Patterico's Pontifications

5/4/2009

You talkin’ to me, Jeb?

Filed under: General — Karl @ 6:52 am



[Posted by Karl]

According to the Washington Times, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that it’s time for the Republican Party to give up its “nostalgia” for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 election.

Funny, Democrats never seem to tire of evoking nostalgia for FDR and LBJ.

Jeb and the rest of the newly-formed National Council for a New America want “to begin a conversation with the American people” and explain Republican principles to anyone who will listen.

Unfortunately, Jeb — and most of those associated with the new group — lack the two most important factors in making a persuasive argument.  In particular, having helped lead the GOP to its current state of disrepair, most of them lack credibility.  As Sen. Jim DeMint noted over the weekend:

No Child Left Behind didn’t win us “soccer moms,” but it did cost us our credibility on locally controlled education. Medicare prescription drugs didn’t win us a “permanent majority,” but it cost us our credibility on entitlement reform. Every year, another Republican quality was tainted: managerial competence, fiscal discipline and personal ethics.

Sen. DeMint also has a pretty decent idea as to where the GOP should be headed:

Republicans can welcome a vigorous debate about legalized abortion or same-sex marriage; but we should be able to agree that social policies should be set through a democratic process, not by unelected judges. Our party benefits from national-security debates; but Republicans can start from the premise that the U.S. is an exceptional nation and force for good in history. We can argue about how to rein in the federal Leviathan; but we should agree that centralized government infringes on individual liberty and that problems are best solved by the people or the government closest to them.

Moderate and liberal Republicans who think a South Carolina conservative like me has too much influence are right! I don’t want to make decisions for them. That’s why I’m working to reduce Washington’s grip on our lives and devolve power to the states, communities and individuals, so that Northeastern Republicans, Western Republicans, Southern Republicans, and Midwestern Republicans can define their own brands of Republicanism. It’s the Democrats who want to impose a rigid, uniform agenda on all Americans.

It is an approach more consistent with Reagan Republicanism than Bush Republicanism of ther “kinder and gentler” or “compasssionate” variety.

People like Jeb Bush need to hear that.  They also need to hear that the Democrats’ winning strategy in 2008 was the same as their strategy in 2006 — capitalize on the political and ideological exhaustion of their opponents.  They further need to hear that America literally cannot afford to wait for the Democrats to exhaust their political and ideological capital.  Most of all, they need to hear that holding town halls in pizza parlors is no substitute for actually reforming the party.

–Karl

160 Responses to “You talkin’ to me, Jeb?”

  1. Karl for President 2012. Washington in a snarl? Cut the crap, vote Karl!

    GM Roper (85dcd7)

  2. I second the motion. All in favor say “Aye!”

    PCD (02f8c1)

  3. We first need to get over this infatuation with the Leader! Obama has such a grip on the media that right now, He can get away with just about anything. The country is losing patients, though and will be receptive to a conservative message – certainly by election time 2010.

    For those who still worship this guy, there is a 12-step recovery plan at:
    http://firstconservative.com/blog/top-ten/12-step-recovery-plan-for-obama-supporters

    MAS1916 (de1316)

  4. OK, so Jim DeMint has an ideas “approach more consistent with Reagan Republicanism.” Does Jim DeMint, or his ideas, have Emotional Appeal behind him?

    Of all the growth and development that has taken place in Modern Conservatism over the last 50-55 years, the one thing that has been consistently missing is Emotional Appeal. Which helps build and sustain a Brand (I’m talking to you, Jim DeMint!). One of the enduring ironies over the last 8-9 years is that George W. Bush, with his “Compassionate Conservatism,” got the ball rolling on Emotional Appeal. Think about it: Was there any intellectual reason to nominate (much less elect) GW Bush President, given our experiences with Poppy Bush? It was all from the heart and soul. And what was GW Bush’s reward for helping bring Emotional Appeal to Modern Conservatism? Massive distrust and considerable rebellion within his own caucus, and the eventual fate of his brother Jeb becoming a non-entity within his own party (even though Jeb is much better on the Emotional Appeal end of things).

    The question of Emotional Appeal is going to have to be answered by intellectual and media Conservatives at some point and time, as the tiger that is Emotional Appeal is not going back into its cage. The continual fascination with Sarah Palin, and the astounding ratings success of Glenn Beck (a weepy Conservative?! Get outta here!) will force a quicker response than some of you may be comfortable with answering.

    Brad S (9f6740)

  5. So Jim DeMint has an ideas “approach more consistent with Reagan Republicanism than Bush Republicanism of ther ”kinder and gentler” or “compasssionate” variety.” So does Jim DeMint, and his ideas, have Emotional Appeal behind them?

    One of the things that has been consistently missing for Modern Conservatism over the last 50-55 years has been the ability to have Emotional Appeal. Which helps build a Brand (I’m talking to you, Jim DeMint!) One of the enduring ironies of the last 8 years is that George W Bush got the ball started on developing Emotional Appeal (“compassionate conservatism”), and his reward was massive distrust and considerable rebellion within his own caucus. In the process, a better man at developing Emotional Appeal (Jeb Bush) no longer has a future in his own party.

    However, the tiger of Emotional Appeal cannot be caged forever, especially in the wake of Barack Obama being elected President. Witness the continuing fascination with Sarah Palin, the astounding ratings success of Glenn Beck (whodathunk it? a weepy Conservative!), and the reaction of folks like the Davids (Frum and Brooks) toward both of them

    Brad S (9f6740)

  6. Oops, apologize for what appears to be a double post. You can delete one of those. Thank you.

    Brad S (9f6740)

  7. Sigh, is nobody going to come out and say that Obama bought the votes of morons with almost ten times the (God-only-knows-where-it-came-from) money that McCain spent? Sure, intelligent and thoughtful people on both sides, Republican and Democrat, vote according to the respective party platforms, but what put the Magical Mau Mau over the top were the TV-watching losers who thought he would make their car and mortgage payments for them and provide them with a lifetime supply of crack, willing lovers, and tofu.

    nk (edb3d7)

  8. As long as we’re nominating people for president, how about Bill Whittle: Bill Whittle for president.

    Diffus (cb9f4f)

  9. I know lots of Democrats who despised LBJ and still do. JFK, on the other hand….

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  10. Maybe we should put it this way: honor the past, just stop trying to live in it.

    Strick (d22786)

  11. Patterico,

    You need to do a bleg for money to get yourself a decent comment server. It’s a very important part of this site. This caching thing is hurting the site, in my opinion. I’m not saying that I’ll give you my money that I’ve been saving for a trip to Arizona to buy Pocahontas’s personal garter gun, but … well … I’m good for a $100.00 right now (or after I come back from Arizona 😉 , if other readers here pitch in too.

    nk (edb3d7)

  12. but we should be able to agree that social policies should be set through a democratic process, not by unelected judges.

    Unless the social policy involves guns or affirmative action. Then we want unelected judges to set them.

    we should agree that centralized government infringes on individual liberty

    As opposed to decentralized government. Because states have never infringed on anyone’s individual freedom.

    Our party benefits from national-security debates;

    Not anymore.

    Festivus (567029)

  13. so that Northeastern Republicans, Western Republicans, Southern Republicans, and Midwestern Republicans can define their own brands of Republicanism

    Wow, DeMint, I guess we’re all not American? I thought we rejected regionalism when the Constitution was ratified.

    Reminds me of George Wallace and friends telling Northern Civil Rights volunteers that they didn’t know what’s best for the South (not to imply Jim was a segregationist, just that he adopts the strange view of those people that America is very special and the South is most specialst place of all). Senator DeMint claims to oppose a

    rigid, uniform agenda on all Americans,

    while opposing abortion for every gal, whether she’s a Southern or not and desiring a Constitutional amendment to tell states which ones of their citizens can marry.

    Gee, Senator, Federalism sure works in mysterious ways.

    After reading his op-ed, I hope you guys jump on it with both feet. American Exceptionalism, ridiculous tax rates, a call for “liberty” (which really means opposition to regulations and policies which protect workers and the environment)….these are all real winners.*

    *See election results in 2006 and 2008

    PS. Oh, and for nk above, Bush out spent Kerry in 2004, he outspent Gore in 2000….hell, Dole outspent Clinton in the 1996 General Election. So, did the same TV watching losers elect Clinton and Bush twice? Such a typical, it’s okay if republicans do it moment from the pretty fair minded nk. Hint: Ignore John Zeigler. He’s an idiot.

    timb (a83d56)

  14. Was there any intellectual reason to nominate (much less elect) GW Bush President, given our experiences with Poppy Bush? It was all from the heart and soul. And what was GW Bush’s reward for helping bring Emotional Appeal to Modern Conservatism?

    I agree with this. I supported McCain in 2000 although some of his positions were not mine. The Republican party has this inherit the nomination thing. That’s why Dole was the nominee in 1996 instead of someone else, like Powell for example, who could have won. Dole mailed it in. Bush was a good man and I agreed with his decisions on Iraq but he was unable to communicate and that cost him, and us, badly.

    Obama doe nothing but communicate and I would be content to watch him deliver a lesson in economics to all those under 30 types who voted him in except I don;t know if we can survive it. One problem we have is the education system that left the last two generations of college graduates so ignorant of history and economics that they don’t realize yet what they have done.

    I hope you guys jump on it with both feet. American Exceptionalism, ridiculous tax rates, a call for “liberty” (which really means opposition to regulations and policies which protect workers and the environment)….these are all real winners.*

    Tim, you are a perfect example. I hope you get to be one more unemployed lawyer so you can see what happens when the productive segment of society is convinced it’s time to take a vacation. A long vacation.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  15. Hint: Ignore timb. He’s an idiot.

    FTFY

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  16. Isn’t it time that we recognize that Bushes are bad for the Republican party? The nostalgia we need to get over the election of Bushes to high office, where the scuttle Reagan priciples at every opportunity.

    trentk269 (ec7ce3)

  17. Sure you do, John, it’s why you just posted that. Now, with your theocon ways, I can see why you’d follow DeMint to the gates of Hell. I urge all the rest of the Republicans to do that with you.

    As for you, Mike, that was a nice sweet thing you said. I’ll wager a few things: first, you apparently have no idea how old I am and, secondly, I wish my job was in med mal. It’s easy money, considering how “productive” doctors are.

    timb (a83d56)

  18. “Compassionate Conservatism” turned out to be compassionate, but not very conservative. There ARE conservative things to do (not just thing to oppose) on health care, education, and a variety of other fronts. Few people seem to be pushing them. Jeb Bush (whose family was NEVER supportive of Reagan… remember “voodoo economics”?) seems to want us to be a party who stands first and foremost for winning. That’s the Tom DeLay attitude that got us to this point to begin with. The crowd that started this new thing all hire the same campaign consultants, are all long-time professional politicians whose primary specialty is staying in office.

    Sure, the party should probably not emphasize gay marriage as the most important plank of its platform, but neither should it give up on the issue. And Arlen Specter did not fall behind in the polls in the GOP primary in PA because of his stand on social issues, but because he voted for the “stimulus” package. That is, he demonstrated that he wasn’t even fiscally conservative.

    So yes, we shouldn’t be the party of “no.” But we should be the party of “Democrat-lite,” either.

    Let’s push vouchers, to reform government-run schools. Let’s call for giving tax deductions for the purchase of health insurance whether it’s bought by the employer or the employee. For the truly needy, let’s let them buy health insurance through refundable tax credits rather than have the government decide what care they do and don’t get. Let’s get the government out of the business of subsidizing subprime loans.

    PatHMV (165735)

  19. Jeb Bush thinks that he wants to lead us
    But his ideas certainly would bleed us
    If we’re just Dems Lite
    The voters just might
    Decide that they didn’t need us.

    The Limerick Avenger (3e4784)

  20. Brad S

    You’ve already trotted out your “emotional appeal” meme before. Yet we just saw hundreds of thousands of people protesting the debt being piled on their kids, which is an emotional issue to them. Everyone who will be forced to pay the bill for this debt will also find it an emotional issue. People who remain unemployed next year will find the market-suffocating policies of the Democrats to be an emotional issue. The majority of voters in a state as blue as California are headed toward rejecting the borrow-and-spend policies of the Dem-RINO coalition in Sacramento, so I guess it must already be sinking in there. Just not with you.

    Karl (f07e38)

  21. Related: Here’s Silicon Valley’s reaction to the latest Obama tax proposal:

    “On a Richter scale of 1 to 10, this is about a 20.”

    Seems kinda… emotional, don’t it?

    Karl (f07e38)

  22. Jeb Bush is a Creationist. He believes that the world is only 6,000 years old, and that once upon a time, humans walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs–you know, like on The Flintstones.

    Official Internet Data Office (966fd7)

  23. And so long as he doesn’t attempt to force those beliefs on others, he is more than welcome to hold to that opinion.

    What with this being a free country and all…

    Scott Jacobs (89480a)

  24. JFK, on the other hand…

    Favored tax cuts, reductions in spending where possible, and knew that the more money that was in the hands of the general populus meant more money spend on businesses, bosting the economy.

    Democrats never seem to remember that bit.

    Scott Jacobs (89480a)

  25. Would you care to like, you know, do a kind of proportionate analysis like, you know, of the respectives “outspendings”, you know, timb?

    BTW, my third or fourth legal job was defending mad mal. We made three times the money, in attorneys’ fees, we paid out in settlements or judgments. 😉 Don’t you just love insurance companies?

    nk (edb3d7)

  26. Karl,

    I most certainly did not imply or state that the ideas that the Tea Parties represented did not have Emotional Appeal. In fact, one of things that really gets me fired up is the fact that good conservatives and Republicans are taking time of their lives to feel this emotional about the added debt and economic hardship that comes with the Obama administration.

    I’m just wondering if folks like Jim DeMint and most of the commenters on this blog are fully aware of how Emotional Appeal can help their cause out. Or, as DeMint is likely to say, help build the Brand. Too many times, I’ve seen conservatives shy away from emotional investment, even though a LOT of conservative issues (Illegal Immigration, Abortion, and Gay Marriage, to name just three) have their strength in Emotional Appeal (whether stated or implied).

    The general public knows our ideas, and our intellectual arguments for our ideas, Karl. They just want to see enough Emotional Appeal out of conservatives to want to support those ideas, and by extension the candidates that are behind those ideas.

    Brad S (9f6740)

  27. hey Jeb!

    STFU…..

    no love,
    Conservative America

    redc1c4 (9c4f4a)

  28. You know, OIDO (#22), I don’t mean any disrespect, but do you honestly think that most politicians who pontificate on this subject (nor “journalists” asking them questions) can actually define and explain evolution?

    Thus, it seems like attacking a person for their personal and religious preferences, rather than on their command of facts.

    Now, if you want to actually start holding politicians to technical and scientific knowledge (let alone economics), I am with you. But I seriously doubt that even the “smart and cool” Barack Obama would do a great job of explaining how a toaster works, let alone the basic ideas behind evolution.

    In fact, I don’t think that many politicians would do well on the “why does the toast pop up at the right time in your toaster” question, regardless of political party.

    Terms like “creationist” or “evolutionist” and such have very quickly become tags or labels to place on candidates, primarily for the purposes of negative campaigning. The vast majority of politicians are lawyers, and have little to no knowledge of science at all.

    Eric Blair (33cc23)

  29. Not that scientists or engineers would run government any better, let me hasten to add. We are just kind of screwed, I think.

    Eric Blair (33cc23)

  30. And so long as he doesn’t attempt to force those beliefs on others, he is more than welcome to hold to that opinion.

    This atheist evolutionist says “Amen, brother!”

    The Bill of Rights-Respecting Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (de89a7)

  31. Every 8 or 12 years, the nation rotates the tires. Carter, fired for incompetence, re-set the cycle. We’re not so vastly different an electorate from 2000. But any shiny, new “visionary” with an appealing sales pitch construes the creed. The party adjusts to fit.

    That Americans reflexively believe that any Dem will raise their taxes was the dog that wouldn’t hunt in ’08.

    And “devolving power to the states” isn’t all that appealing in consideration of exigencies like swine flu. Such a principle can be made to sound like buck-passing.

    steve (509564)

  32. DeMint is so wrong, not on principle but on tactics, at least if he hopes to ever see the GOP regain control.

    The mushy middle whose votes are critical don’t care about process, they only care about whether the end result and, in particular, whether they think they’ll gain (financially and emotionally) from supporting a particular candidate – and thus there’s an easier way to keep conservatives like DeMint from having too much influence: why go through the process of ‘changing Washington’ when a non-conservative voter can accomplish the same thing simply by not voting for him or anyone like him?

    The math is pretty straightfoward: with ‘true’ conservatives making up around 20%, with a similar percentage comprising the hard left, the winner is the party that can get the majority of those people in the middle who, by definition, are not conservatives and thus don’t share the same values as conservatives.

    And there are only two ways of doing so: make the middle more afraid (or pissed off) at the left than they are the right, so that the right wins by being viewed as the lesser of two evils (as the left did in 2006 and 2008), or broaden the pitch by moderating some of the hard right views to positions more likely to be shared by those in the middle (muzzle the anti-abortionists and push for ‘reasonable’ restrictions, agree that ‘reasonable’ gun control isn’t a blasphemy on the Constitution, agree that there is a place for government to provide a safety net for those in (temporary) trouble). No matter how many times you tell yourself you’re right (and you may be philosophically, but it is irrelevant), unless you find a way of getting someone to overcome their resistance to voting for a hard conservative, you’re going to lose to the Democrats. Of course, you all will ignore the math and try to convince yourself that a conservative message CAN work, it is just that you’ve had lousy candidates.

    True, NCLB and the Medicare expansion didn’t win the middle, but that was due more to faulty execution and a brain-dead President. Just why did Bush think throwing billions of dollars at these two endeavors was going to win votes?

    steve sturm (369bc6)

  33. Nk, good point, but it has less rhetorical flair than the way I put it to the good retired doctor.

    JFK, on the other hand…

    Favored tax cuts, reductions in spending where possible,

    Yeah, Scott, most of us haven’t forgotten he was a Keynsian, like Obama and me and the Fed and the treasury and most of Wall Street. It’s what we’re trying to do now to spur demand. JFK figured we could spur demand with a tax cut and by running a small deficit. Of course, he was just correcting for that Socialist Eisenhower.

    timb (a83d56)

  34. Jeb seems to be set on a mission of defining for most Conservatives why we would support any other members of the Bush Family at our extreme peril – it’s not like we could have learned from his older brother.

    Regional difference were not set aside at the time of the enaction of the Constitution (I realize that this will be a new revelation to some commenters), but were, later, pushed to the back burner by a certain situation in the later half of the 19th Century (the loosing side tends to call this The War of Northern Aggression). The final obliteration of most regional differences was to wait for a true, national, communications medium that emphasized “Standard American English” as the mode of verbal communication (TV).

    Bill Whittle for President in 2012!
    Karl would make an excellent V-P
    (I just have a sneaky suspicion – and fond hope – that his pursuit of excellence and accountability might have members of the bureaucracy thinking fondly of the days of Dick Cheney).

    AD - RtR/OS! (0f8a36)

  35. In my previous post (#22) I forgot to add: “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

    Official Internet Data Office (966fd7)

  36. Scott #23: sadly, it isn’t a free country. Not where free expression is concerned.

    Well, it is free for some people to give their own opinions, and very expensive for others.

    Eric Blair (33cc23)

  37. After watching timb’s self proclaimed rhetorical flair, I am hesitant to add anything.

    But anyone who thinks that Barack Obama believes in anything other than Barack Obama is delusional.

    In fact, I would love to hear the current occupant of the White House explain Keynesian economics (new or old synthesis), let alone spell it correctly.

    Eric Blair (33cc23)

  38. agree that ‘reasonable’ gun control isn’t a blasphemy on the Constitution, agree that there is a place for government to provide a safety net for those in (temporary) trouble

    Define “reasonable” gun control.

    Michael Ejercito (7c44bf)

  39. Related: Here’s Silicon Valley’s reaction to the latest Obama tax proposal:

    “On a Richter scale of 1 to 10, this is about a 20.”

    Seems kinda… emotional, don’t it?

    Comment by Karl — 5/4/2009 @ 9:45 am

    Interesting Karl, hmmm they think it’s o.k. to continue using shipping expenses as a U.S. tax right off, but paying less taxes to other countries for work being done oversees by non American employees.

    Sounds like a lot of good jobs are being “Created”………..

    For the Chinese/etc. that is.

    Let’s see what kind of emotion do we have for happy Chinese workers instead of American workers 🙁

    Oiram (a1ed40)

  40. The injection of Jeb BUSH! into this new drive to “rebrand” the GOP just shows how stupid and clueless these people are. Don’t they get that the person largely responsible for where the Reps are now has a name with a surname called “BUSH!”?
    Here is a formula for reovery of GOP: Condemn and excommunicate George Bush. And keep as far away from him and from his name as possible. That is how to begin the healing process.

    The Emperor7 (1b037c)

  41. Define “reasonable” gun control.

    Solid stance, decent sights. Stand/sit/lie right, hold the gun right, have reasonable eyesight, and a gun which will shoot where you want it to if you have all that.

    nk (edb3d7)

  42. Why is it that posts like this bring out all of the barking moonbats? Once ASPCA’s gets out of bed and its hangover wears off, we can expect its voice to join the choir.

    JD (6ef9a2)

  43. As for you, Mike, that was a nice sweet thing you said. I’ll wager a few things: first, you apparently have no idea how old I am

    From your rhetoric and the fact that you have previously indicated you were trying to get into law school, I did make a few assumptions. Perhaps I overestimated you. Maybe you are one of the older losers trying to get into a non-accredited law school. Who knows ?

    and, secondly, I wish my job was in med mal. It’s easy money, considering how “productive” doctors are.
    Comment by timb

    So treating sick people and getting them well is not productive? What do you call suing people ?

    I’ve previously told my story hear of my jury duty where we had a mistrial in voir dire. The plaintiff attorney asked the entire jury panel how many had been sued. Every hand went up and it deteriorated from there. Newport Beach jury tend to have lots of contractors.

    I have no problem with med mal suits when justified. I have testified as an expert all over the US, for both defense and plaintiff. Most med mal lawyers will tell you however, that the defense wins almost all cases at trial. The easy ones never go to trial. You’ll find that out in law school, if you ever get there.

    Mike K (8df289)

  44. “..stupid and clueless these people are…”

    Well, at least the people who complain that other folks are insulting are not hypocritical.

    Hey, wait.

    Eric Blair (33cc23)

  45. You’ve already trotted out your “emotional appeal” meme before.

    Yes, about a dozen times at this point. We get your point – please try a new tune in the future.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  46. #38 Buffalo-ing anyone who wears their firearm into commercially zoned areas of town — like Wyatt Earp did.

    Christian (abaa8f)

  47. in broad strokes, ‘reasonable gun control’ is defined as taking positions that convinces moderate voters that you’re not an anything goes gun nut. specifically, eliminating the ‘loophole’ by requiring background checks at gun shows, agreeing that (suspected) wife abusers get their guns taken away, mandating trigger locks and developing technology to keep anyone but the licensed owner from firing the gun, mandating extra prison time for anyone using a gun in a crime and so on…. all of these are positions that will resonate among the mushy middle.

    Again, this isn’t put forth as a philosophical constitutional argument (so save the comments pointing out that trigger guards keep people from defending themselves), but rather as a platform that convinces moderate voters that they don’t need to be afraid of you. Remember: they won’t vote for you if they are afraid of you.

    steve sturm (369bc6)

  48. timb: At the Open Secrets website you can find information on the 2004 campaign. It’s true that Bush raised and spent more than Kerry: $367 million to $324 million. But what about the spending of the 527s?

    Kerry dominated Bush in the 527s. The top two Kerry supporting 527s raised and spent more than $150 million. Kerry supporting 527s #s 3 and 4 raised $100 million. The top FOUR Bush supporting 527s didn’t even come close to $100 million raised by Kerry’s #3 and #4.

    Accordingly, there was far more anti-Bush/pro-Kerry spending in 2004 than the opposite.

    527s also cleaned up for Obama relative to McCain in 2008. Of the top five 527s four were pro-Obama and they raised $50 million more than the pro-McCain 527 in the top five.

    It’s all at Open Secrets/Influence and Lobbying/527s. The poor Democrats being outspent by rich Republicans is so pre-George Soros.

    EBJ (2fd7f7)

  49. China joins the “Tea Party” “… up until last month they were the number one provider of currency to the United States and now they’re gone.”

    Is this Hiliary’s fault ?

    Neo (46a1a2)

  50. If the gun won’t fire, it’s not a philosophical argument is it, it makes it more dangerous to do so. As to ‘reasonable restrictions’ on abortion, have you ever seen the left hasn’t tried to gut or tried to define out of sight. How long was it 33 years after Roe, to pass even the most narrow
    of restrictions on abortion.

    narciso (996c34)

  51. “Yes, about a dozen times at this point. We get your point – please try a new tune in the future.”

    I presume you are aware that in politics, there’s no such thing as repetition, right? Or is this another one of those things conservative intellectuals are too unwilling to understand?

    Brad S (9f6740)

  52. Tell you what, we’ll stop looking back to 1980 when they stop looking back to 1917.

    Jim Treacher (796deb)

  53. Gee, now even the most brazen of violations of the Due Process provision of the Constitution is “moderate” ?

    SPQR (72771e)

  54. narciso, it is also useful (and rare) to point out that abortion was legal in California in 1969, years before Roe v Wade. There is a Greshem’s Law of debate. The most extreme always seems to force the moderate opinions out of the arena.

    Mike K (8df289)

  55. “Remember: they won’t vote for you if they are afraid of you.”

    I would love to see someone like Steven Crowder do one of those man-on-the-street interviews, asking the question “Are you scared of Republicans today?” The responses would be comedy gold, of this I am certain. This “people are scared of Republicans” meme needs to be mocked early and often.

    Brad S (9f6740)

  56. Funny, Democrats never seem to tire of evoking nolstalgia for FDR and LBJ.

    You confuse nolstalgia with progress. A more accurate comparative is JFK’s 1000 days, yet still a progressive period for Americans. But the Camelot schtick wears thin.

    Jeb and the rest of the newly-formed National Council for a New America want “to begin a conversation with the American people” and explain Republican principles to anyone who will listen.

    We’ve heard it all before. 30 years of it and we’re still paying the bills. And the last 8 years of babble by his brother was at times incomprehensible.

    Meghan McCain has already shown a path to the future. But then conservatives eat their young. The Bush baby, Slick Romney, The Galloping Kantor and Master Newtie want to resurface and go down the same old rutted toll road. “Contract With The Earth.” What a farce. Who signed for Earth, Mother Nature, or God, Newtie?

    Time for fresher faces with more tempered ideas for our times. That’s not Palin. Nor Jebbie, Newtie or Slick. And prominent hard right conservative faces from the past 30 years are part of the problem, not the solution.

    Example. Give Tom Ridge a fair shake. He can easily beat opportunists like Specter if he can defeat the calcified conservative curmudgeons in his own party. 100% agreeable to all, no, but then not 100% disagreable to the PA voters either.
    But then, he’s pro choice. A modern man. He’ll be blocked by the hard right, of course.

    The future of the Republican Party is not couched in conservatism, but moderation. When the GOP realizes that in 2050, they’ll stand a chance of winning something again. In an age when Italy’s Fiat can buy America’s Chrysler, it’s time for a change in thinking, and that change is fast, hard and away from conservatism.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  57. Toomey down by 20 to Specter [but Karl tweets Toomey and his wacky, Randian Club for Growth self is Obama-esque in his appeal! Not exactly Karl’s finest analysis(h/t Allahpundit)].

    I love it, the Dems get an unprincipled hack for the Big Tent and he mops the floor with the Ayn Rand, Genghis Khan clone before the campaign’s even started. Think about how few people the “republican base” is. Specter trailed Toomey by 20 points within the Republican party. Statewide polling of everyone else puts him DOWN by twenty. Not only do independents and Dems outnumber Republicans, they do it in such a way that turns 20 point deficits into 20 point leads!

    Keep purging the moderates, boys! You’ll be pure, Rush and Sean will be rich, and your extreme purists will get their butts handed to them every two years (outside of the old confederacy and the Great Plains, I mean)

    Some of you may want to start reading up on the Whigs.

    PS Awesome contribution as always , dj.

    timb (8f04c0)

  58. timb,

    Thanks for completely misrepresenting this morning’s tweets of the PA race, jackass.

    I have a fuller discussion with Allahpundit starting here.

    Karl (7bf51f)

  59. I love how the mendoucheous trolls always drop by to tell conservatives how they should act more like Leftists. As someone once said, if the choice is between Dem and Dem-lite, why bother? Let’s just hope that Barcky and his sycophants don’t permanently destroy our capitalist system before they are done.

    JD (d31b07)

  60. Timmah – The day that I seek your approval will happen sometime after the Cubs when the World Series. Go find someone else to creep out.

    JD (d31b07)

  61. TIMMAH!

    I presume you are aware that in politics, there’s no such thing as repetition, right?

    Having worked in advertising for most of my career, I understand the basic tenets of hammering the point home to your potential audience. But this ain’t the GOP headquarters, and we’re not Brent Bozell – IOW, your target audience is about 180 degrees off. So go do your awesome selling job on the operatives that actually work full – time on this issue.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  62. Reform the party? Like the parties founders reformed the Whigs?

    I say cast them out, are there no prisons?

    gary gulrud (15c746)

  63. Let’s just hope that Barcky and his sycophants don’t permanently destroy our capitalist system before they are done.

    And with just 20% of the public calling themselves conservative, just how do you plan on stopping them unless you compromise and find some GOP-lites to stand with you against Obama?

    Didn’t SI pick the Cubs to win the series

    your target audience is about 180 degrees off.

    Actually, if you die-hard true red blooded conservatives can’t accept the argument (and the math) that there ain’t enough of you to win anywhere but the reddest of states, why bother pitching to the RNC as just as conservative can’t win without moderate support, no moderate can win without conservative support. You need each other and if you weren’t so darned stubborn and stupid, you’d find the common ground and knock off a whole bunch of Democrats come November.

    steve sturm (369bc6)

  64. steve sturm,

    That “just 20% of the public calling themselves conservative” factoid — got a link for that?

    Beacuase I think you’re referring to the last NBC/WSJ poll. And the internals of that poll don’t actually support that factoid.

    Karl (3bf5f8)

  65. Yeah, Scott, most of us haven’t forgotten he was a Keynsian, like Obama and me and the Fed and the treasury and most of Wall Street. It’s what we’re trying to do now to spur demand. JFK figured we could spur demand with a tax cut and by running a small deficit. Of course, he was just correcting for that Socialist Eisenhower.

    Uh-huh.

    Just remember what your energy bills look now, so you can compare them to next year, and please don’t forget what your final income tax bill was. It too shall look quite different (as in, smaller) compared to what is waiting for you on the other side.

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  66. The amusing thing to me is the trolls saying (and not only the trolls, I’m sorry to say) that we have to become Democrats to have any hope of winning. Let me try to explain it.

    If what Obama is doing, and what Pelosi is doing, were rational and had any chance of actually working, we would be in trouble politically but the country would be OK since it would make little difference (except to politicians) who was in office. In fact, what Obama and Pelosi are doing will drive the economy off the cliff and runs the risk of another catastrophic attack by the Islamists.

    One of these days, before November 2010 if we are lucky, enough people will figure out what is happening to throw out the Democrats and return the country to sanity. I don’t know if Republicans will regain enough credibility to benefit by then. One way not to do so would be to imitate the California Republicans who went along with the Democrats and public employee unions in running California into the ground.

    Speaking of Whigs, I have looked into the Modern Whig Party. The tea party movement may lead to some significant changes along libertarian lines. It’s too soon to say. I do know that what Obama is doing will never work and, unless he really uses the whole fascist playbook, will lead to a slaughter of his party at the polls.

    Mike K (8df289)

  67. I love how the mendoucheous trolls always drop by to tell conservatives how they should act more like Leftists. As someone once said, if the choice is between Dem and Dem-lite, why bother? Let’s just hope that Barcky and his sycophants don’t permanently destroy our capitalist system before they are done.

    You fatuous moron, I am not telling conservatives they should “act more like Leftists.” Learn to read, moron. I URGE you to do what Karl and Goldstein and Hannity and Limbaugh and Eric Erickson and all those purity folks calling for more purity. I know you are not smart, but even you should realize how wonderful it is to me that you people are politically dead. You are BAD for America and the American people are ignoring you. Objectively, this is a good thing. Whenever the reactionary forces of ignorance go dormant, we get things done in this country.

    That last sentence is so profoundly stupid only you could have uttered it: Obama has given billions of tax dollars to private firms and rich jerks to save banks and insurance companies. He has guaranteed loans and provided cash to auto companies to save them. He is bailing out nimrod Randians and Cato Institute know nothings so their companies and banks can stay afloat.

    Jesus, if you knew any less, you would actually be a black hole of stupidity. Now, at least, I know why you never make comments just ad hominems. You REALLY just don’t know what you’re talking about.

    timb (8f04c0)

  68. Actually, if you die-hard true red blooded conservatives

    I’m a registered Democrat in Cook County, numbnuts.

    That “just 20% of the public calling themselves conservative” factoid — got a link for that?

    Steve doesn’t like to be challenged on his source – free rants, Karl – the last time he beclowned himself he resorted to calling it “keeping score.” Then he promptly disappeared for two weeks.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  69. Oh, and Karl, here’s the quote:

    Karl reminded me on Twitter this morning that Barry O was once a little-known underdog to Hillary too, which is true, but (a) meaning no disrespect to Toomey, I doubt that he has The One’s retail or organizational skills, and (b) Obama and Hillary were playing on a basically even field whereas Toomey has to beat a Democrat in a state that went blue by 10 points last year.

    My gosh, when a halfwit like Allahpundit can debunk in three sentences, it’s barely worth my time.

    Nonetheless, there’s a real ton of depth in your “analysis:” the “nobody knows him” angle. I read the same thing on Red State three minutes later (there is a vast hive mind connecting the 21% (Pew Poll) of you, isn’t there?

    A moderate Republican with a gun-toting hot chick just lost Pennsylvania by 11 points. Since Toomey is far to the right of McCain/Palin, it’s asinine to say: “once the people who don’t like his views get to know him, he’ll gain support.”

    Then again, on the plus side, you’re still infinitely smarter than that other boy.

    timb (8f04c0)

  70. Stay classy there, timb!

    It really helps people to take you seriously and listen to your arguments.

    It’s almost like your point posting here is to pick fights. And that can’t be right.

    Eric Blair (aeb697)

  71. I hope the Dodgers when the world series DJ 🙂

    Oiram (a1ed40)

  72. “and please don’t forget what your final income tax bill was. It too shall look quite different (as in, smaller) compared to what is waiting for you on the other side.”

    Scott – Don’t jump to conclusions. Timmah contends the government has to do something to fix what he calls the “income gap”, although he never clarified what he meant and why the government needed to do it. I think timmah is on the resentful short side of that income gap and pining for some handouts, which helps explain the angry nature of his comments and hate for capitalism, e.g.;

    “Obama has given billions of tax dollars to private firms and rich jerks to save banks and insurance companies. He has guaranteed loans and provided cash to auto companies to save them. He is bailing out nimrod Randians and Cato Institute know nothings so their companies and banks can stay afloat.”

    Apart from timmah, I’m not sure how many here would view that level of government interference in the private sector a good thing.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  73. Eric – It is a creepy ass. It is what it does.

    Good point on the typo, Mario. Coming from you, that is rich.

    Steve – The Cubs have supposed to have been good many times in the last 101 years. They are currently not even winnging their division, and nobody ever went broke betting against the Scrubs.

    JD (d31b07)

  74. I thought that Timmah’s primary (and sole) reason for commenting here was only to read Karl’s posts, which he deemed quite thoughtful and worthwhile. But for the most part he only comes here to fling his poo around his monkey cage.

    He also said that he had nothing to say to JD anymore, and from now on would ignore him – again, a total lie.

    Tell us again why you post here, Timmah!

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  75. Someone is not a very happy person. One would think that with Teh One stopping the oceans from rising and curing all that ails the planet, the vile vermin would be in a better mood.

    Your abject hatred is not very flattering, timmah.

    JD (d31b07)

  76. timb wrote:

    Toomey down by 20 to Specter [but Karl tweets Toomey and his wacky, Randian Club for Growth self is Obama-esque in his appeal! Not exactly Karl’s finest analysis(h/t Allahpundit)].

    Guess that it depends on which poll you believe:

    New PA Poll: Specter 42% Toomey 36%, Ridge 39% Specter 38%…

    PEG Political Action Committee
    116 Pine Street, Suite 201, Harrisburg, PA 17101
    Phone: 717-238-1764 Fax: 717-238-0751
    http://www.pabusinesscouncil.org

    For Immediate Release
    Monday May 4, 2009

    Contact: David W. Patti
    Office: 717-238-1764
    Cell: 717-329-7207

    RIDGE SPECTER A STATISTICAL DEAD HEAT; TOOMEY TRAILS

    (Harrisburg) Former Governor Tom Ridge and US Senator Arlen Specter are neck-and-neck across Pennsylvania in an election poll conducted for a state business group. Conservative former Congressman Pat Toomey, while potentially viable, trails Specter in most regions of the state.

    PEG PAC, Pennsylvania’s oldest pro-business political action committee and the affiliated PAC of the Pennsylvania Business Council (PBC), today announced the results of a statewide poll that tested whether a well known conservative Republican or a well known right-of-center Republican can best challenge incumbent US Senator Arlen Specter who recently joined the Democrat Party.

    In an automated poll of 1,019 households of registered voters taken at the end of last week, announced PBC President and CEO David W. Patti, “PEG PAC found that if the election for US Senate were held today, Tom Ridge could defeat Arlen Specter by a margin of 39 percent to 38 percent. The poll also shows Specter would defeat Pat Toomey by a margin of 42 percent to 36 percent.” The number of undecided voters in the survey is over 20 percent cautioned Patti, and the margin of error is +/- 2.8 percent, so the association leader said the results are not conclusive.

    The Dana who's 3 years older than nk (474dfc)

  77. timmah,

    Pointing out that I used an extreme example to illustrate the point of not being well-known in the 140 characters alloted, while avoiding my other tweets on the subject is misrepresentation — which is why I directed everyone to the fuller discussion at HotAir.

    Or did you really believe in 2007 that Hillary was going to beat Obama like a drum among the black vote? Obama didn’t have to be Mr. Charisma for anyone to know that wasn’t going to hold up. All he had to do was be more credible than Al Sharpton.

    Karl (3bf5f8)

  78. in broad strokes, ‘reasonable gun control’ is defined as taking positions that convinces moderate voters that you’re not an anything goes gun nut.

    In other words, not someone in the NYPD, LAPD, Chicago PD, NOPD, or sycophants thereof.

    agreeing that (suspected) wife abusers get their guns taken away

    I guess the concept of innocent until proven guilty is considered extremist.

    why not simply intern suspected wife abusers in the Owens Valley while we are at it, if we are to do away with innocent until proven guilty.

    mandating trigger locks and developing technology to keep anyone but the licensed owner from firing the gun

    You might as well mandate the existence of magic wands.

    Have you ever heard of a Sten gun?

    Michael Ejercito (7c44bf)

  79. Obama has given billions of tax dollars to private firms and rich jerks to save banks and insurance companies. He has guaranteed loans and provided cash to auto companies to save them.

    He is just spreading the wealth around, don’t you know?

    Michael Ejercito (7c44bf)

  80. Karl, it’s your world. All I quoted/paraphrased is what I read. I don’t do twitter. I try to stay away from anything simultaneously embraced by Dan Collins, Robert Stacy McCain, and Mark Halperin.

    PS I choose to ignore the inanity of Obama won the nomination because of the black folk. Amazing how many African-Americans live in Iowa. Oh, wait, no I didn’t

    [Could there be any better proof of your bad faith? I didn’t write that Obama won because of the black vote, and anyone reading this thread knows it. The point was that polls in 2007 showed Clinton crushing Obama, even among the black vote. It wasn’t going to happen. You know it too, but can’t bring yourself to concede a point, so you go with the race card. Jackass. –K]

    timb (8f04c0)

  81. The incumbent Senator Specter, according to the poll cited in #75, is polling at 42% and 38% against Toomey and Ridge, respectively. Only about 40 percent for a five-term Senator?

    Official Internet Data Office (966fd7)

  82. #28 Eric Blair:

    In fact, I don’t think that many politicians would do well on the “why does the toast pop up at the right time in your toaster” question, regardless of political party.

    Hmmph. I can turn a microwave oven into a serviceable radar set.

    But I don’t have any idea what makes the toast pop up at the right time.

    EW1(SG) (5766f7)

  83. Stay classy there, timb!
    It really helps people to take you seriously and listen to your arguments.
    It’s almost like your point posting here is to pick fights. And that can’t be right.
    Comment by Eric Blair — 5/4/2009 @ 4:20 pm

    Faux-Orwell (man, the irony of that name in direct opposition to everything the real Eric Blair believed continues to amaze me), any chance you chastised Dr. Mike for wishing I was unemployed in the middle of a recession. Was that classy?

    Any chance you want to direct your second comment to dj, who does nothing but try to pick fights? See, comments above, where he again insults me and oiram.

    Your silence speaks volumes about your attempt to grab the moral high ground here. Let’s just say that attempt was as successful as most of your attempts to be “reasonable.” Less than persuasive, less than honest, and less than successful. Really, you should check your anger.

    Dmac, is this a Karl post?

    daley, yeah, I went to law school looking for handouts, then I learned from the Bush administration and the Obama administration that it’s financial pros like you who get bailed out with tax money. Guess I should have gone to the Ayn Rand Small Government School of Finance to get to suckle the govt’s teat.

    Not that you got to see that money. Sorry, dude. Also, sorry that you don’t know the relationship between concentrated, oligarchical wealth and financial collapses. Not my purpose to educate you, but I will laugh at you as your ideology gets spanked again next year.

    timb (8f04c0)

  84. daley, yeah, I went to law school looking for handouts, then I learned from the Bush administration and the Obama administration that it’s financial pros like you who get bailed out with tax money. Guess I should have gone to the Ayn Rand Small Government School of Finance to get to suckle the govt’s teat.

    What did those bailouts have to do with Ayn Rand?

    The incumbent Senator Specter, according to the poll cited in #75, is polling at 42% and 38% against Toomey and Ridge, respectively. Only about 40 percent for a five-term Senator?

    Not surprising considering the bridges that Senator specter had burnt.

    Michael Ejercito (7c44bf)

  85. Anger, hatred, and jealousy as sooooooooo unappealing.

    JD (60310b)

  86. “then I learned from the Bush administration and the Obama administration that it’s financial pros like you who get bailed out with tax money.”

    DOOD! Where’s my bailout? Fucker hasn’t even paid my mortgage yet!

    You went to law school to get dummerer, right?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  87. Move to strike as non – responsive…again. One more time – why are you here? Is it to drop these pearls (road apples) of wisdom?

    fatuous moron

    profoundly stupid

    black hole of stupidity (nice originality there)

    nimrod Randians

    it’s asinine

    and your extreme purists will get their butts handed to them

    You are BAD for America

    when a halfwit like Allahpundit

    Please remind me again – who was your candidate, and who won the election? Is this you after winning? Ranting and raving and screaming at imaginary objects on your bathroom wall?

    You’re making Garafolo sound almost quaint by comparison.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  88. any chance you chastised Dr. Mike for wishing I was unemployed in the middle of a recession. Was that classy?

    Tim, I think your anger is getting the best of you. Unless you are a lawyer now, you have three years to look forward to before you are an unemployed lawyer creating wealth in the country.

    Your posts show you to be shallow and incapable of serious comment. Good day, sir.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  89. Timmah is chompin’ on some Chomsky. I want to hear about these imaginary oligarchies.

    timmah – Lay some oligarchical knowledge on us rubes – Herfindahl-Hirschman Index or Concentration Ratios or whatever else floats your boat.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  90. Some people are clearly quite comfortable hanging out in places where they are not liked, and not wanted. That must be such a pleasant existence. It certainly explains the anger and hatred.

    JD (26478a)

  91. I’m a registered Democrat in Cook County, numbnuts

    I thought you smelled kinda funny… 🙂

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  92. What do I hear? Oh wait! I hear the sound of my people’s voice; calling me to come and rescue them from the hands of evil, hateful trolls.
    Emperor: Do you want your Emperor back?
    People: Yes!
    Emperor: Really? Beg me….

    The Emperor7 (0c8c2c)

  93. _______________________________________

    They further need to hear that America literally cannot afford to wait for the Democrats to exhaust their political and ideological capital.

    But if most Americans are as idiotic as a good percentage of Californians are, then they deserve what’s coming to them—btw, several ballot propositions promoted by Schwarzenegger 3 years ago, which were of sensible conservative orientation, were soundly defeated by a majority of the Calif electorate. That, in effect, encouraged the state’s current governor to move to the left — to be a RINO of the first degree — and to snuggle up ideologically with his wife, Maria Shriver, and the large contingent of limousine liberals who naturally surround any Hollywood celebrity:

    George F Will, May 3, 2009:

    California’s increasingly severe and largely self-inflicted economic crisis will deepen on May 19 if, as is probable and desirable, voters reject most of the ballot measures that were drafted as part of a “solution” to the state’s budget deficit. They would make matters worse. National economic revival is being impeded because one-eighth of the nation’s population lives in a state that is driving itself into permanent stagnation. California’s perennial boast — that it is the incubator of America’s future — now has an increasingly dark urgency.

    Under Arnold Schwarzenegger, the best governor the states contiguous to California have ever had, people and businesses have been relocating in those states. For four consecutive years, more Americans have moved out of California than have moved in. California’s business costs are more than 20 percent higher than the average state’s. In the last decade, net out-migration of Americans has been 1.4 million. California is exporting talent while importing Mexico’s poverty. The latter is not California’s fault; the former is.

    If, since 1990, state spending increases had been held to the inflation rate plus population growth, the state would have a $15 billion surplus instead of a $42 billion budget deficit, which is larger than the budgets of all but 10 states. Since 1990, the number of state employees has increased by more than a third. In Schwarzenegger’s less than six years as governor, per capita government spending, adjusted for inflation, has increased nearly 20 percent.

    Liberal orthodoxy has made the state dependent on a volatile source of revenue — high income tax rates on the wealthy. In 2006, the top 1 percent of earners paid 48 percent of the income taxes. California’s income and sales taxes are among the nation’s highest, its business conditions among the worst. Unemployment, the nation’s fourth highest, is 11.2 percent.

    Mark (411533)

  94. #94- Someone should remind George Will Californians wear denim, too.

    Write about Texas, Georgie Girl. The governor wanted to leave the Union last month but asked for aid and Yankee dollars this month.

    Will’s credibility as a pundit shill for conservatism is waning fast. Last month, denim was his evil de jour even as images of his beloved Reagan in his blue jean Wranglers, riding horseback on his ranch, remain fixed in the minds of Americans.

    When Nancy Reagan leaves posh Bel Air and moves in with you in posh Georgetown, fleeing California, let us know.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  95. Jeez, I have no idea why timb is so darned angry recently. I don’t believe that I have unilaterally insulted him, and here he goes calling me dishonest.

    It really seems to bother the fellow that I use Orwell’s birth name as a ‘nym. It has nothing to do with him, or this blog. Above all things, EAB detested hypocrisy, and as an academic, I have to look at hypocrisy daily. Hence the name I chose. Yeah, I have read as much as I could about and by Orwell, but I have never claimed that he was conservative or liberal. Anyone who reads the man’s work knows that he jumped around a good deal, and people all over the map have claimed him.

    But EAB had the final word on that:

    “The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.”

    And that can be applied to all kinds of political beliefs.

    So I don’t know why the fellow is lashing out so. If he doesn’t like insults, he shouldn’t deal them. If he refuses to insult, the people insulting him will cease to do so.

    But I do suspect that the reason the fellow posts here so angrily has little to do with Democratic successes…

    I wish timb all good luck in law school or in the legal profession (I don’t recall if he is graduated yet). As for politics, we shall see, time will tell, and so forth.

    Eric Blair (33cc23)

  96. DCSCA said:

    #94- Someone should remind George Will Californians wear denim, too.

    Write about Texas, Georgie Girl. The governor wanted to leave the Union last month but asked for aid and Yankee dollars this month.

    Will’s credibility as a pundit shill for conservatism is waning fast. Last month, denim was his evil de jour even as images of his beloved Reagan in his blue jean Wranglers, riding horseback on his ranch, remain fixed in the minds of Americans.

    When Nancy Reagan leaves posh Bel Air and moves in with you in posh Georgetown, fleeing California, let us know.

    I think you meant “d’jour.” Also, I think you meant that George Will matters.

    Nonetheless, your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    Ag80 (b683da)

  97. #94 try refuting George Will instead of stupid snark. The facts are the facts as unpleasant as they may be. Give it a shot.

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  98. Eric Blair

    “Why I Write” (1946), “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it”

    According to biographer John Newsinger “the other crucial dimension to Orwell’s socialism was his recognition that the Soviet Union was not socialist. Unlike many on the left, instead of abandoning socialism once he discovered the full horror of Stalinist rule in the Soviet Union, Orwell abandoned the Soviet Union and instead remained a socialist–indeed he became more committed to the socialist cause than ever.”

    Orwell was anti-capitalist, anti-torture, anti-Zionist (although not anti-Semitic), anti-conservative, and anti-imperialist. To say you chose your name without knowing the full picture is to make an understatement. I should pick the nomme de plume Jesus Christ, since he and I both disdain hypocrisy and cruelty. Yet, I have the self-awareness and knowledge of my subject to know it would not be appropriate for an atheist to call himself Jesus, in much the same manner a right wing zealot should probably not be picking the name of one of the most famous Socialists in English history.

    I will note your failure to apply your approbation to either the whiny little punk or the good doctor shows again the disingenuous nature of your criticism. And, while I appreciate the irony of the accusations of anger emanating from followers of a political movement based solely on anger, I remain unconvinced that your movement has much success in the immediate future. For that, after all I’ve seen here today, I am grateful.

    Oh, and Dmac, did you break any of the walls in your glass house when you were throwing stones?

    Dr. Mike, yeah, you should be offended that I called you on the cruel thing you said. I’d huff off in a pout to rather than apologize. In the words of the academic formerly known as Eric Blair, Socialist: stay classy.

    timb (8f04c0)

  99. Remind me again, Tim – why are you here? What is your purpose of posting at this blog? You’ve claimed in the past that it was only to respond to Karl’s postings, which you found to be worthwhile to peruse. Now that you’ve crapped all over him numerous times, why on earth do you continue to come here and throw your feces around at will?

    Why, Tim? Just answer a simple question, if you please.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  100. Timb, you’re just too darn nice and sensitive to be on a blog with all those evil conservatives who say mean things. While you never say anything mean at all.

    Mike K. could diagnose your disorder as “dish-it-out-but-can’t-take-it-itis”.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  101. Jeez, what a whiny so-and-so. And for someone who seems to think it is bad to tell others what to do…wait for it…you sure do like to tell others what to do. There is a reason I call trolls like you Projectionists.

    Basically, I think you have been having a rough couple of weeks.

    Personally, I wish you and I were in real time to discuss good old George Orwell. Because you haven’t read very much other than the obvious essay assigned in freshman comp. Gosh, I wonder why the Leftist professors assign that one?

    I think the Orwell quote stung you, because it is accurate. And that is what EAB was all about.

    Tell you what: go do your thing. Be bitter and angry and cling to what you wish. But change the subject. You seem annoyed that people won’t defend you…when you should show the way, yourself.

    It’s better to have a pleasant day. But I don’t think you are about that right now. Maybe later.

    Eric Blair (33cc23)

  102. Just what the world needs: another angry, full-of-himself, lawyer!
    Dick the Butcher was right.

    AD - RtR/OS! (52bfb0)

  103. Timb,

    Dr. Mike has always behaved like a gentleman, here. Sticking to the topic and making thoughtful, informed and non-personal comments on-topic. You attacked him personally and I hope Patterico seriously considers putting you in moderation.

    nk (edb3d7)

  104. He’s way past moderation at this point – like Dggcrp, he adds nothing of substance to the conversation.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  105. I don’t know, Dmac. The one fellow is clearly trying to be a jackass and pick fights, and other one seems quite angry.

    I see your point, nk, but soon an angry screed will appear, detailing all the wrongdoing dealt him. Sigh.

    But it’s all electrons.

    Eric Blair (33cc23)

  106. Sore winners. They won’t be happy until all opposing points of view are not only defeated, but eliminated. Such is their renowned tolerance.

    The Bill of Rights-Respecting Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (659cfc)

  107. The amusing part, Bradley, is how the Left excoriates the conservative wing for it’s insistence on…ideological purity.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  108. Eric,
    For a “right wing zealot”, you’re not a bad chap.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (659cfc)

  109. Timb,

    Dr. Mike has always behaved like a gentleman, here. Sticking to the topic and making thoughtful, informed and non-personal comments on-topic. You attacked him personally and I hope Patterico seriously considers putting you in moderation.

    Comment by nk

    versus

    Tim, you are a perfect example. I hope you get to be one more unemployed lawyer so you can see what happens when the productive segment of society is convinced it’s time to take a vacation. A long vacation.

    Comment by Mike K — 5/4/2009 @ 8:56 am

    Yep, that was thoughtful and non-personal. He didn’t attack me personally at all when he wished I were unemployed.

    At some point do you guys contact a mother ship? Dude personally wishes me ill and I get lectured by the scolds here for being offended. The same scolds who two entries up are complaining releasing consensual pictures is a “campaign of hate.” It’s weird to try to talk at people who aren’t stupid, but can’t seem to read.

    timb (8f04c0)

  110. One last thing

    Dmac, to give you something to do. Why do you post here?

    I have yet to get an opinion from you of whether the Republican Party should reject Jeb Bush and friends like Karl suggests or become even more pure. It seems you have opinions about me, but none on politics. Good on you.

    timb (8f04c0)

  111. At some point do you guys contact a mother ship?

    We use the neural chip, paid for by Richard Mellon Scaife and implanted by Mike K.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (659cfc)

  112. I began posting here after lurking for awhile after a recommendation from Cathy Seipp, who used to run her own blog before her passing. The commenters (both right and left) were mostly civil, and actually put some thought into what their posts entailed. You, on the other hand, have come over from PW, where you got yourself banned a number of times.

    So please tell us why you post here, Tim? Please stop running away from the question, it bespeaks poorly of you. I’ll remind you again of your prior statement that the only reason you posted here was because you respected Karl’s posts – but now you’ve dumped on him repeatedly, so why continue to post here?

    It seems you have opinions about me, but none on politics.

    If you’d bother reading the other posts just in the last two days, you’d realize how ignorant that comment was – but you’re not big on introspection, obviously. I don’t particularly care for the Bush family at large, and feel that the dynasty – like paterfamilias – style machinations from the Clinton and Bushes need to go away in order for the electorate to get a fresh slate of new candidates and ideas.

    It’s weird to try to talk at people who aren’t stupid, but can’t seem to read.

    That’s quite a telling usage of grammar – instead of talk to, you say talk at, which denotes the lack of any meaningful attempt at reasonable dialogue from you. You gave the game completely away with that Freudian slip – hook, line and sinker. Here’s a useful suggestion for you – if it’s so frustrating for you to talk AT the commenters here, go away and throw your feces at a place where it’s more acceptable.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  113. “He didn’t attack me personally at all when he wished I were unemployed.”

    timb – Was that after you said you wanted to be a med mal lawyer so you could sue his butt for malpractice? Just curious.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  114. It just seems like an awful lot of energy spent on anger toward people the fellow has never even met.

    Seriously, this must be all about anger. I find that the crew here tends to reflect back the style in which comments are made: people who insult are insulted back. Polite people might still be insulted at first, but the insults taper off and conversation begins.

    Unless the goal is to fight. If so, there are many posters here who don’t mind a virtual slapfest. Personally, I don’t think anyone has that much free time.

    Eric Blair (33cc23)

  115. I am looking for my goat. Has anyone seen her? I am her molester and she hasn’t been molested for a day now. You see, my goat, she likes to be molested. Has anyone seen the poor thing?

    The Emperor7 (0c8c2c)

  116. Give it up, dogshit. Everybody’s got your number, here. See if you can find a single commenter, troll or otherwise, to support you.

    nk (edb3d7)

  117. #118
    Gee, my goat. I found you. Now come here you naughty little goatie. I will molest you so hard today, we are gonna have a ball! Now come to papa. Yes I am your dogshit, crazy goat molester. And you are my goat.
    Now tell me, whose it? Come on, say it. Whose is it?!……

    The Emperor7 (1b037c)

  118. Now Boss Limbaugh insists it’s a ‘teaching tour,’ not a ‘listening tour’ conservatives must make as they regroup to re-educate the people. Planning to goose step across America, telling the cows how to eat the cabbage, eh Boss? What is it about public service you don’t understand, Boss. Dust off the jack boots and get those brown shirts pressed, ’cause Boss Limbaugh want you on the march!

    What a gift.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  119. This post is not about radio shows.

    “Apple + F” yields 3 results for “Limbaugh.” 1 in timb’s post, and 2 in DCSCA’s last Godwin-oriented missive. The only thing one can say about these internet spam commenters is that they do take their job seriously. DNC / MSNBC says “jump” and they ask “how high?”

    carlitos (5ab40a)

  120. Comment by DCSCA — 5/5/2009 @ 8:41 pm

    That’s right, little one… Keep thinking we all get our marching orders from Rush.

    You get sillier ever time you type.

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  121. Limbaugh is way over that clown’s level of comprehension.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  122. DCSCA:

    I know this will be lost on you, but I will still make a point.

    You do know that the “Boss Limbaugh” bit was cooked up by Carville, Begala, Stephanopoulos, Rahm clique that has daily phone calls to set the daily agenda, right?

    And, although, I know the left gets its marching orders straight from the top, what’s wrong with independent thinking?

    Limbaugh doesn’t speak for me. Nor do Hannity, Ingram or Beck, et al.

    And I would be circumspect about calling people “brown shirts.” That term really does mean something. And you minimize the tragedy of millions when you toss it around so lightly.

    But, maybe, in that small, little coal-like thing you call a heart, you could summon a bit of decency.

    But, you won’t. Your only purpose here is to see how you can inflame the yokels who don’t agree with whatever values, however lame, that you hold.

    Back during the Bush reign of terror, everyone on the left tossed around loaded terms in glee without circumspection. And, so it goes.

    What a gift.

    Ag80 (b683da)

  123. daley, learn to scroll up. Comments are numbered AND have time stamps.

    timb (8f04c0)

  124. Was that your answer timb?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  125. Limbaugh is just one man, and has no power to impose his views on anyone. I don’t agree with his views on abortion or religion. But unlike the leftist trolls, I don’t look for lockstep ideological conformity.

    And on his worst day, Limbaugh is far more informative and entertaining than any of the dreary leftists DSCSA wets itself over.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  126. Tim runs away from a direct question – again. Please tell us why you post here, Tim? No deflecting by answering a question with another question – those were already answered in kind. So let’s hear it, all of it.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  127. Was that your answer timb?

    Daley, I mean this tongue in cheek, but do you have a lot of people who work for you or hired help or a permanent concierge or something?

    Because you are always ordering me to do things for you. Look up this, point to where in a conversation this happened, answer philosophical questions in ten words or less, etc. Frankly, it’s a little annoying. Nonetheless, yes, my answer is that you can scroll up the comments and see where Dr. K made his comment first.

    You must quite the petit dictator around the old house!

    timb (a83d56)

  128. dmac, asked and answered above

    timb (a83d56)

  129. You mean like this answer, Tim?

    Dmac, to give you something to do. Why do you post here?

    You’re trying to become a lawyer, and yet you consider this to be an answer to a direct question? What law school are you attending?

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  130. It’s why I post, Dmac.

    You’re the wind beneath my wings. It’s why I’m still here talking to you, because without my input, I’m afraid you’ll have nothing. People like me are the sole reason dj gets out of bed in the morning. People like me help the good professor (who thinks Eric Blair wasn’t a socialist) imagine himself superior and above it all. People like me allow daley to give out orders. And, people like me drive traffic to a site, so conservatives can attempt to shout down opposition.

    I do it for you and all of them, dmac. I do it for all the little wingnuts.

    After all, in this time of Dem presidents and majorities in both House’s of Congress, where can you feel like you’ve won, except here? Where else can you ask the same retarded, disingenuous question over and over and expect to get an answer you can yell about?

    Now, don’t you feel all validated. Feel free to mosey on now.

    timb (a83d56)

  131. Whatever law school it is, it must suck, eh Dmac? A good law school wouldn’t even let someone who disagrees with us in their restrooms let alone their classrooms. My guess is that it is one of those law schools that wants to destroy America with terrorism. Laura Ingraham said so this morning. The Libs want the terrorists to win. Of course they do, they have everything to gain. They don’t have jobs in the current system so they might as well advocate for a change.

    Jeffrey Diamond (537b0f)

  132. Shhhh, Jeff, that’s the secret of “Change you can believe in.”

    My first class, lo those many moons ago, was in terrorism. They scrappped Con law. Seriously, I bought this $180 Con law book and sat down in class and Ward Churchill introduced Bernadine Dorn, who then introduced Osama bin Laden. He taught us terrorism for the next few months.

    So strange, I had forgotten it because they program you to only tell after the 182nd water boarding session.

    timb (a83d56)

  133. More like Lame!, in the mathematical sense, SPQR

    Steverino (69d941)

  134. OK, Steverino, I’ll give you lame factorial.

    SPQR (72771e)

  135. Hi, my name is “Jeffwey,” and although I pose as an adult, I’m actually in the 3rd gwade, and having trouble with my grammeticul skiilz and my edumacation. But one day I hope to talk like mymommyanddaday adn then I’ll be a gwon – up Big Girl!

    So who’s a Big Girl now, Jeffwey? Why, it’s you!

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  136. I had forgotten it because they program you to only tell after the 182nd water boarding session.

    Was that before or after they made you don the strap – on, Timmy?

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  137. Wow….dmac goes from sober interrogator and serious questioner to….something very different, who apparently was spanked very hard by J. Diamond somewhere else. I feel for you, dmac, here you did your best to comport yourself like an adult, and then, in the end, you just failed. That must hurt.

    By the way, steverino (hilarious by the way) and debunker man, it is not exactly the height of funny to use math jokes. I know cons don’t know funny (the funniest con is Dennis Miller and he hasn’t said anything funny since ’93), but “factorial” as a come back may have killed in Calculus club, but not so much out here.

    Nice try, gents

    timb (8f04c0)

  138. You amply proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you’re only here to Troll, Timmah. Good luck with that mail order law degree – I hear the asbestos torts are still quite lucrative these days.

    spanked by J. Diamond somewhere else

    Projection does not become you, Timmah! But in
    fact, Jeffy ran away as fast as his little Trolly legs could take him after being challenged, since he really couldn’t respond after being pantsed again.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  139. timb, you don’t like math jokes? Tell DCSCA. And Jeffrey’s lame act could “spank” no one but himself. You need to work harder on finding people to admire, timb, you are not showing much judgment.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  140. “People like me help the good professor (who thinks Eric Blair wasn’t a socialist) imagine himself superior and above it all. “

    Sigh. First, when did I sneer at you so intensely, timb? And you certainly have been trying to be unpleasant toward me for no good reason.

    Secondly, would you please show me the post where I stated that EAB did not consider himself a socialist and was somehow a conservative?

    On the other hand, I suspect that your interpretation of socialism would not agree with EAB’s, based on my reading of his work and the critical work of others over the past thirty years. You imply you are familiar with his work; if you are, none of this is news to you.

    We could always cue Inigo Montoya’s maxim on interpretation from “The Princess Bride.”

    Though EAB did consider himself to be socialist, he had no illusions about people drawn to that philosophy. This is one of my favorites:

    The average intellectual of the Left…could believe these things because his hatred for the British ruling class forbade him to admit that British plans could succeed. There is no limit to the follies that can be swallowed if one is under the influence of feelings of this kind. I have heard it confidently stated, for instance, that the American troops had been brought to Europe not to fight the Germans but to crush an English revolution. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.

    Sounds kind of familiar to me.

    And, of course, this nice one:

    “One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.”

    I suspect the latter quote is the genesis of some conservatives thinking that Orwell was “one of them.” I think that some of that language was based on his own self-loathing. He hated hypocrisy, and being human, had his own with which to deal.

    Anyway, I liked EAB’s clear-headedness about the folly of pacifism in the face of evil foes, like Nazis or Islamofascists (and more relevantly, his anger toward intellectuals who defended Stalinism in the face of its heinous acts). But I personally never thought EAB was a conservative. In fact, my major reason for admiring him and choosing this ‘nym was due to my experiences in academia, as I wrote previously, not politics. But you know that, because you aren’t just reacting to things and are being thoughtful, right?

    Again, as anyone who has read EAB and EAB criticism knows very well, the man was all over the map throughout his life. It’s fascinating to watch different political agendas try to claim him. And as I wrote before, he seemed most concerned with hypocrisy. I hope that we can agree that hypocrisy is a pernicious influence in politics.

    I certainly don’t think I am “superior” and “above it all,” incidentally. You are very sure of yourself; why cannot others have the same affect?

    But I do try not to make assumptions about others based on my own prejudices. Perhaps you should do the same; lawyers are often urged to stick with evidence. I don’t intend insult…I am noting that you seemed very anxious to make judgements about myself based on no real evidence.

    I’m not trying to fight with you; you seem absolutely set on picking fights with others. Which is why I believe you are working out issues exterior to this topic and blog. I have wished you well before, and I do so now again.

    Why not do some other things that are more positive than this silly mud slinging you seem intent to continue?

    Eric Blair (33cc23)

  141. #127- Gee, let’s ask the Galloping Kantor about that.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  142. EB,
    I think you’re right about timb; he seems awfully unhappy, probably about failing math. After all, that requires precision and logical thought.

    And the other little troll is slipping; its brilliant ripostes used to be posted promptly. Guess its handler has been busy with more important matters.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  143. Heh, I miss RJ08 already. He was so fun.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  144. DCSCA is totally lost in his own world now and not worth responding too unless out of boredom. It hasn’t had a new meme in a month except what it’s read off Media Matters. It seems perfectly content to talk to itself.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  145. #133 Laura Ingraham said so this morning. Cleared, first, by Boss Limbaugh, of course.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  146. he seems awfully unhappy, probably about failing math

    He’s awfully unhappy about failing life at this point.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  147. At least the little troll has a rich, fulfilling, fantasy life.
    It met Von Braun!
    It smelled Limbaugh’s armpits!
    It corrected a crucial equation of Feynman’s!
    We are so blessed to have the little troll on this humble blog.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  148. Ta-pocka, ta-pocka, ta-pocka….

    Eric Blair (33cc23)

  149. Tim seems angrier the past couple of weeks. I wonder if that has anything to do with finals or law school acceptance letters. As far as my comment about him being another unemployed lawyer, that was referring to the future as I understood him to be an applicant or potential applicant, not a law student, and certainly not a lawyer. I don’t know if he is currently employed and could not be less interested in his personal little story. I avoided personal comments about him until he seemed to strike out at me or the medical profession in general.

    Differences of opinion are good sources of intellectual stimulation. Bradley and I, for example, disagree on a number of subjects. I am in favor of a national health plan, albeit one based on choice and funding by the participants, not government. Government will have to fund part of it but single payer of the type Obama seems to have in mind will be a disaster. I am also pro-choice.

    What strikes me about the political left is the inability, especially the past six years or so, to have a civil discussion or debate. I used to post regularly on Kevin Drum’s blog and even contributed to it. I read Andrew Sullivan and contributed to it. Kevin has moved further left and his blog now routinely deletes comments I post without even acknowledging it. His former blog, Washington Monthly, now is totally hard left and will not tolerate any comment that does not toe the party line. Yesterday, one of the contributers was referring to pro-life people as “birthers.” What an odd term ! It reminds me of the radical gay people who refer to straights as “breeders.” Both of those weird worlds would be in trouble without us, I would suggest.

    Anyway, the trolls here do not contribute to the debate and mostly demonstrate their own psychological pathology. Trolls have ruined sites I liked and I am less tolerant of them than our sponsor, Patrick. The Commentary blog has now announced a policy of banning certain trolls unless they moderate their behavior. What I wonder about is why they are infesting conservative sites. They could be gamboling in ecstasy in left wing sites but seem to prefer to come here and pester us. They won the election ! Why not enjoy it ?

    I think a psychiatrist could write a book on trolls. It might even be interesting.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  150. Re: Dr. Capt. Mike K’s cogent observations:

    One of the things I learned from Cathy Seipp was how to agree to disagree, without taking it personally. When people discuss their disagreements, it helps to stick to issues and not be personally offensive. It’s one thing to oppose the war in Iraq, for example, another thing entirely to accuse supporters of being fascists.

    Trolls, of course, live for being disagreeable and are not particularly concerned about facts.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (0d19ee)

  151. I have often mentioned to Eric Bair that, like Mike K notes above, trolls like the ones here (alphie’s balloon-fence) would make a fascinating psychiatric study.

    JD (c8f5e6)

  152. Geesh, you guys and the psycho-analyzing…

    Let’s go ahead dial stuff back a bit (except toward dmac, who is just a silly person).

    In reverse order, Mike, I have a gig, so in the words of another doctor, Dr. Pangloss, “all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds”. I accept your contention about what you wrote and, though, I wouldn’t call it an apology (because it wasn’t and one wasn’t really wasn’t necessary), I will stop highlighting it as some grievous sin.

    I will take issue with this:

    Government will have to fund part of it but single payer of the type Obama seems to have in mind will be a disaster

    In the sense that Obama, damn him for not doing it, has never proposed a single payer plan and, in fact, Congress is not even considering such a plan. Congress has gone so far to exclude single payer that single payer activists broke into Congressional hearings and were arrested for protesting their exclusion.

    Obama’s plan during the campaign was an even scaled back version of Hillary’s health insurance mandate plan. Hoepfully, more what Hillary suggested will get through Congress, and the govt will pay for poor people to have basic insurance coverage.

    Eric, I appreciate both time and energy it takes to write such a post. We will agree to disagree on the propriety of you using the name and I, since I am not a Socialist, will stop harping on it. We can also completely and utterly agree that hypocrisy in politics is common, permanent and terrible, and needs to be highlighted by any fair-minded person.

    I certainly don’t think I am “superior” and “above it all,” incidentally. You are very sure of yourself; why cannot others have the same affect?

    Actually, that is a fascinating observation in that I think we both come off that way (me because I am right and you because you use the disinterested tone of the academic).*

    In the end, you are no dj or dmac or that separatist Surls, so, I apologize if my ample supply of sarcasm and clumsy attempts at wit offended you. I doubt they offended, as much as gave you the wrong impression.

    I’m not trying to fight with you; you seem absolutely set on picking fights with others.

    Some of the others you refer to, EB, are fights picked with me long ago at a different site, where bludgeons and profanity were used rather than greetings. The people so engaged, except for Daley**, are incapable of pleasant conversation (with me) and I dropped any pretense of enjoying their company or opinions. So, be forewarned, if I seem angry, it’s because I am trying to make a point and they are unwilling to either be silent or be interesting.

    Thanks to the two of you for re-establishing my initial faith that your points, although completely wrong [wink], are at least presented honestly by people interested in discussion and debate.

    *part of that was me making a joke, see if you can guess which part.

    **Daley gets an exception because, although he is bossy and somewhat annoying, he is willing to read and faithfully argue his points. For a crazy wingnut, he’s not half-bad.

    timb (a83d56)

  153. Let’s go ahead dial stuff back a bit

    By all means – and you can set an example by staying off the site.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  154. Obama is not talking about single payer just as he didn’t talk about trillion dollar deficits during the campaign. What he proposes is a government sponsored plan that will compete with tax dollars against private plans which will be saddled with fees. After a rapid transition, private care will go away. Medicare is headed for severe rationing. I was at the Geriatrics society meeting in Chicago last week. They are preparing for the changes.

    One of my complaints about Obama is that he does not tell the truth and is evasive about what he is doing. One example is his nonsense about “cutting the deficit in half” by assuming the surge defense spending is a permanent item that he will “cut.” He will also cut defense heavily while looking weak to enemies.

    You are correct to note that Hillary had a more realistic health proposal in the campaign. His proposal ignored the free rider problem. Here is one analysis.

    Obama is unique in calling for catastrophic reinsurance coverage in order to reduce the cost of family health insurance. Really, this is not a cost reduction but a cost shift. This idea, first proposed by Senator Kerry in his failed bid for the presidency, would have the federal government absorb a large portion of the highest cost claims thereby taking these costs out of the price of health insurance. That would reduce the price of family health insurance but would also increase federal spending by the same amount. It would also water down the incentive for insurers and employers to manage these claims since most of these costs would be transferred to the government

    Obama’s assertion that covering more people would reduce the overall cost of insurance is likely correct because it would mean less uncompensated care that would have to be shifted onto the rest of the system. Hillary Clinton would cover at least as many people as he would so there is no advantage for Obama here. Since the McCain health plan emphasizes making the insurance system affordable before ensuring widespread coverage as the first priority, one could argue that both Obama and Clinton would make gains toward near universal care well before McCain.

    In the end, Obama’s claim that he would save families $2,500 every year are based upon a number of initiatives that the other candidates also argue that they will undertake. More, these ideas, such as health IT and prevention, are under way in the market anyway.

    The only real difference between Obama and Mrs. Clinton over cost containment is his catastrophic reinsurance idea that isn’t so much a cost saver as a cost shifter.

    Obama’s claim that he would save $2,500 per family beyond a simple cost shift to the federal government of large claims is unsubstantiated.

    When compared to Hillary Clinton, the biggest difference is that Obama does not mandate that all adults have health insurance and Clinton does. In my mind, there is actually little or no difference between the two candidates on this point because the real issue in getting everyone covered is to make health insurance affordable—not whether it is required or not. I did a full post on this topic that you can access here.

    Let’s take a look at the three main parts of the Obama health plan:

    1. “Quality, Affordable & Portable Health Coverage For All”

    Obama follows the Democratic health care template by building on existing private and public programs such as employer health insurance, private individual health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. This is unlike the Republican approach that would refashion the private market by providing incentives to encourage a reinvigorated individual health insurance platform focused on personal choice and responsibility (see McCain post).

    Obama’s key components here include:

    * Establishing a new public program that would look a lot like Medicare for those under age-65 that would be available to those who do not have access to an employer plan or qualify for existing government programs like Medicaid or SCHIP. This would also be open to small employers who do not offer a private plan.

    This would kill off the employer plans as the federal plan is tax supported.

    * Creating a “National Health Insurance Exchange.” This would be a government-run marketing organization that would sell insurance plans directly to those who did not have an employer plan or public coverage.

    Employers would quickly figure out it is cheaper to sign up and let the tax payers do it.

    * An employer “pay or play” provision that would require an employer to either provide health insurance or contribute toward the cost of a public plan.

    THis would be cheaper to do and would shift everyone into the federal plan. Then the rationing starts once the private alternative is gone.

    * Mandating that families cover all children through either a private or public health insurance plan.
    * Expanding eligibility for government programs, like Medicaid and SCHIP.

    No surprise there.

    * Allow flexibility in embracing state health reform initiatives.

    One of the most pernicious factors would be allowing all the state mandates to continue. They are about politics, not medicine.

    Obama would also mandate guaranteed insurability, a generous minimum comprehensive benefits package such as that required for federal workers, the ability to take their policy from one job to another (portability) when it is purchased through the new Medicare-like public plan or the “National Health Insurance Exchange,” and he would require providers to participate in a new plan to collect and report data about standards of care, the use of health information technology, and administration.

    Most physicians are actually positive about a reasonable single payer plan. They just don’t trust the government, especially this one.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  155. We can also completely and utterly agree that hypocrisy in politics is common, permanent and terrible, and needs to be highlighted by any fair-minded person.

    Okay, timmy, here ya go.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  156. Hey, I’M SPECIAL!!!!!!1!1!1!1!!!

    WOOT!!!!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  157. Was there ever any doubt about that, daley? Short-bus special, to be sure ….

    JD (c8f5e6)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1307 secs.