Amid increasing chatter about a potentially imminent decision by My Man Mitch on whether to run for president, and increasing noise from Daniels himself, Ross Douthat has a good analysis of why “talk radio conservatives” are cool to Daniels. The title of this post is a hint. Excerpt:
[Most of the conservative arguments against Daniels] are all about his rhetoric, his public persona, and who his admirers happen to be. It puts me in mind of a smart post from one of David Frum’s pseudonymous contributors at FrumForum, which tried to figure out why talk radio hosts love Chris Christie while remaining cool to Daniels:
Why is Chris Christie the heartthrob of the radio right, while Daniels is suddenly an intolerable RINO? Christie is not more conservative than Daniels, and arguably even less so … The difference is this: talk radio is not much interested in the substance of a politician’s views or the reasons for decisions. Talk radio wants a confrontational style, and unlike the soft-spoken Daniels, the fierce Christie meets the test. The rule seems to be: it’s OK to be a Republican moderate – provided you are belligerent enough about it.
This is where the populist style in conservative politics becomes self-defeating. The underlying theory behind the talk radio critique of Daniels is basically that you can’t trust a man who disarms liberals with his seeming reasonability, and what you need instead is somebody who takes the fight to the left at every opportunity. This is an excellent description of the qualities required … to be a good talk radio host. But when applied to the presidential scene, it amounts to a kind of politics of schadenfreude, in which actual conservative accomplishments count for nothing, the ability to woo undecided voters is downgraded or dismissed, and all that matters is how much a prospective candidate irritates liberals. It’s the right-wing version of the theory that almost made Howard Dean the Democratic nominee in 2004, you might say — and it’s how you end up, for instance, with Rush Limbaugh lumping Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump in with Christie as examples of “candidates you could coalesce behind” in 2012. (Coalesce behind … on your way to a world-historical defeat.)
I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that Dean, who only won a single primary — his home state of Vermont, long after he’d screamed, lost, and dropped out — was “almost…the Democratic nominee in 2004.” But other than that, I think Douthat and the quoted FrumForum contributor are dead on. Of course, I suppose you’d expect me to say that. (BREAKING NEWS: Brendan Loy agrees with RINO columnists’ analysis of Republican foibles! Film at 11.)
P.S. As an aside, I’ve seen a bunch of liberal posts and tweets that are like, “OMG!!! Daniels isn’t a moderate at all!!! He signed a bill defunding Planned Parenthood!!! He’s a radical!!! #PANIC!!!” Look, that bill was, admittedly, a bit of apparent pandering to the Religious Right by Daniels, which is unfortunate but probably politically necessary after his “truce” talk. So it’s not a point in his favor, sure. But does it mean he’s some foaming-at-the-mouth crazy right-winger? No. It means he disagrees with the liberal position on abortion, and believes government funding shouldn’t support abortion; neither of those positions are at all indefensible. (P.S. I’m pro-choice.)
Bottom line, yes, the man opposes abortion rights — which is a mainstream, non-radical position in the Republican Party, and in this country generally. It’s also a perfectly defensible position on a moral, ethical, and legal level, one that doesn’t make the person holding it either anti-woman or anti-freedom or anti-anything-else-except-abortion. Nor is it automatically hypocritical just because he opposes a variety of liberal policies (like, say, ObamaCare) on the grounds that they supposedly restrict “choice” or “freedom” in some way. Abortion is, obviously, fundamentally different than other issues. To those who believe abortion involves the deliberate, premeditated taking of human life, it is not, and cannot be, a legitimate “choice.” Other things can be legitimate “choices”; deliberately killing an innocent person can’t, so if you believe abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent person, obviously you will oppose that particular type of choice, in most if not all circumstances. One doesn’t have to agree with that position — I don’t, exactly — but it’s wrong to simply dismiss the position as crazy or dishonest or hypocritical or radical. Being pro-life doesn’t make someone a “radical,” and neither does being pro-choice! We really need to get over this ridiculous demonization of the other side on the abortion issue. Abortion is a very difficult, complicated, and singular issue. Why can’t people, on both sides, acknowledge that obvious fact? Ugh.
If you’re against Mitch Daniels because he’s pro-life, that’s fine. You’ll never, ever vote for a Republican for president if that’s your position. And that’s okay! But don’t pretend he’s a “radical” Republican just because he’s pro-life. You’re dismissing roughly half the country as “radical” if you take that position, just as some folks on the Right dismiss roughly half the country as evil, amoral baby-killers if that’s how they view pro-choicers. I know we all feel strongly about this issue, but that’s no excuse not to respect each other, or recognize that these are very difficult questions that can’t be compressed into reductionist bumper-sticker slogans without cartoonishly mischaracterizing the other side’s stance. [/rant]
P.P.S. Yes, I realize my “P.S.” just swallowed my post, and there’s no way anyone will comment on my original point now. Oh well.
I really think you missed the key point in Ross Douthat’s post, on which the rest of his argument hinges:
IOW, Ingraham, Hannity, Rush, Hewitt, and the rest of them may be the loudest voices in the room, and because they have some sway over their audience(s), and because they have latched onto the Tea Party movement, of course there is some pull there. However, in reality, they are not going to be leading indicators of which direction the GOP will end up going when it comes to deciding on a presidential nominee. The WSJ editorial board is a far better indicator of where conservatives’ collective heads are at than any of the talk radio personalities, among other mainstream sources. And because this is the reality setting the background for Ross’s post, that tells me that Ross doesn’t really have anything to add to the debate, he’s just trying to meet his blogging quota for the NYT for the day/week/month by expounding an argument that really has no bearing even if the substantive point he is trying to make has some validity.
I don’t know, AML. I’ve been a bit distressed by the talking points of some of my conservative friends as of late, from the bogus ‘Osama isn’t really dead’ conspiracy theorists to the birther curious to the ‘let’s play chicken with the debt ceiling for political gain’ crowd, I feel like the Right has lost its way. I’m interested in the 2012 election if for no other reason than to see what the Right stands for now because from where I’m sitting, it seems like there’s more than a hint of truth to the accusations that the Right wants to let Wall Street go with less than a slap on the wrist and no substantial regulatory reform while cutting benefits for the middle class so that the wealthy can keep more money and stimulate the thriving economy of private jets, gardeners and housekeepers. The reason that I like Daniels is that he seems to be able to see that the middle class is being pinched by rising costs–of health care, education etc–and while the rich are getting super rich, the rest of us aren’t and that’s a huge problem, one bound to cause angst and frustration as people work harder for less purchasing power. I hope that whoever gets the nomination can define a clear GOP platform that actually proposes workable solutions to our problems, instead of promising brilliant non-solutions like ‘let’s dismantle health care reform because the system was working.’
Rebecca:
I’m really, really trying hard not to be hostile or ad hom here….but given how cozy Obama and his administration has been to big business, (especially Wall Street) and how many actual wall Street bankers are part of the Obama administration, I really don’t understand your constant attacks on the Right as the party of the rich.
Just because Obama isn’t fervently anti-buisness doesn’t make him super buisness friendly either. There have been a number of moves he has made or pursued that demonstrate that, health care reform, financial reform, wanting to eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthy etc. The right IS the party of the rich in as much as they are the ones who are advocating policies that are most favorable towards the allready wealthy, Wall Street, and corporations in general.
There’s an argument to be made that both the Republicans and Democrats are essentially captives of big business and the financial sector. But that’s more of a Ralph Nader / Michael Moore argument than a gahrie argument.
There isn’t an argument to be made, or if there is I certainly haven’t heard it, that the Democrats are more the party of big business, the financial sector, and “the rich” than the Republicans are. Maybe they’re just as bad, or nearly so, but they certainly aren’t moreso.
Moreover, it’s impossible — I mean literally impossible, on any sort of intellectual or logical level — to make any argument about the Democrats being the party (or a party) of big business, the financial sector, and “the rich,” while also believing them to be a bunch of dirty rotten socialists. That simply doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
So in conclusion, I’m not sure what the Hell gahrie is driving at.
Gahrie, are you suggesting you want a party that’s less “cozy” with “big business, (especially Wall Street)” than the Obama Administration, or are you merely suggesting that Becky is barking up the wrong tree because her party is just as bad (though perhaps you don’t actually think it’s “bad”) as your party? If the latter, how do you square that with your previously stated belief that the Democratic Party promotes socialistic policies? And if the former, are you suggesting you intend to support a less “cozy” relationship with “big business, (especially Wall Street)” by…… voting Republican?!?!?! Ooookay…. follow-up question: when was medical marijuana legalized in your state, and what condition do you have that allows you to get a prescription for it?
Rebecca #2 – are you able to articulate whether your complaint is that the rich *are* getting richer or is it that the poor are *not* getting richer ?
Unless your husband isn’t a good lawyer, chances are high that he is either almost-rich or has already achieved that category of being Obama-rich …
As gahrie accurately observes, the time when the Right were the knee-jerk supporters of the “Rich” are long gone … nowadays, the party of the Elite and Rich are the Dems … in the Senate, unless I misunderstand, the Dems have a disproportionate relative percentage of millionaires as compared with the GOP …
In the past decade and more, GOP support for the rich has been to try to encourage as many as can to become richer … the Dems seem to prefer consolidating the richness of their supporters at the expense of everyone else …
The davidkian response is, as expected, knee-jerk recitation …
Obama isn’t business-friendly … his policies are for enhanced state control, not for more prosperity for businesses …
If Obama was pro-business, he would be proposing policies which would help businesses to be started, to continue and prosper, to expand and employ more and higher-paid employees … instead, as has been pointed out recently, Obama’s policies have led to more than 25% of the new jobs reported for last month were at McDonald’s – and led to the unemployment rate, even with Administration massaging, going up to 9% again …
I haven’t found it easily available yet, but a graph of # of US residents employed versus # of US residents, over time (the past 100 years, perhaps?) would be interesting and instructive …
An even more interesting grraph would be average hourly pay rate for those employed, over the past 100 years …
Alasdair, kindly go f*** yourself.
Brendan – I realize the above comment is not very “new tone” friendly, but I’m sick and damn tired of his snide comments and phrases like “davidkian”. If he can’t behave himself I’m certainly not going to even try to treat him with respect.
or are you merely suggesting that Becky is barking up the wrong tree because her party is just as bad (though perhaps you don’t actually think it’s “bad”) as your party?
Yes. And I do think the Republicans are just as bad, if not worse. (As I have stated several times previously, I am no longer a Republican, just a conservative. While I don’t consider myself a member of the Tea Party, I am much closer to them now days.) I consider this “pro-business” stance by both parties to be a result of the modern political system. pure and simple it is about the money, the money to get elected.
Moreover, it’s impossible — I mean literally impossible, on any sort of intellectual or logical level — to make any argument about the Democrats being the party (or a party) of big business, the financial sector, and “the rich,” while also believing them to be a bunch of dirty rotten socialists. That simply doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
Actually it does. Big business loves Socialists. Socialism helps kill competition by driving up the costs of doing business. When Big Business has bought their influence, they are allowed to to regulate their industry, and again disadvantage competition.
The Financial sector is dominated by the merry-go-round between government, K Street and Wall Street.
Finally, as far as the rich, did you know that the list of the ten richest federal legislators is dominated by Democrats?
http://www.rollcall.com/features/Guide-to-Congress_2010/guide/-49892-1.html
Only three of the top ten are Republicans.
There has always been rich people who supported Socialism. Hell if the rich Engels hadn’t have supported Marx, Socialism might not exist.
Rich people like stability, and the one thing Socialism promises is stability.
Hmmm… fascinating. This is further evidence that the political spectrum sometimes resembles more of a circle, with far left and far right converging on some topics. You and Michael Moore and/or Ralph Nader should sit down, have a beer and discuss how the modern political system causes both parties to be dominated by big business and corporate interests. 🙂 Heh.
Meanwhile, you and Alasdair have both now pointed out that there are a lot of rich Democratic legislators. I really don’t see what relevance that has. Nobody is suggesting that all rich people are Republicans, just that Republican policies are, broadly speaking, more beneficial to Big Business and Wall Street and “the rich” than Democratic policies are. (Or did I miss the memo where the Chamber of Commerce endorsed Obama’s re-election campaign?) What exactly are we supposed to conclude from the fact that there are are more rich Democrats in Congress than rich Republicans? First, it’s a very small sample size. Second, a lot of the big media markets, where it’s most expensive to get nominated and elected, thus greatly advantaging independently wealthy candidates, tend to be Democrat-dominated. (You need more money to be a congressman or senator from New York or California or Illinois than from one from Oklahoma or Mississippi or Wyoming.) I imagine that plays a role, though I don’t know for sure. In any case, I just don’t think “OMG rich Democratic politicians!” a terribly relevant talking point. If you could point out specific policy items whereby Democrats favor the rich/Big Business/Wall Street, and Republicans don’t, that would be far more relevant.
If you could point out specific policy items whereby Democrats favor the rich/Big Business/Wall Street, and Republicans don’t, that would be far more relevant.
That wasn’t my original point. My original point was precisely that they both do it.
I was just about to update my comment to add: ” (Although I recognize that you’ve acknowledged the Republicans are just as Big Business-captive as Democrats, if not more so, so this is really more a question for Alasdair and others.)”
I’m not sure I understand your fuss about the term, “davidkian”, David. If people on this blog made reference to a comment or opinion being “AMLTrojanian”, I can’t fathom how or why that’d ever bother me unless they are completely misattributing to me the kinds of comments I make or opinions I have.
As far as Brendan and gahrie go, you’re both right: Yes, Republican policies are more beneficial to the “rich” than are Democratic policies, and yes, Democrats show just as much favoritism — if not more so — to Big Business than do Republicans. The sweet spot for rich industrialists is a policy formula that trades higher income and consumption tax rates for lower corporate and capital gains tax rates while raising the cost of doing business by increasing regulation and restricting imports / subsidizing exports. Lo and behold, that pretty much describes European tax and corporate policies!
Capitalism is all about “creative destruction”. Rich people, particularly rich industrialists, tend not to be fans of “creative destruction”, which is why the bigger a company / industry gets, the more likely it is to rely on K Street operations to shape policy to its favor and to its competitors’ disadvantage. For similar reasons, Wall Street is happy to suck up to whichever party is in power to ensure they have a cozy relationship with policymakers. While Republican policy dispositions would tend to favor Wall Street more than Democratic policy, Wall Street players stand to gain or lose money at a far greater scale depending on the exact language of the regulations being crafted more than whether the tax rate is 15% vs. 20%. This is because regulations affect how one does business, whereas tax rates tend to affect the size of the market or the size of the profit — but only at the margins (unless it’s a sweeping shift in tax policy).
The better way to boil down the whole rich / Big Business nonsense is to ask, which party is more favorable to the job creator class? I don’t see how a liberal could deny that the answer to that is the Republican Party (empirical data and philosophical logic both point to this), and I don’t see how a conservative could feel ashamed about that being the truth.
As for Becky, I’d like her to tell me how, if the Right is just now losing its way, when in her opinion was the Big R Right ever on the little r right track? I find it pretty hard to take her opinion seriously given that, for as long as I’ve known her, she’s always been hostile to conservative thinking, and her argument is even more spurious broad-brushing the entire right-wing based on anecdotal interactions with a few nutty individuals. I mean, really, are there any conservative thought leaders seriously positing that Osama is still alive and Obama is faking all of this? And have the remaining diehard birthers not been consigned to the lunatic fringe now? I’m willing to listen to an argument that we’re best off not playing politics with the debt ceiling, but the Boehner position of tying debt ceiling increases to commitments on spending cuts sounds perfectly reasonable to me given that, yes Virginia, we really do have a massive debt problem and we need to get on to doing something about it, so yes Obama, it’s time to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. What you call “playing chicken” I call a perfectly reasonable and tactically sound method of negotiations, and your characterization of that position as being as nutty as the birthers or “Osama is still alive” conspiratorialists is no more fair than me saying your pro-choice stance means you’re for killing babies.
Yup – #14 is classic AMLTrojanity !
(I wish *I* had phrased mine that way !)
AMLTrojan, Al use it in a condescending and demeaning fashion every time. He means it to dismiss and disparage. He has given me no reason to treat him with respect and every reason not to.
Should I ignore him? Sure, that’s the mature thing to do, but after a long day I don’t feel like it. I continue to believe we’d all be better off without his comments, but I also doubt Brendan will get rid of him. So from time t time I’m going to give him what he has earned.
The term “davidkian” in and of itself is not derogatory or condescending — it is simply making an adjective out of your web moniker. You might perceive a negative connotation to the word, given that Alasdair thinks that you’re off your rocker 99% of the time (and vice versa), but the use of the term should neither excite nor deflate the un-ending animosity between you two.
AML, you would laugh if you would see me and Brendan do our household budget and the negotiations we have when we decide how to spend our money. I’m much more the fiscal conservative and no, I don’t hate all conservative thinking because that would be stupid. But I do think that the Republican party tiptoed dangerously into becoming the party of “whatever Obama does is eeeeevvvvviiiiiilllll” without much stated ambition for legislation. That’s changed a little bit thanks to the Tea Party agenda, though I loathe to say it. I’m not all that interested in what ivory tower conservatives have to say. Last time I checked, the WSJ opinion page wasn’t voting. Joe Wilson was.
The GOP under a firebrand like Newt Gingrich at least had a defined goal and path for us, parts of which I found fairly appealing. What’s that goal now? It seems to me that the Democrats want to preserve the social entitlements we have now by reforming the tax code, slicing benefits off the sides and praying like hell that the economy improves. I’m not sure that’s a realistic or good plan. From what I can tell, the GOP wants to dismantle existing entitlement programs while preserving historically low tax rates for the wealthy which haven’t produced the kind of dramatic growth we were promised despite the fact that they’ve been in place for like a decade during which the economy has seen two bubbles burst. That seems like an even worse plan. That’s why elections are useful for me. They force politicians to articulate their plans in the shiniest possible way to appeal to voters. I don’t favor the reduce-the-debt-through-draconian-cuts austerity approach, seeing as how well it’s working to put Britain in a double dip recession. But if Pawlenty or Daniels or whoever can sell me on it, I’m willing to listen.
Alasdair, the impropriety of speculating about Brendan’s income and the quality of his legal work should shame you.
Oh, and you may have a fair point about lumping together Osama conspiracy theorists and debt ceiling strategy, though I still find the latter incredibly repugnant.
Last time I checked, the WSJ opinion page wasn’t voting. Joe Wilson was.
YOU LIE!
Alasdair, the impropriety of speculating about Brendan’s income and the quality of his legal work should shame you.
I was going to make this point and never got around to it. Alasdair, common rules of basic conversational etiquette aside, you’ve been here a long time, and are well aware of the “no blogging about work” rule. So you know I’m not going to respond to speculation about my income or my job, even if it would be generally appropriate to raise those topics in a public forum absent such a rule (which, of course, it wouldn’t be). So, this was just a pointless broadside designed only to inflame. Or perhaps it was just a thoughtless aside, along the same lines as AMLTrojan’s slip-up on a similar front with a different commenter a couple of weeks ago. Out of charity, I’m going to assume the latter: thoughtless rather than malicious. Anyway, please don’t go there again.
Brendan and Becky – if my observation about Loy income in #6 offended, I apologise without reservation … such was in no way my intent … I was observing that traditionally, lawyers do not seem to be part of ‘the Poor’ – I was not trying to provoke an explicit discussion of numbers and amounts … my general point is that getting to be considered Obama-rich is not that hard …
(grin) If I didn’t respect your (both your) intellect (and the intellect of most of the regulars), I would not return so regularly …
To give a better key to my phrasing, when I typed “Unless your husband isn’t a good lawyer”, I was using the construct (in my mind)
{obviously ridiculous premise}, {observation of reality}
Brendan expresses himself very clearly and concisely when he is working with meteorological or sports topics … politics, we discuss … (grin) … so I would be astonished if his work product was anything except excellent … (yeah, like growing up around Venerable Loy would permit anything less) …
So – I hunbly apologise for my inartful expression earlier …
But I do think that the Republican party tiptoed dangerously into becoming the party of “whatever Obama does is eeeeevvvvviiiiiilllll” without much stated ambition for legislation.
This is probably a fair description of the GOP response to Obama right up through the passing of Obamacare, and it makes perfect sense. They just got their asses handed to them, they didn’t have a clear agenda (part of the GOP supported Bush’s intervention in the financial crisis, but most did not), they didn’t have a clear leader, and Obama was taking his election and the Dem sweep of Congress and the Senate as a mandate to fulfill liberal dreams that have been reduced to glowing embers for 75 years or so. In the face of that, the only clear thing to do was to be the party of “No”, and later, “I told you so!” And yes, the Tea Party did help inject life and momentum, and I attribute about half of the GOP sweep this past November to that, and the other half as simple reaction against Obama and the Dems’ overreach.
As for the rest of your analysis, I disagree with your political views (obviously), in particular to your take on taxes and their relation to economic growth, but I allow that your perception as stated is certainly reasonable. Where I think your perceptions are way off, however, is I don’t see who on the Right is advocating the dismantling of entitlements. Neither Romney’s plan, Newt’s ideas, nor Ryan’s reform proposal for Medicare amount to dismantling Medicare, and the GOP leadership is still cool to suggesting anything for Social Security other than reducing benefits and postponing retirement, or means-testing — all of which are ideas that Obama’s bipartisan commission put on the table for consideration, so none of this is very radical.
Apology accepted, Alasdair.
Without revealing anything about the particulars of my situation, I will say that your assumption about lawyers is incorrect. There are plenty of “good lawyers” who are not “rich” by any definition, Obama-ite or otherwise. It all depends on what type of law you practice, what type of employer you work for, what type of economy you graduated into, etc. (Just like any other field.) Certainly, the aggregate income of lawyers is higher than it is for most non-“professionals”; there are far more rich lawyers than rich janitors, clearly. But it is certainly not that case that, if a lawyer is non-rich, you can thereby assume he’s a “bad lawyer.” That’s just not true at all.
There are “good lawyers” working for government agencies, for public-interest firms, for small private law firms, etc., that are solidly middle class. (Perhaps even lower middle class, depending on the size of their loans, and how many people their income supports, and the cost of living in their chosen place of abode, among other factors.) There are “good lawyers” who seek out the highest-paying jobs available, “good lawyers” who choose lower pay as a tradeoff for avoiding long hours, “good lawyers” who choose lower pay out of an idealistic desire to “do good in the world,” etc. etc. There are also probably “bad lawyers” who are “rich,” though I suspect that’s harder to maintain over the long term. In general, I’d say the percentage of “rich” “bad lawyers” is probably a lot lower than the percentage of “non-rich” “good lawyers.” The latter is a category that has many, many people in it, especially in this economy!
I attribute about half of the GOP sweep this past November to [the Tea Party], and the other half as simple reaction against Obama and the Dems’ overreach.
What percentage do you attribute to the fact that the economy sucked, and voters always rebel against the incumbent party when the economy sucks, the distinction between correlation and causation be damned? Because I’d put it at about 75%, so I’d be pretty stunned if you think it’s really 0%.
Ryan’s reform proposal for Medicare [does not] amount to dismantling Medicare
Define “dismantling.” Medicare is a guaranteed system of single-payer health care for the elderly. Ryan’s reform proposal converts it into a cash subsidy, shrinking in purchasing power over time, to buy private insurance from the private market. If that’s not “dismantling Medicare,” what is? I mean, maybe it’s the right way to go; we can certainly debate that. And maybe, for political reasons, the GOP simply must engage in a bit of Orwellian Newspeak, and pretend that it’s not “dismantling Medicare,” even though it really is. But, between you and me, here on this piddling little blog, talking honestly and without regard for what the pollsters and focus groups say is necessary to win the next election — how is it not “dismantling Medicare”? Unless the term “Medicare” is simply defined as “whatever government program happens to exists to (purportedly) provide health care for old people, no matter how fundamentally different it is than what has always been known as ‘Medicare'”?
P.S. In case my last sentence is unclear… suppose I deleted this blog tomorrow, and replaced it with the ChickenCam. No comments, no posts, nothing. Just the ChickenCam. But suppose I labeled the ChickenCam page “The Living Room Times,” and subtitled it “Brendan Loy’s blog.”
Have I not dismantled my blog? Have I not taken “The Living Room Times” offline? Just because I call it by those names, doesn’t mean I haven’t so fundamentally changed its character that it’s fair to say I’ve “dismantled” it.
Regarding the actual post, and not the extreme rules pillow fight that ensued afterwards, Howard Dean was indeed “almost” the Dem Nominee in 2004. I still have my doubts about how John Kerry went from an uninspired, 8th place, single digit candidate, to the front-runner over a 13 day period, but I’ll leave that to Jesse Ventura to figure out. Of course Dean was the runaway candidate for months because of his opposition to the war on Iraq from day one and his continued non-support for the war throughout. The massive lead he enjoyed proves that not all Americans were nuts during the Bush wars…er.. years, and a well thought out, reasonable analysis was available.
The country would be in much better condition had Dean won it all, instead he only went on to be the Democratic National Chairman and oversaw Democrats taking control of every branch of government in his single term.
To Howard Dean, your supporters say: “Yeaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I will personally attest to the fact that Brendan’s “legal” work consists of dancing jigs to shanty tunes in front of the Denver courthouse, for which the elderly throw nickels at him, not out of appreciation but attempting to hit him hard enough so that he will stop. His last year’s reported income from this activity was $775,424, so he must be quite bad at it (and therefore quite good).
I am in clear abeyance of the blogulations, and will make personal penitence. Too bad my tanto knife is so dull and rusty…
Well first Brendan, what is the Vision and Mission of Medicare? Presumably, it is to ensure that 100% of the non-working elderly are covered for basic medical care. From that perspective, nothing Ryan is proposing alters that; he is simply moving it from a single-payer fee-for-service model (which is proving to be wildly unsustainable) to a subsidy for private insurance.
As for the economy, sure, you can look at models that suggest the incumbent president’s party will lose X number of seats in a midterm election, and Y number more if the economy is bad, but that is not the sort of statistic that at all meaningful for describing what happened and why: At the end of the day, people vote based on who the candidate is and what their party / position is. To my knowledge, there is no data out there that demonstrates rationally that, based on inputs of the president being D end the economy sucking badly, that voters will reelect the R congressman but not the D congressman. Some level of responsibility for the bad economy is assigned to the D or the R based on some logic or action taken, and the vote switches based on the opposition candidate making a solid case for that blame being accurate and/or for promoting a more attractive agenda. Quite simply, the American people judged the Democrats based on their response to the shitty economy, which was A. double-down on Keynesian fiscal stimulus we couldn’t afford, and B. ignore addressing policy that affects taxes, jobs, and economic growth and instead spend their time ramming Obamacare through the system behind closed doors and without debate or collaboration with Republicans.
Brendan #23 – thank you !
(and understood – the response is coherent and logical …
On the *other* hand, there is #24 … and comments which use words like “always” (worse yet, in bold text) tend to be hyperbolic … (grin) … plus, voters didn’t “rebel” in 2010 – they simply made an appropriate market adjustment based upon the voters-experience value of the commodity known as 111th Congresscritters …
By Brendan #25 and #26, the phrase “Stop digging !” sprang to mind … (grin) …
I thought that Ryan’s plan for Medicare was to gradually phase out the existing set-up, replacing it with the more detailed thingie (technical term) he proposed … (grin) … when Obamacare proposed to absorb everything healthcare into a Unified Theory (and control) of all things medical insurance, and some of us were less than happy, we were assured that Obamacare wasn’t getting rid of everything else … of course, when the 2K pages were analysed, its end-result as written and passed does seem to be “There can only be One !’ … so – does Obamacare “dismantle” private health care ?
AMLTrojan #29 – I wonder how the Obamaphiles on this blog will react to this article which describes how Australia and North Dakota seem to be prospering even in these uncertain economic times …
Back to the original post, it is the contention of Brendan — and Ross — and Frum — that current conservative faves for the presidential nomination are counterproductive:
Interestingly enough, I happened upon a link to this old article, wherein Jonathan Chait defends Bush hatred as completely rational and acceptable. In particular, this paragraph made me smirk:
It appears some behaviors are more the product of political mindedness than ideological affinity; the rabid talk-show radio hosts are not so different from their liberal intelligentsia foils. Fair reader, can you not totally imagine Rush Limbaugh saying:
???
@Alasdair, You should consider a deeper analysis sometimes. North Dakota doing well? Could it be that its because it has a perfect economic model that all should follow? I suppose thats one possibility, but I doubt it. I think its more likely that it wasn’t hit as hard by the recession because it has a significantly smaller economy than the harder hit states that relied on more stable types of jobs, that while useful aren’t the types of jobs you can build a national economy on. North Dakota is not exactly a hot bed of scientific or technological advancement. Its not a major manufacturing center or even a major agricultural location although it does have many farmers in its small population. And it has some oil, which is a short term resource in case you haven’t noticed.
Then there is that pesky little fact that its receiving a lot of federal funding. For every dollar in taxes the government takes in from North Dakota, the state receives back over $1.50. Thats right, the federal gov’t is subsidizing North Dakota. Maybe i was wrong in my other thread, maybe we should let some of the red states secede and see how they do on their own without states like Washington, Oregon, New York, and California picking up the slack.
David K #33 – Url ? Citation ? (for the North Dakota claims)
The verbiage sounds nice for some ears, but is a tad short on factual corroboration … one of the joys of the Internet Age is the ability to embed the supporting references …
More significantly, there isn’t even ballpark figures supporting the assertion … did ND folk send $2 to the Feds and got $3.02 back, somehow ? Did they send $2B and get $3B back ? relative to whatever the annual amount may have been in the past cople of years, what is the value relative to the surplus ? And why does/would ND get subsidies from the Feds, anyway ?
So – some simple checking results in this …
From here we find “Dalrymple submitted to the Legislature a two-year, $9.3 billion spending plan, including a $1 billion surplus.
He wants to cut property and income taxes by $500 million. Meanwhile, his budget would increase general-fund spending on human services by $265 million, mostly to replace federal assistance; schools by $82 million; higher education by $55 million; and employee salaries and benefits by $36 million.” …
Now, if North Dakota can manage to do this sort of thing by including such efforts as increasing Oil production, why the firetruck can California not
copyresearch such success stories and adopt, adapt, and improve relevant parts ? Especially since it seems that ND is managing to increase general-fund spending on human services by $265 million, mostly to replace federal assistance …With classic davidkian accuracy, you say “or even a major agricultural location although it does have many farmers in its small population” – isn’t it interesting that the same cited article says “North Dakota and its 672,591 residents grow more wheat, barley, sunflowers, canola and flaxseed than any other state, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Wheat futures increased 47 percent last year, to $7.94 per bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade. “ ?
If nothing else, in my naive innocence, I would have expected most US citizens to have had more pride in themselves, enogh to say “Hang on ! North Dakota is tiny, yet they produce more wheat/barley/etc than our *much* bigger state does ? We’ll show *them* !” and then proceed to produce more in their own state …
I would have expected more US citizens to say “French science can produce more than 80% of France’s electricity needs from nuclear and 8still* can sell electricity to other European countries ? Well, heck ! If *they* can do that, we sure-as-Pschitt can do better than *they* can !” …
Instead, we have an Administration at the Federal level doing its level best to prevent any of those from succeeding … and we had enough davidkianists in the citizenry to *elect* such an Administration and such an 111th Congress … well, we *did*, back in 2008 – and a bunch of ’em had a sudden return to sanity and reversed the majority in the House in 2010 … so the Hosue, at least, is voting to make it possible to increase domestic oil production in spite of current Administration opposition …
(AMLTrojan – if I got any of this wrong, please correct me, if you are willing and able to take the time to do so)
And that is just North Dakota …
David – I can understand why you wouldn’t want to even try to be as dismissive of Australia and *its* efforts …
Shorter Alasdair, relevant to what I want to hear from David: Where did you get the $1.50 statistic? I have read arguments in the past about such-and-such states getting more/less than what they put in and how that affects their economic competitiveness, and I’ll try to find those debates wherever they might be archived, but insofar as you brought this up as a reference data point specific to North Dakota, I’d like to be able to see the meat that was ground and stuffed into that sausage casing.