dajafi wrote:I don't quite grasp why for most of us--probably almost all of us at times--it's not possible anymore for some public figure to be merely wrong. They have to be eevil and pose an existential threat to America, freedom and puppies.

Cuz politics is war and to win at war you hafta demonize and dehumanize the enemy so there will be no sympathies cuz with war there are only winners and losers

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm not arguing people should base their opinion of the bill on what the unwashed masses think of it. I'm not arguing representatives did the wrong thing in voting for it because of these numbers. I rather like the Burkean "you elect a dude to vote the right way as he sees it, not how the majority would necessarily vote" bit we discussed a little while back.

I have however read a poll or two before and when more than 2x as many people feel strongly about an issue on one side than the other, it's going to be an effective campaign issue even in districts or states that have majorities supporting the bill. Intensity matters on issues like this.

Sorta like gun control. Most people might favor something like trigger locks or closing the gun show loophole, but the people that actually vote on the issue are on the other side.

it's 2 days after the first portion of the bill passed; the "completed" thing is only being finished as we speak.

Get back to me in 2 months on that whole intensity thing. I'm not sure those polls are reflecting the attitudes of people with enduring attention spans.

Go back in time two years. Tell everyone that a semi-large, well-publicized political movement known colloquially as "Teabaggers" would emerge over the next couple of years. Watch the laffs.

I can still hardly believe it, and it makes me giggle from time to time.

traderdave wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:Suspicious package of white powder sent to Anthony Weiner's office, along with a letter complaining about the health care bill.

Seriously? This $#@! has really gotten out of hand. I saw a story about a gas line being cut at Stupak's brother's house after a Tea Bagger posted his home address online. Freakin' nuts.

Some of these folks are behaving like the Weathermen and the radical fringes of the Black Panthers. I presume the irony is lost on them.

Here's the article about the gas line:

http://nyti.ms/9WeFya

I facepalmed when I read it.

Swiggers wrote:

traderdave wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:Suspicious package of white powder sent to Anthony Weiner's office, along with a letter complaining about the health care bill.

Seriously? This $#@! has really gotten out of hand. I saw a story about a gas line being cut at Stupak's brother's house after a Tea Bagger posted his home address online. Freakin' nuts.

Some of these folks are behaving like the Weathermen and the radical fringes of the Black Panthers. I presume the irony is lost on them.

No doubt since they only have a few functional brain cells in their heads (probably collectively). The really sad thing is that the people who are committing these acts of cowardice probably couldn't give two craps about the issue and are just using it as an excuse to act like imbeciles (although I have no proof of that). I wonder if an address from Obama would help settle things down a bit or inflame the radicals even more.

Is the AEI straying from its neo-con roots? Are neo-cons done? Have the hippie-cons led by earth mother Palin and devil music playing Huckabee taken over?

If the past is prologue, then it seems likely that this may happen. Neo-cons are a weird bunch and have been sort of adrift since the end of the cold war, though they were briefly revived by the war on terrorism.

Hey, JH, I think working out some of the empirical connections between foreign policy ideology and domestic policy ideology would be an interesting project. There used to be a couple of neo-con symps running around the Rutgers Poli Sci department, but I think they're mostly gone now.

Frum got fired from his thinktank for that article about conservatives not accomplishing anything.

Right, but the AEI, as a more or less neo-con place is probably a bit worried about the rise of the tea party movement and the Palinistas. Remember, neo-cons are not small government or libertarians. They aren't necessarily in favor of LBJ type social programs, but are comfortable with New Deal style programs as essential to the maintenance of the social order, recognizing that serious problems emerge when too few people have any real stake in the maintenance of the social institutions that hold society together.

As someone who shares at least some of the world view of neo-cons (though not others) I understand why there might be considerable nervousness in those halls these days.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Frum got fired from his thinktank for that article about conservatives not accomplishing anything.

There were a lot of other reasons why he resigned, but anyone who penned something so dumb probably shouldn't be paid for thinking.

He's right. It may not have been smart for him to say it, but he's right.

I don't think that cooperating would have resulted in a markedly better bill from the GOP's perspective. The Democrats had the votes to pass it with or without GOP help, and some on the left were already disappointed that the bill didn't go further with aspects like the public option. I don't know what compromises the GOP could have extracted (and for Frum to pretend that someone like Olympia Snowe didn't look into it is dumb too), but I doubt whatever they could have gotten would have been worth giving the bill bipartisan cover.

Also resolutely opposing the bill did almost kill it. The fact that it didn't is more down to 2006 and 2008 and the lack of GOP votes in both chambers than their game plan since Obama was elected. If Republicans were successful in derailing passage of the further reaching reforms, then they could have gone to Obama/Reid/Pelosi and worked out a less ambitious package addressing things like preexisting conditions and cost controls like medical malpractice reform, allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, and a greater transparency about the true cost of medical care. This would have been much more preferable from a Republican perspective that even a small chance of this outcome being achieved would have made not compromising worth it. Just because Belichick went for it on 4th down against the Colts and failed doesn't mean going for it on 4th down was the wrong decision. It just didn't work out.

That's why I think Frum is wrong on the policy side.

Politically, I think the GOP's approach is going to pay dividends in November. Health care is consistently one of the Democratic Party's best issues with voters, and that's been neutralized with this debate. Furthermore, those most motivated by the issue are on the GOP's side for a change. You see the ugly side with the threats to congressmen, but there's the vast majority that are handling their anger in a less felonious fashion. Whenever the GOP gets power back, be it in 2012/2016/2020, they can work on passing whatever small compromises they could have gotten out of Obama and the Dems for their cooperation on this bill, and hopefully more.

OK now you go why is David Frum right? Because honestly I think that was one of the dumbest columns I've ever read. Outside of the part about it passing being good for Rush's ad sales, I don't think he made a decent point in the rest of his drivel. He did make himself mighty popular with Robert Gibbs though! Maybe he'll get an invite to some state dinner at the White House.

I don't know that simply killing the health care bill would work long term for Republicans.

And regardless of that, people like Frum believe that we need to think about these things in the context of global competitiveness, and from that perspective, the status quo is terrible. (Consider--the great economic strength of the US is our entrepreneurialism. The current health care system is a drag on that strength, because small and new business are at a serious disadvantage competing for talent when they cannot offer decent health insurance to their employees.) Lots of big companies have made the case for some form of reform. Wal-Mart actually caught flak for this several months ago from that young Republican.

The fact is, no one takes the Republicans seriously on health care. Their obstructionism and their repeal strategy may appeal to what is a shrinking base, but it's simply evidence of the intellectual bankruptcy of the right.

Discontent with the Democrat's reform efforts are based on the fact that right now, most people feel that they have good health coverage. In part, that's because they don't see how much the current system costs them--most employee benefit plans hide the full cost from them. And only a tiny few have been in a position to discover that their coverage isn't as extensive as they thought it was.

jerseyhoya wrote:I don't think that cooperating would have resulted in a markedly better bill from the GOP's perspective. The Democrats had the votes to pass it with or without GOP help, and some on the left were already disappointed that the bill didn't go further with aspects like the public option. I don't know what compromises the GOP could have extracted (and for Frum to pretend that someone like Olympia Snowe didn't look into it is dumb too), but I doubt whatever they could have gotten would have been worth giving the bill bipartisan cover.

Also resolutely opposing the bill did almost kill it. The fact that it didn't is more down to 2006 and 2008 and the lack of GOP votes in both chambers than their game plan since Obama was elected...Just because Belichick went for it on 4th down against the Colts and failed doesn't mean going for it on 4th down was the wrong decision. It just didn't work out.

That's why I think Frum is wrong on the policy side.

Politically, I think the GOP's approach is going to pay dividends in November. Health care is consistently one of the Democratic Party's best issues with voters, and that's been neutralized with this debate. Furthermore, those most motivated by the issue are on the GOP's side for a change. You see the ugly side with the threats to congressmen, but there's the vast majority that are handling their anger in a less felonious fashion. Whenever the GOP gets power back, be it in 2012/2016/2020, they can work on passing whatever small compromises they could have gotten out of Obama and the Dems for their cooperation on this bill, and hopefully more.

OK now you go why is David Frum right? Because honestly I think that was one of the dumbest columns I've ever read. Outside of the part about it passing being good for Rush's ad sales, I don't think he made a decent point in the rest of his drivel. He did make himself mighty popular with Robert Gibbs though! Maybe he'll get an invite to some state dinner at the White House.

You're still playing this exclusively as team sports, jerz. That's fine; there's job opportunities in that, whole careers, in fact. Anyone trying to get elected, regardless their philosophical leanings, has a better chance with you in their corner.

But you're a smart, observant, thoughtful individual. For our sakes, try, on some days, for a few minutes, thinking about this kind of thing as if the decisions, the actual policies, and their creation in a mode of civil discourse, might have an impact on you, your family, your world. We'll all be better for that.

I'm talking about team sports because it was an article criticizing how the team played during the game. It's like complaining that someone who is mocking a Marcus Hayes article on the Phillies is talking about baseball.

JH, I think it's also important to recognize that while the healthcare debate hasn't been good for Obama or Congressional Democrats, it's been even worse for Congressional Republicans if polls are to be believed. Now, that won't matter much in 2010, since Republicans have so few vulnerable seats left to defend. But long term, it will mean than any gains the Republicans might garner in 2010 aren't likely to be permanent.

The new Quinnipiac Poll is definitely some grist for the mill.

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm talking about team sports because it was an article criticizing how the team played during the game. It's like complaining that someone who is mocking a Marcus Hayes article on the Phillies is talking about baseball.

Easy, backcourt atom.

It may be we're not talking about the same article. In the Frum Forum article titled WaterlooFrum seems to be talking about the team's handling of strategic issues, rather than its vote-maneuvering tactics, which naturally I am loathe to question your observations about.

TenuredVulture wrote:I don't know that simply killing the health care bill would work long term for Republicans.

And regardless of that, people like Frum believe that we need to think about these things in the context of global competitiveness, and from that perspective, the status quo is terrible. (Consider--the great economic strength of the US is our entrepreneurialism. The current health care system is a drag on that strength, because small and new business are at a serious disadvantage competing for talent when they cannot offer decent health insurance to their employees.) Lots of big companies have made the case for some form of reform. Wal-Mart actually caught flak for this several months ago from that young Republican.

The fact is, no one takes the Republicans seriously on health care. Their obstructionism and their repeal strategy may appeal to what is a shrinking base, but it's simply evidence of the intellectual bankruptcy of the right.

Discontent with the Democrat's reform efforts are based on the fact that right now, most people feel that they have good health coverage. In part, that's because they don't see how much the current system costs them--most employee benefit plans hide the full cost from them. And only a tiny few have been in a position to discover that their coverage isn't as extensive as they thought it was.

There are a few reasons I try not to wade into policy type discussions. One is I am typically outmatched in them, and I don’t like talking about things that I’m not particularly knowledgeable about. The other is I have no idea how the fuck you or docsmooth came up with those responses to my post.

“I don't know that simply killing the health care bill would work long term for Republicans.” … This is in response to what? The only way Republicans could have played an important role in the health care reform debate in 2009/10 was for the Democrats’ plan for health care reform to suffer legislative defeat. Just opposing the bill was not an end.

In the House, Republicans were completely shut out of the bill writing process. There was no reason to include them, and so the Democrats went about trying to pass the most liberal bill they could to gain a simple majority. That’s fine and lovely and the way our system works. Let’s not pretend after the fact though that there was room for the GOP to exert any influence on the bill that was passed out of the House.

In the Senate, Republicans were included a little more, but it was still a Democratic led process. The Democrats wanted to pass a substantial bill that advanced their priorities on health care. That involved spending a lot of money, and making the coverage of everyone or just about everyone the major goal. Great, congratulations. Again this is the way things work if you have the votes, which they did. At that point though you’re limited to maybe a half dozen GOP senators who would even consider considering voting for the bill because the Republican Party does not (should not?) exist to go around creating trillion dollar health care programs.

Wyden/Bennett, a bipartisan approach to radically overhaul our health care system, was dismissed from the start. The path the Democrats chose for reform was one Republicans weren’t going to walk down. Could Snowe or Collins or Lugar or someone gotten a concession out of Reid/Obama if they pledged their support of the bill? Probably. I don’t think it would have been significant, and the bill as constructed would be similar with a minor tweak or two. Whatever could have been gained can be passed later, and would not have been worth giving the bill a bipartisan seal of approval, and preventing any potential chance at pulling back some of the portions of it down the line.

As for people not taking the Republican Party seriously on health care, there hasn’t really been a reason to for a while. Obviously under Bush we could have tried some major reform effort, but other than Medicare Part D, we didn’t. I think the two main reasons for that is you can’t take on every problem even over the course of 8 years, and there was no real, prominent Republican plan for fixing the major problems with our health care system. It was an issue that has gotten more focus from Democrats, and the debate especially early on showed that. If he had chosen health care overhaul at the start of his second term instead of social security reform, maybe things would have worked out differently. In any case that inaction and the two beatdowns at the polls in 2006 and 2008 are the reasons we ultimately lost the battle to stop this bill in Congress, not whatever the heck David Frum is blaming.

I think this fight did crystallize something of a Republican plan for health care. Paul Ryan, with this op-ed in the New York Times today, has really come to the fore as a main GOP spokesman on it. I’m sure even though most of the members of congress sound dumb or hyperpartisan on the issue, they’re at least better informed on the different plans out there than they were at the start of all of this. There are a few senators in the party as well that have stepped up, and hopefully they will continue their work.

Going forward, the repeal strategy is only part of what the party is talking about. The new catchy line is repeal, reform and replace or repeal, reform & restore promise & prosperity of this exceptional nation depending on who you’re listening to. The GOP will put forth an alternative, one focused primarily on cost cutting and availability; less on mandates and government spending. Changing the tax code, trying to break the connection between job and insurance. These all sound like nice things. God knows I don’t understand it all well enough to get into the nitty gritty, but this debate has belatedly energized the right on the issue. With the way the reform is structured time wise, this will be a huge issue in the next two federal elections.

If the GOP had followed David Frum’s advice on the issue to try and won a concession on how the tax is being applied or maybe on medical malpractice stuff, the bill would be marginally more palatable to the party, but still generally something not worth supporting. It would have deprived us a chance at debating the issue more going forward, offering an alternative, and rallying the base for the midterms.

I get what you're saying. Nevertheless, I still think Frum makes two reasonable points--first, the lack of a credible alternative on health care was a problem, though to be sure not a problem that emerged all of a sudden in 2010. The opportunity was doing a full on reform rather than Medicare Part D. Second, the whole "Waterloo" strategy I think long term is going to be a problem from a political standpoint. Again, polls bear this out--Congressional Republicans are not well thought of right now. It's not opposing HCR, it's the manner of opposing HCR. And the carrying on by extreme elements aren't going to help.

If the Republicans could talk serious about cost containment, that would be one thing. But the Waterloo strategy in a very real sense made that difficult. Because cutting costs means cutting care--it means less health care, fewer tests, fewer visits to specialists, and other things that would result in screams of death panels. But that was one of the causes of the screaming.

Only now are we getting things likethis from Phil Gramm.

This quote is instructive:

The alternative is to empower families to make their own health-care decisions in a system where costs matter. The fundamental question is about who is going to do the controlling: the family or the government.

People may not be crazy about the first alternative, but think about what the second means--it means more of your health care is going to have to come out of your pocket. Fine, you say. But that's going to be a more radical change in our health care system than anything contemplated by the Democrats.

jerseyhoya wrote:There are a few reasons I try not to wade into policy type discussions. One is I am typically outmatched in them,

BZZZZZZZT!!!!!!!!

and I don’t like talking about things that I’m not particularly knowledgeable about....

:rollseyes:

we so need that emoticon

Just opposing the bill was not an end.

In the House, Republicans were completely shut out of the bill writing process.

lies. or at least you don't know more than I do about that

....The Democrats wanted to pass a substantial bill that advanced their priorities on health care. That involved spending a lot of money, and making the coverage of everyone or just about everyone the major goal. Great, congratulations. Again this is the way things work if you have the votes, which they did. At that point though you’re limited to maybe a half dozen GOP senators who would even consider considering voting for the bill because the Republican Party does not (should not?) exist to go around creating trillion dollar health care programs.

if the 'pubs had presented an organized, concerted, committed, disciplined position on management of costs for effective health activities, they had a plank they could have insisted be included, and featured in the legislation. A guy like Ryan could have put it across.

Wyden/Bennett, a bipartisan approach to radically overhaul our health care system, was dismissed from the start. The path the Democrats chose for reform was one Republicans weren’t going to walk down. Could Snowe or Collins or Lugar or someone gotten a concession out of Reid/Obama if they pledged their support of the bill? Probably. I don’t think it would have been significant, and the bill as constructed would be similar with a minor tweak or two. Whatever could have been gained can be passed later, and would not have been worth giving the bill a bipartisan seal of approval, and preventing any potential chance at pulling back some of the portions of it down the line.

could someone parse this for me? because ?

Going forward, the repeal strategy is only part of what the party is talking about. The new catchy line is repeal, reform and replace or repeal, reform & restore promise & prosperity of this exceptional nation depending on who you’re listening to. The GOP will put forth an alternative, one focused primarily on cost cutting and availability; less on mandates and government spending. Changing the tax code, trying to break the connection between job and insurance.

weak sauce. not even sauce.

These all sound like nice things. God knows I don’t understand it all well enough to get into the nitty gritty....

bs. YOU ARE DOING GREAT HERE!!!!!

you are full on 100% correct that Frum was basically having his Tom Cruise/Jerry McGuire moment there. Weaker sauce than that weak sauce further up.

Pubs need to latch on to someone like Dr. Nortin Hadler and ride that radical dude to glory.

The beauty is that, while Hadler is probably inclined health policywise toward some form of Marxian wet dream, with the right handlers he could be molded into a paragon of conservative/libertarian virtue.

So anyways, this was awesome. I'm having a cigarette.