suspect the opponents get this--that's while they are opposing any effort at reform, no matter how mild. And it isn't just Democrats. Bush too at least had a plan on the table that could have served as a basis for moving in the right direction as well. But it went nowhere (other than Medicare Part D and S-CHIPs) in part because it too would ultimately result in certain interest groups losing out on certain cash cows.

Financial reform bill passes in the House.

The writer here is pessimistic about its chances in the Senate, but I have to believe that if there's any measure where the White House could get on the populist train to good effect, it's defending the public against these evil a-holes. Of course, that would require them to show something other than fawning deference to said a-holes.

TenuredVulture wrote:
Drum is totally right. That whole perfect and good thing. The goal should be is this something that can serve as a foundation for future improvements? I think we have that.

I suspect the opponents get this--that's while they are opposing any effort at reform, no matter how mild. And it isn't just Democrats. Bush too at least had a plan on the table that could have served as a basis for moving in the right direction as well. But it went nowhere (other than Medicare Part D and S-CHIPs) in part because it too would ultimately result in certain interest groups losing out on certain cash cows.

JD Kleinke has a slightly different, more intense riff on the same idea. I don't always agree with him, but he's one engaging writer on the subject of health care in the US.

In case you think you're NOT interested, the guy does a terrific digression on breasts.

Yea, that's right - breasts!

drsmooth wrote:In case you think you're NOT interested, the guy does a terrific digression on breasts.

Yea, that's right - breasts!

pacino wrote:i took 'low hanging fruit' as him saying congress was going to be overtaken. my mistake

its probably not likely, but id say a 25-30% chance the GOP wins back the House.

The first step is to do in reverse what the Democrats did to us the last two cycles. They cleared out our weak incumbents. Grayson is certianly on that list.

Obama is starting to hit the sweet spot where centrists are appalled at how liberal he is and liberals are appalled at how centrist he is.

From NR's Jim Geraghty

Or as Dubya would say "Governin the merican people is hard work"

Jon Runyan sort of announced today

I'd like to think the deciding factor in all of this was realizing Seaside Heights was in the 3rd District, and he wanted to represent the good guidettes in Congress.

Love this:

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R), considered to be a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, may have a bigger problem with granting pardons than Mike Huckabee (R), his potential rival who has been taking a beating for weeks on the issue.

Slate notes Barbour "has simultaneously ignored increasing evidence that there may be a disturbingly high number of innocent people in prison in Mississippi and handed out pardons to the convicted murderers who just happen to do work on his house."

I've been saying for years that Barbour is Boss Hogg.

On top of that stuff, which obviously doesn't sound good, you can't have been a registered lobbyist and built one of the biggest shops in DC and then hope to run for the White House. I'm sure he represented clients and made deals that would come out that would make him seem pretty radioactive.

jerseyhoya wrote:On top of that stuff, which obviously doesn't sound good, you can't have been a registered lobbyist and built one of the biggest shops in DC and then hope to run for the White House. I'm sure he represented clients and made deals that would come out that would make him seem pretty radioactive.

Now I'm imagining him and Daschle drinking human blood together through linked arms.

Barbour makes Dick Cheney look warm and cuddly.

I'd like a show of hands from people who are surprised Drudge's headline right now is about Obama's Global Warming agreement being reached in time for him to come home to a blizzard. Anyone?

i dont check the drudge report, but that's really surprising. may as well have a 'sure is hot out there, eh mr. prez?!' tagline

Oh Alan Grayson never change

Five years in jail?

Good stuff from Comrade Grayson

jerseyhoya wrote:Oh Alan Grayson never change

Five years in jail?

Good stuff from Comrade Grayson

Really dumb on his part. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. "Glass Jaw Grayson" might not have quite the same ring as "Bat Shit Bachmann," but it's descriptive.

(Though, mindful of Bachmann's "I think Obama and many Democrats should be investigated as 'un-American'" comments from last year, I'm now not just thinking they have shameful monkey sex in the cloakroom; I think they might be the same person, or weird clones)

Anyone who believes their side is always right and thinks the other side are ignorant subhuman morons (or godless country hating hippies) with destructive motives are basically two sides of the same coin.

With any luck or in a better system, they'd be marginalized voices. The problem is they get cheered on from the Red States' and Daily Kos's of the world because they're representatives of the cocooned environment these people live on a daily basis. Then the other side highlights their buffoonery.* And it becomes a controversy. And Grayson goes on MSNBC, Bachmann goes on Hannity. And the cycle goes on, and what should be a side show becomes a main story on a consistent basis.

*(I guess I do that here with Grayson, heh)

equating hannity and msnbc seems a bit weak, though. msnbc is liberal for about 5 hours a night from 7-11 (where Maddow is pretty darn informative and fair by any account), then it goes back to its prison documentaries

just a quibble sir

jerseyhoya wrote:Anyone who believes their side is always right and thinks the other side are ignorant subhuman morons (or godless country hating hippies) with destructive motives are basically two sides of the same coin.

With any luck or in a better system, they'd be marginalized voices. The problem is they get cheered on from the Red States' and Daily Kos's of the world because they're representatives of the cocooned environment these people live on a daily basis. Then the other side highlights their buffoonery.* And it becomes a controversy. And Grayson goes on MSNBC, Bachmann goes on Hannity. And the cycle goes on, and what should be a side show becomes a main story on a consistent basis.

*(I guess I do that here with Grayson, heh)

Well, you know I agree with all of this. (And I have no problem, even sort of appreciate, your ragging Grayson since I've done the same with Bachmann's serial acts of nutbaggery.)

What I think you grasped much more quickly than I did (though I get it now) is that even their colleagues see these people as one-dimensional instigators, useful only in angrying up the base and maybe shaking loose some money. They aren't legislators, for sure--that's too close to actual work.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Anyone who believes their side is always right and thinks the other side are ignorant subhuman morons (or godless country hating hippies) with destructive motives are basically two sides of the same coin.

With any luck or in a better system, they'd be marginalized voices. The problem is they get cheered on from the Red States' and Daily Kos's of the world because they're representatives of the cocooned environment these people live on a daily basis. Then the other side highlights their buffoonery.* And it becomes a controversy. And Grayson goes on MSNBC, Bachmann goes on Hannity. And the cycle goes on, and what should be a side show becomes a main story on a consistent basis.

*(I guess I do that here with Grayson, heh)

Well, you know I agree with all of this. (And I have no problem, even sort of appreciate, your ragging Grayson since I've done the same with Bachmann's serial acts of nutbaggery.)

What I think you grasped much more quickly than I did (though I get it now) is that even their colleagues see these people as one-dimensional instigators, useful only in angrying up the base and maybe shaking loose some money. They aren't legislators, for sure--that's too close to actual work.

Grayson is smarter than Bachmann, and will occasionally make a point like he did on the ACORN bill, but I'm sure leadership HATES both of them and anyone else in the caucus like them. They're embarrassing to the party with centrists, and the dumber portions of the bases of both parties look at them and say, "Why can't Pelosi/Boehner/Reid/McConnell be more like them?!"

pacino wrote:equating hannity and msnbc seems a bit weak, though. msnbc is liberal for about 5 hours a night from 7-11 (where Maddow is pretty darn informative and fair by any account), then it goes back to its prison documentaries

just a quibble sir

You want to talk about informative? I've learned more about the War on Christmas on Fox than anywhere else.