Obama's future

[Bugs]

A vocal part of the American left is getting very upset at President Obama. You should understand that the writer of what follows, David Michael Green, is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. A very partisan liberal democrat who's written articles strongly supporting Obama, like this: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Of-Tea-Parties-and-Telepro-by-David-Michael-Gree-090423-987.html

Like any good progressive, I've gone from admiration to hope to disappointment to anger when it comes to this president. Now I'm fast getting to rage.

How much rage? I find myself thinking that the thing I want most from the 2010 elections is for his party to get absolutely clobbered, even if that means a repeat of 1994. And that what I most want from 2012 is for him to be utterly humiliated, even if that means President Palin at the helm. That much rage.

Did this clown really say on national television that "I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of you know, fat cat bankers on Wall Street"?!?!

Really, Barack? So, like, my question is: Then why the hell did you help out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street?!?! Why the hell did you surround yourself with nothing but Robert Rubin proteges in all the key economic positions in your government? Why did you allow them to open a Washington branch of Goldman Sachs in the West Wing? Why have your policies been tailored to helping Wall Street bankers, rather than the other 300 million of us, who just happen to be suffering badly right now?

Here's a guy who was supposed to actually do something with his presidency, and he's turned into the skinny little geek on Cell Block D who gets passed around like a rag doll for the pleasure of all the fellas with the tattoos there. He's being punked by John Boehner, for chrisakes. He's being rolled by the likes of Joe Lieberman. He calls a come-to-Jesus meeting with Wall Street bank CEOs, and half of them literally phone it in. Everyone from Bibi Netanyahu to the Japanese prime minister to sundry Iranian mullahs is stomping all over Mr. Happy.

And he doesn't even seem to realize it.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Now-I-m-Really-Getting-Pis-by-David-Michael-Gree-091219-496.html

Yeah, I know, post-modern academics seem to write funny. But it is one more indication of the tough times ahead for Mr. Obama. His political capital is quickly beinh frittered away. Prepare for disaster, folks.

[Pliny]

Yeah. Extreme leftist Democrats are turning into extreme rightist neo-cons.

The term neo-cons has sort of dropped out of use since Obama's election. I haven't seen it or heard it for awhile and it's the first time I have used it in months.

Obama really is in trouble. He just says what he thinks other people want to hear - most of the time in vague generalities. I cannot understand what people gleaned from his campaign. He voiced many platitudes and conveniently avoided questions regarding being a "socialist" or far left guy when in fact he is. The fact he tried to distance himself from the term and hide it means he understood his chances to get elected would have been poor if he had been honest about how he wanted to "transform America". I think the far left could read his language pretty clearly though, and the message was Let's sneak in there and then push whatever big government we can get away with on the citizenry.

The American public is, after all, stupid and don't even realize they want socialized medicine, a government run Wall street and Car companies.

It seems only a few enlightened intellectuals are bright enough to realize what is best for America. How odd, a country with the idea that government is for the people and of the people yet the intellectual ideologues regard the people as too stupid to be capable of understanding anything about government. That leaves those with the audacity of hope, whoever that may be, as the only hope that things can be steered right(pun intended).

[Bugs]

Obama really is in trouble. He just says what he thinks other people want to hear - most of the time in vague generalities. I cannot understand what people gleaned from his campaign. He voiced many platitudes and conveniently avoided questions regarding being a "socialist" or far left guy when in fact he is. The fact he tried to distance himself from the term and hide it means he understood his chances to get elected would have been poor if he had been honest about how he wanted to "transform America". I think the far left could read his language pretty clearly though, and the message was Let's sneak in there and then push whatever big government we can get away with on the citizenry.

I think you misread the American people. Are you from England? Let me give you how I saw the election.

The Republicans went into the election bearing the odium of the Bush presidency. In the end, Bush was at roughly the same levels of support as Dick Nixon at the time of his impending impeachment. Even the Republicans turned their back on Conservatism, and selected McCain, a 'liberal hawk'. And then, the terrible bank collapse happened in the heat of the campaign, in September, when McCain was (surprisingly) still neck-and-neck with Obama. Obama didn't do as well as he really should have, under the circumstances. The other thing is that race was a positive factor for Obama. He won without even outlining a philosophy or a program. (He still hasn't.) No white candidate could have won on his platform. His political ideas are all the things that were rejected when Carter was thrown out of office.

The election was decided by people who didn't want to vote Republican, but couldn't find much reason to vote for Obama.

You have to understand that the media is 100% in the bag for Obama. Only now, a year into a disastrous administration, are criticisms coming to the surface. You have to get your information from the blogs.

The American public is, after all, stupid and don't even realize they want socialized medicine, a government run Wall street and Car companies.

I am chuckling, thinking of you saying this while folks in England have to hoist Gordon Brown on their shoulders as a national leader.

The American people were disgusted by George W Bush because of his spending, because of what was felt to be a deceitfulness. The other thing they didn't like was his stand on immigration, and his performance on Katrina. The war was never a factor, and it even hurt Kerry. But Obama is now doing exactly what Bush was doing -- most of the time. In fact, they say Obama is Bush on steroids. Is it any wonder that people are coming to detest him?

Thousands of Americans are in the streets virtually every weekend, quietly talking to people, and putting names on lists, all around building a movement to resist the spending on a non-partisan basis. (The Tea Party people.) These people, mainstream people from the 'Red states' are largely agreed on that. Healthcare will produce another wave of protesters.

In all likelihood, the Congress will grow ever more fearful of the public, until they abandon these grandiose plans. On top of this, there will be demands for another stimulus, another bunch of bailouts ... if unemployment doesn't respond.

If Obama keeps this up, he will take his party into a Charge of the Light Brigade scenario. And he hasn't even talked about 'Cap and Trade' yet!

It seems only a few enlightened intellectuals are bright enough to realize what is best for America. How odd, a country with the idea that government is for the people and of the people yet the intellectual ideologues regard the people as too stupid to be capable of understanding anything about government. That leaves those with the audacity of hope, whoever that may be, as the only hope that things can be steered right(pun intended).

It seems only a few enlightened intellectuals are bright enough to realize what is best for America. How odd, a country with the idea that government is for the people and of the people yet the intellectual ideologues regard the people as too stupid to be capable of understanding anything about government. That leaves those with the audacity of hope, whoever that may be, as the only hope that things can be steered right(pun intended).

Personally, I try to avoid depending on the brilliance of enlightened intellectuals for much. Those days are over.

Let me tweak you -- I, myself, wonder how one of the world's great history-making powers ended up as a province of Euroland, giving the British less control over their affairs than, say, oh ... the state of Nebraska? How did intelligent people, with a long history of universal public education, ever get themselves in a situation where the British Army might be led by by ... oh, say ... an Italian general? The Royal Navy under the leadership of, say ... a French Admiral?

In other words, how's all this social planning working for you?

--------------------------------------------

The reasons Americans are opposing government medicine is because they like their present plans better. It isn't like they're suffering medically, you know. They know what they pay -- its on their pay stub, likely. (Do you know what YOU pay?) They also know what they get with their policy. The American health system is already 'socialized' if you mean nobody is spending their own money, and the costs are skyrocketing. The insurance companies can't control costs. (The 'tort industry' also adds $billions to the costs of heathcare.)

The traditional European approach to a problem like this, I know, was to approach the master ... which has evolved into asking the government. The Americans, perhaps immaturely, look for a commercial solution. Is there a middleman to cut out? Can technology make things more affordable? Why isn't there more competition?

What this is actually about, at least in one dimension, is forcing 20 or 30 million who self-insure (by choice) to start paying for other people's medical care. Secondly, Americans rarely think that the government is where you go when you want to control costs. There are other motives, as well. We still don't know what the healthcare bill will look like, but there are all kind of lobbyists very happy, and stocks of health companies has risen 25%.

How are people in England finding funding medical care? Is it threatening to eat up the budget?

[Pliny]

I think you misread the American people. Are you from England? Let me give you how I saw the election.

The Republicans went into the election bearing the odium of the Bush presidency. In the end, Bush was at roughly the same levels of support as Dick Nixon at the time of his impending impeachment. Even the Republicans turned their back on Conservatism, and selected McCain, a 'liberal hawk'. And then, the terrible bank collapse happened in the heat of the campaign, in September, when McCain was (surprisingly) still neck-and-neck with Obama. Obama didn't do as well as he really should have, under the circumstances. The other thing is that race was a positive factor for Obama. He won without even outlining a philosophy or a program. (He still hasn't.) No white candidate could have won on his platform. His political ideas are all the things that were rejected when Carter was thrown out of office.

The election was decided by people who didn't want to vote Republican, but couldn't find much reason to vote for Obama.

You have to understand that the media is 100% in the bag for Obama. Only now, a year into a disastrous administration, are criticisms coming to the surface. You have to get your information from the blogs.

He didn't outline a philosophy or a program. Pretty much what I said.

I agree with what you are saying about the Republicans as well. The only point I might argue is that only 99% of the media was in the bag for Obama. Fox news provided some balance.

I am chuckling, thinking of you saying this while folks in England have to hoist Gordon Brown on their shoulders as a national leader.

The American people were disgusted by George W Bush because of his spending, because of what was felt to be a deceitfulness. The other thing they didn't like was his stand on immigration, and his performance on Katrina. The war was never a factor, and it even hurt Kerry. But Obama is now doing exactly what Bush was doing -- most of the time. In fact, they say Obama is Bush on steroids. Is it any wonder that people are coming to detest him?

Well, Democrats had control of congress and the Senate the last two years of Bush's term. I think if you look you will see the big spenders were there in the form of Nasty Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. Bush really lost control of spending at that point. But he was also a bit of a spendthrift. His hands were pretty much tied by his own spending habits. He couldn't very well say, "Ok now we are going to stop spending!" when he had lost so much support.

Thousands of Americans are in the streets virtually every weekend, quietly talking to people, and putting names on lists, all around building a movement to resist the spending on a non-partisan basis. (The Tea Party people.) These people, mainstream people from the 'Red states' are largely agreed on that. Healthcare will produce another wave of protesters.

In all likelihood, the Congress will grow ever more fearful of the public, until they abandon these grandiose plans. On top of this, there will be demands for another stimulus, another bunch of bailouts ... if unemployment doesn't respond.

If Obama keeps this up, he will take his party into a Charge of the Light Brigade scenario. And he hasn't even talked about 'Cap and Trade' yet!

Don't disagree with anything you say. I am from Canada, by the way.

Personally, I try to avoid depending on the brilliance of enlightened intellectuals for much. Those days are over.

Hopefully, but that's a purely American perspective right now. Nothing's changed outside of the States. People elsewhere immaturely listen to the intellectual crowd.

Let me tweak you -- I, myself, wonder how one of the world's great history-making powers ended up as a province of Euroland, giving the British less control over their affairs than, say, oh ... the state of Nebraska? How did intelligent people, with a long history of universal public education, ever get themselves in a situation where the British Army might be led by by ... oh, say ... an Italian general? The Royal Navy under the leadership of, say ... a French Admiral?

In other words, how's all this social planning working for you?

It doesn't work for me. Most Canadians like it. The British are I think starting to see the picture you paint.

--------------------------------------------

The reasons Americans are opposing government medicine is because they like their present plans better. It isn't like they're suffering medically, you know. They know what they pay -- its on their pay stub, likely. (Do you know what YOU pay?)

I have an idea of how much I pay, it isn't on my pay stub though. It's similar to what you pay. Some Canadians agree with Michael Moore and will tell you it's free.

They also know what they get with their policy. The American health system is already 'socialized' if you mean nobody is spending their own money, and the costs are skyrocketing. The insurance companies can't control costs. (The 'tort industry' also adds $billions to the costs of heathcare.)

You have medicare and medicaid. Have you figured out how much comes off your pay stub for those programs plus what you see on your private insurance?

While I agree your system needs some changes you are lucky enough to have the ability to change it. Once it becomes a government run industry there is little likelihood of significant or meaningful change.

We have a study every ten years or so that costs about 15 million and usually some ex-politician does the study and comes up with the fact there are not enough resources. In other words they need more money and more people. I could save them 15 million and just tell them that if that's what they want to hear. I would charge a lot less.

The traditional European approach to a problem like this, I know, was to approach the master ... which has evolved into asking the government. The Americans, perhaps immaturely, look for a commercial solution. Is there a middleman to cut out? Can technology make things more affordable? Why isn't there more competition?

Why do you say Americans perhaps act immaturely? The European approach is entirely immature.

What this is actually about, at least in one dimension, is forcing 20 or 30 million who self-insure (by choice) to start paying for other people's medical care. Secondly, Americans rarely think that the government is where you go when you want to control costs. There are other motives, as well. We still don't know what the healthcare bill will look like, but there are all kind of lobbyists very happy, and stocks of health companies has risen 25%.

Agreed, if you want to control costs the government is not the place to resolve that. My guess is that you think their intervention so far is one of the reasons it is so costly.

How are people in England finding funding medical care? Is it threatening to eat up the budget?

I'm not there but it eats up a good percentage of ours here in Canada.

Thanks for the tweak.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Pliny

[Bugs]

I have an idea of how much I pay, it isn't on my pay stub though. It's similar to what you pay. Some Canadians agree with Michael Moore and will tell you it's free.

You have medicare and medicaid. Have you figured out how much comes off your pay stub for those programs plus what you see on your private insurance?

While I agree your system needs some changes you are lucky enough to have the ability to change it. Once it becomes a government run industry there is little likelihood of significant or meaningful change.

We have a study every ten years or so that costs about 15 million and usually some ex-politician does the study and comes up with the fact there are not enough resources. In other words they need more money and more people. I could save them 15 million and just tell them that if that's what they want to hear. I would charge a lot less.

Why do you say Americans perhaps act immaturely? The European approach is entirely immature.

First of all, thanks for responding in such a patient way. You should know I am a Canadian, and I thought I was defending Americans from a Brit who cruises through here to treat us like 'colonials'. I applaud the resistance that mainstream Americans are showing, and I am cheered by it. It isn't that I mind government medicine. It's that the way this is being shoved down people's throats that makes me cheer the resistance.

My point about the American way of medical care is that working people do have a pretty good idea about the tradeoffs in different plans, what's covered and what isn't, and what it all costs. You're right, Medicare and Medicaid recipients are getting government medicine already -- but working people generallyt are not. Even so, you saw those people at the Town Hall meetings, and it was clear -- they had specific, well understood questions that he politicians couldn't answer! That is hard to imagine happening in any country where medicine is socialized. Interestingly, these medicare patients feel threatened by the new legislation. What does that tell you?

The problem with government medicine isn't that people think it's free ... some do ... usually those in the lower pay brackets ... the real problem is that people think they paid for heathcare, and they want to collect what they already paid for. (If they knew how much government medicine took out of their paycheck, they'd probably be dreaming up ways to change their sex at public expense, too ... just to feel it's been worth it.)

And, of course, the costs of the system are skyrocketing ... hey, nobody is spending their own money ... and they all feel they paid a lot, at the same time ... the patients feel they're playing catch-up.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Bugs

[Oleg Bach]

Obamas future will be exactly like his past - a non-event - be prepared to see more of the same old nothing. This is the best spoken president that America has ever seen - and sometimes those with the best voice are not capable of composing a new song. He really does not have a future - better to stop depending on this man as soon as possible and get on with the buisness of attempting to manage a very complex and confused society.

[Moonlight Graham]

The American people were disgusted by George W Bush because of his spending, because of what was felt to be a deceitfulness. The other thing they didn't like was his stand on immigration, and his performance on Katrina. The war was never a factor, and it even hurt Kerry.

The war(s) was never a factor? Are you kidding me?

[Bugs]

The war(s) was never a factor? Are you kidding me?

Yes, that's what I am saying.

All the Democratic candidates, in both 2004 and 2008, aligned themselves to be in a position to surf on the wave of anti-war feelings that were bound to emerge after the initial enthusiasm for war waned -- and that anti-war sentiment never emerged, outside the media and a small hard-core. Kerry tried to capitalize on his 'service' to be a critic of the war, but the issue never had any traction. In the end, his reputation was harmed. Obama never took on the war, although he was perfectly positioned to.

Katrina did more to destroy the Bush presidency than either of his wars.

It's just a fact.

[Pliny]

Obamas future will be exactly like his past - a non-event - be prepared to see more of the same old nothing. This is the best spoken president that America has ever seen - and sometimes those with the best voice are not capable of composing a new song. He really does not have a future - better to stop depending on this man as soon as possible and get on with the buisness of attempting to manage a very complex and confused society.

2010 will, if all proceeds normally, bring about a loss of the Democratic Party's stranglehold on Congress and the Senate and perhaps then governance will occur over pushing a socialist agenda.

[bloodyminded]

2010 will, if all proceeds normally, bring about a loss of the Democratic Party's stranglehold on Congress and the Senate and perhaps then governance will occur over pushing a socialist agenda.

But you informed me that the Republicans also tend towards a "socialist" agenda when governing.

So unless you think an alternative party will win over the Repubs in 2010 (which, as we both know, is simply not going to happen), then what you deem "socialism" will continue apace.

Edited December 30, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

First of all, thanks for responding in such a patient way. You should know I am a Canadian, and I thought I was defending Americans from a Brit who cruises through here to treat us like 'colonials'. I applaud the resistance that mainstream Americans are showing, and I am cheered by it. It isn't that I mind government medicine. It's that the way this is being shoved down people's throats that makes me cheer the resistance.

My point about the American way of medical care is that working people do have a pretty good idea about the tradeoffs in different plans, what's covered and what isn't, and what it all costs. You're right, Medicare and Medicaid recipients are getting government medicine already -- but working people generallyt are not. Even so, you saw those people at the Town Hall meetings, and it was clear -- they had specific, well understood questions that he politicians couldn't answer! That is hard to imagine happening in any country where medicine is socialized. Interestingly, these medicare patients feel threatened by the new legislation. What does that tell you?

The problem with government medicine isn't that people think it's free ... some do ... usually those in the lower pay brackets ... the real problem is that people think they paid for heathcare, and they want to collect what they already paid for. (If they knew how much government medicine took out of their paycheck, they'd probably be dreaming up ways to change their sex at public expense, too ... just to feel it's been worth it.)

And, of course, the costs of the system are skyrocketing ... hey, nobody is spending their own money ... and they all feel they paid a lot, at the same time ... the patients feel they're playing catch-up.

I also applaud Americans for their resistance. However, I do, unlike yourself, have a problem with government medicine. I would like to see it change but how will it change? The answer is it can't. Managed by government, it becomes too big to fail. The only thing that will bring proper change is when it collapses economically. It will be devastating for most and there will be no plan B to turn to because the industry refuses to even look at one. At least in France they have a private option if government revenues fall below their ability to support their public option. I don't think it was ever considered in Canada that government may at sometime not be able to afford universal healthcare. If it can't then that means the economy is in a shambles and it will probably be the time when the system is needed most but won't be there.

Americans do have a problem with their healthcare and change will be brought about - they know it and they can do it only because there isn't a single payer monopoly system.

Bring in the government option and your chance for meaningful change later is zip.

Obama is a dreamer and left-wing ideologue whose promise is a pie in the sky for everyone.

[Pliny]

But you informed me that the Republicans also tend towards a "socialist" agenda when governing.

So unless you think an alternative party will win over the Repubs in 2010 (which, as we both know, is simply not going to happen), then what you deem "socialism" will continue apace.

I see you are confused by what I have said. You have to look at the dynamics of what is occurring in the States. Obama has promised to accelerate the progressive movement. The American public is not impressed with his big government solutions. Make no mistake that government, especially a social democracy, will get bigger over time no matter what party is in power. That is what socialism is, a progression of the glorification of the State.

Republicans in order to get elected have to make promises to the public the same as the Democrats do. They promise different things or similar things depending upon the mood of the voting public. Obama has opened up the public's eyes to how far government has usurped power to override the will of the people, and Americans, with an innate caution instilled by the founders regarding government, are resisting. Only about 20% of Americans are left-wing. The Democrats have no where to go except to proceed with their progressive march. The Republicans, are changing their platform and moving back to the centre. They are divesting themselves of Liberal think and becoming less progressive.

You are correct though that socialism will continue apace. We are looking at some resistance but, in my opinion, fundamental concepts to governance and the Constitution have to be restored before any reversal is realized.

Perhaps we are at that crossroads or perhaps the resistance is merely a blip in the progressive march to Statism. Once America falls socialism will have triumphed and the world can then be governed entirely from the concept of the collective good. THe UN will finally have some teeth.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Pliny

[Bugs]

I also applaud Americans for their resistance. However, I do, unlike yourself, have a problem with government medicine. I would like to see it change but how will it change? The answer is it can't. Managed by government, it becomes too big to fail. The only thing that will bring proper change is when it collapses economically. It will be devastating for most and there will be no plan B to turn to because the industry refuses to even look at one.

I think we feel the same. I have pondered this a lot over the last two or three years, because my mother, in her declining years, gave me a lot of insight into what Ontario medical care is like for a user. My impression? Overall, they do a pretty good job but they are stretched very thin. Can they handle the demands of the baby boomers? Doubtful, to me, without huge costs. But it is medical care cafeteria style.

What people don't want to face is the big expanding cost is geriatric medicine. That's the stuff that people should pay for themselves. First, they get better care, and secondly, not everybody wants to go through chemo, etc.

In the old days, people carried medical insurance against catastrophic events, and paid for routine stuff out of their pockets. I could see the future state providing clinics for basic family medicine. Measles, mumps, broken bones, all of that stuff. Add to that, the routine investigations and what adults need to maintain their health, birth control all of that stuff. That kind of medicine means that young families get care, even if it is from clinics, it's there, no matter what -- which is what you want.

And people should finance the extreme stuff with insurance. The public doesn't understand that there is an almost endless market for artificial knees if they cost nothing but the pain of getting them. The government pays something like $40,000 a pop. Maybe that's what RRSPs should be for. Or medical insurance plans.

What they will do, instead, because it's politicians that decide -- they will let the health care decline so long as they can hide it. They will hollow it out, and leave us with less quality that we thought we had.

[Pliny]

I think we feel the same. I have pondered this a lot over the last two or three years, because my mother, in her declining years, gave me a lot of insight into what Ontario medical care is like for a user. My impression? Overall, they do a pretty good job but they are stretched very thin. Can they handle the demands of the baby boomers? Doubtful, to me, without huge costs. But it is medical care cafeteria style.

Good way of putting it. Medical care cafeteria style.

What people don't want to face is the big expanding cost is geriatric medicine. That's the stuff that people should pay for themselves. First, they get better care, and secondly, not everybody wants to go through chemo, etc.

In the old days, people carried medical insurance against catastrophic events, and paid for routine stuff out of their pockets. I could see the future state providing clinics for basic family medicine. Measles, mumps, broken bones, all of that stuff. Add to that, the routine investigations and what adults need to maintain their health, birth control all of that stuff. That kind of medicine means that young families get care, even if it is from clinics, it's there, no matter what -- which is what you want.

And people should finance the extreme stuff with insurance. The public doesn't understand that there is an almost endless market for artificial knees if they cost nothing but the pain of getting them. The government pays something like $40,000 a pop. Maybe that's what RRSPs should be for. Or medical insurance plans.

It becomes a bureaucratic nightmare with the entire industry at a single trough.

What they will do, instead, because it's politicians that decide -- they will let the health care decline so long as they can hide it. They will hollow it out, and leave us with less quality that we thought we had.

Precisely. They can't cut costs, and never do, but they can limit service. Cutting annual increases to budgets is met with derision and threats of strikes and the mobilization of the industry to appeal for public support to "not touch our health care". What kind of relevant and significant changes can be made under those circumstances? None - except more money please!

Edited December 31, 2009 by Pliny

[canadac57]

A vocal part of the American left is getting very upset at President Obama. You should understand that the writer of what follows, David Michael Green, is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. A very partisan liberal democrat who's written articles strongly supporting Obama, like this: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Of-Tea-Parties-and-Telepro-by-David-Michael-Gree-090423-987.html

Yeah, I know, post-modern academics seem to write funny. But it is one more indication of the tough times ahead for Mr. Obama. His political capital is quickly beinh frittered away. Prepare for disaster, folks.

As a video blogger, I took the time to capture this "Tea Party"event,in Elizabethtown, Kentucky, not because I believe in what the event stood for, but because I felt it was necessary to show the Kentucky Democratic Party what's going on in the rural areas of the state and sometimes video and photos speak louder than words.

The Republican Party is gearing up for the 2010 election and we had better be ready for the fight of our lives, because these folks are serious. The video will show just how mixed up these folks are.

The link to the video and photos is below:

http://hillbillyreport.org/diary/38/kentucky-tea-party-james-pence-video-and-photos

[waldo]

As a video blogger, I took the time to capture this "Tea Party"event,in Elizabethtown, Kentucky, not because I believe in what the event stood for, but because I felt it was necessary to show the Kentucky Democratic Party what's going on in the rural areas of the state and sometimes video and photos speak louder than words.

The Republican Party is gearing up for the 2010 election and we had better be ready for the fight of our lives, because these folks are serious. The video will show just how mixed up these folks are.

The link to the video and photos is below:

http://hillbillyreport.org/diary/38/kentucky-tea-party-james-pence-video-and-photos

certainly, it was well noted that Scott Brown distanced himself from the teabaggers during the MA campaign; however, he can't continue that and expect to be elected again in 2012. Either he casts votes with Democrats (alienating the teabaggers) or he votes the GOP party line... how will that go over in liberal MA during a presidential election year?

[August1991]

Interesting thread. Obama's future? Well, he's going to be president for at least another three years ad alot can happen in that time.

The reasons Americans are opposing government medicine is because they like their present plans better.

Any number of Democratic presidents over the past 80 years or so have tried to reform health care and introduce some kind of universal state system. As it is now, as noted above, Americans have Medicare and Medicaid - a federally run and financed State health care scheme (which is something that we in Canada don't even have).

Obama has come closer to a universal health system than any previous Democratic president. (Contrast Obama's current situation with Clinton's result in 1992-94.)

Will Obama succeed in getting a health care package through Congress? Dunno. What conclusion will Obama draw from this Republican win in Massachusetts? Obama is reported to have said, "We can't win them all." That strikes me as a sensible conclusion.

I suspect Obama and the Dems will change tactics but not strategy, and that may be a mistake. If Obama really wants to get health care through, he may have to start over, and sacrifice everything else on his left wing agenda.

And speaking of health care, I liked this quote of Scott Brown:

"We already have 98% of our people insured here already in Massachusetts, so we do not need the plan that's being pushed upon us," he added.

"We would have lesser care, longer lines and pay higher taxes and it makes no sense."

But he denied he was intent on derailing the reforms.

"I never said I was going to do everything I can to stop healthcare," he said.

"I believe everybody should have healthcare, it's just a question of how we do it."

BBC

Perhaps I am too Canadian but it seems to me that a better approach to reform would be to leave individual states to design the health care system. The federal government could provide funding.

Edited January 20, 2010 by August1991

[Pliny]

Perhaps I am too Canadian but it seems to me that a better approach to reform would be to leave individual states to design the health care system. The federal government could provide funding.

It is my belief that we must somehow divorce medicine from the business model. Health care cannot be about money, it's scarcity, it's abundance or it's distribution and that is the entire activity of a central planning authority besides the making of laws that determine how this is all accomplished.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

certainly, it was well noted that Scott Brown distanced himself from the teabaggers during the MA campaign; however, he can't continue that and expect to be elected again in 2012. Either he casts votes with Democrats (alienating the teabaggers) or he votes the GOP party line... how will that go over in liberal MA during a presidential election year?

Simply said Scott Brown would lose in liberal MA during a presidential election year......unless the taste of the Presidential/Pelosi/Reid agenda still sticks in their throat.

MA is a liberal Blue state... there are not too many teabaggers there to distance himself from or sidle up to.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Pliny

[Bugs]

Simply said Scott Brown would lose in liberal MA during a presidential election year......unless the taste of the Presidential/Pelosi/Reid agenda still sticks in their throat.

MA is a liberal Blue state... there are not too many teabaggers there to distance himself from or sidle up to.

You may be surprised. The feeling that the the present policies are wrong, and that too much money is being spent, is widespread. Haven't we all lived through a real estate boom? It is engrossing, suddenly you're going to parties and people are talking about their real estate, and feeling rich ... they start spending more than they really should. Others, jump into housing for fear that they will never be able to afford a house. They see other people making money on real estate, and they feel a little envy. Suddenly, the strangest people are flipping real estate.

It's been like that in the US for a decade.

I think Scott Brown did a masterful job of running as a tea-party person, rather than as a Republican calling on the Tea Party people for their support. He called himself the 'independent voice', and other times, the 'voice of independent Massachusetts' and he didn't advertise his Republican-ness at all. He made a big thing about driving a truck. He radiates some of the same kind of simple virtue stuff that Sarah Palin brings to the game.

You may not like it, but the Scott Brown won on the very sentiments that the Tea Party protests are expressing.

[Bugs]

Simply said Scott Brown would lose in liberal MA during a presidential election year......unless the taste of the Presidential/Pelosi/Reid agenda still sticks in their throat.

MA is a liberal Blue state... there are not too many teabaggers there to distance himself from or sidle up to.

You may be surprised. The feeling that the the present policies are wrong, and that too much money is being spent, is widespread. Haven't we all lived through a real estate boom? It is engrossing, suddenly you're going to parties and people are talking about their real estate, and feeling rich ... they start spending more than they really should. Others, jump into housing for fear that they will never be able to afford a house. They see other people making money on real estate, and they feel a little envy. Suddenly, the strangest people are flipping real estate.

It's been like that in the US for a decade.

I think Scott Brown did a masterful job of running as a tea-party person, rather than as a Republican calling on the Tea Party people for their support. He called himself the 'independent voice', and other times, the 'voice of independent Massachusetts' and he didn't advertise his Republican-ness at all. He made a big thing about driving a truck. He radiates some of the same kind of simple virtue stuff that Sarah Palin brings to the game.

You may not like it, but the Scott Brown won on the very sentiments that the Tea Party protests are expressing.

[Shady]

He's Done Everything Wrong

Obama punted on the economy and reversed the fortunes of the Democrats in 365 days.

He’s misjudged the character of the country in his whole approach. There’s the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.” He didn’t get it. He was determined somehow or other to adopt a whole new agenda. He didn’t address the main issue.

Link

This is exactly right. Obama didn't have his jobs summit until a couple of months ago. Imagine being elected mostly because of a huge economic downturn, and hosting your first job summit 8 months later?

As for Coakley, I don't think she did a good enough job distancing herself from the handjobers. Those ideologically in Washington who want the government's hand in every aspect of people's lives and economy. Until Democrats refute the hard left handjobers, they're going to continue to get pounded in elections, and that includes Obama.

[ToadBrother]

I think Scott Brown did a masterful job of running as a tea-party person, rather than as a Republican calling on the Tea Party people for their support. He called himself the 'independent voice', and other times, the 'voice of independent Massachusetts' and he didn't advertise his Republican-ness at all. He made a big thing about driving a truck. He radiates some of the same kind of simple virtue stuff that Sarah Palin brings to the game.

Except that he's not a *simpleton* like Palin.

[Shady]

Except that he's not a *simpleton* like Palin.

That'll be Senator or Representative simpleton Palin if she chooses to run for a seat in Congress.

[Bugs]

Except that he's not a *simpleton* like Palin.

He's even a beauty-king, of sorts. At least a centerfold ... Cosmopolitan ... not bad.

I don't think you give the ex-governor of Alaska sufficient respect. What you are decoding as simpleton could equally well be decoded as country yokel. Palin does not talk in the urban style, she has no tattoos or piercings, and she makes makes down to earth into a virtue. Not only that, she's does actually juggle her kid sometimes while she makes speeches. No wonder so many people dislike her.

But if you look at the quality of her decisions, as a politician in office, you can't help be impressed with her gutsiness, and that fact that she puts community priorities before party priorities. She ran out a bunch of Republican grafters, and negotiated a gas deal that actually pays the taxpayers of the state a royalty. She has real political accomplishments.

Scott Brown drove around in a pick up truck that has become his symbol. Nobody expects a Massachusetts man to field-dress a moose, but the guy looks like Holmes, except slimmer. He's the old-fashioned work-ethic type that'll do the job right. "No, sir, it's the peoples' seat ..." -- it could have been Patrick Henry. I mean, that is definitely not the way they talk around the Haw-vard Yawd.

You may not like the people of America, when they get stirred up, because a lot of them go to church and a surprising number of them like country and western music. But don't think they're stupid, or that they don't mean it when they say something.