2010: More bad numbers for Dems
[Posted by Karl]
Allahpundit neatly wrapped the latest 2010-centric polling from Gallup and Pew yesterday, but it’s worth adding a few notes.
Gallup has the GOP with a four-point lead among Registered Voters on the generic congressional ballot for the 2010 House elections — 48% to 44% — after trailing by six points in July and two points last month. The lead among Independents has gone from a virtual tie to a 52% to 30% GOP advantage over the period. Last week, Gallup noted:
Given the usual Democratic advantages in party identification among the general public, it is rare for Republicans to lead on the generic ballot among registered voters. This was the case even when Republicans were the majority congressional party from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s.
Gallup has developed a statistical model to attempt to estimate the House seat distribution based on the national vote, and a 44% share of the two-party vote would spell disaster for the Dems in 2010, likely leaving them with fewer than 186 seats.
Gallup includes the caveat that turnout is “crucial” in the outcome of midterm elections, though the data from 2009 suggests disenchantment with the Democrats was a bigger factor recently.
Nevertheless, specific polling on whether people will vote to re-elect their Representative is generally more predictive than the generic congressional ballot. Yesterday’s Pew poll was loaded with bad news for Dems on that front also, including this:
About half (52%) of registered voters would like to see their own representative re-elected next year, while 34% say that most members of Congress should be re-elected. Both measures are among the most negative in two decades of Pew Research surveys. Other low points were during the 1994 and 2006 election cycles, when the party in power suffered large losses in midterm elections.
Support for congressional incumbents is particularly low among political independents. Only 42% of independent voters want to see their own representative re-elected and just 25% would like to see most members of Congress re-elected. Both measures are near all-time lows in Pew Research surveys.
***
[V]oters who plan to support Republicans next year are more enthusiastic than those who plan to vote for a Democrat. Fully 58% of those who plan to vote for a Republican next year say they are very enthusiastic about voting, compared with 42% of those who plan to vote for a Democrat. More than half (56%) of independent voters who support a Republican in their district are very enthusiastic about voting; by contrast, just 32% of independents who plan to vote for a Democrat express high levels of enthusiasm.
Allahpundit noted that Greg Sargent (among other lefties) thinks that enthusiasm gap could be closed by passing ObamaCare. Sean Trende’s regression analysis of the 1994 midterm election suggests the opposite is true. There are those hoping that these bad numbers are all about the economy, and that unemployment will turn around in time to save the Dems in time for the 2010 election. However, Gluskin Sheff economist David Rosenberg, formerly of Merrill Lynch, now thinks the unemployment rate is going to at least 12%, maybe even 13%. Even if the recession has ended, unemployment may not peak until a year from now, as happened in the 1991 and 2001 recessions. If that scenario plays out, David Axelrod’s suggestion that next year’s congressional elections will be “nationalized” sounds like a recipe for disaster.
–Karl
First?
Anyway, I wonder how many democrats actually buy into this new spin that 1994 happened because the dems DIDN’T pass health care. there is a real danger they might go even more nuts as they become less popular.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/12/2009 @ 10:25 amIf you think those numbers are bad, what if Owens actually lost the election and was the vote that put the health care bill over? They swore him in the next day but the election is still being counted. There are a couple of precincts where Hoffman got zero votes. That election may not be over.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/12/2009 @ 10:39 amMike
Sheesh, you got to be kidding me. Zero votes. i mean out of how many people? like if it was 30 people, okay, but more than 100 and i have to wonder. i mean shit, you expect 1 out of 100 person to vote for hoffman by accident.
Why do i get the feeling that when they decided to call it the “democratic party” they meant it in an ironic way?
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/12/2009 @ 10:42 amIt’s normal. The party in power usually get the blame for the bad situation of things. The economy is still not out of the woods. Healthcare is still a very polarizing subject and it’s difficult to know who’s right or wrong. People are generally not happy and the people in power are usually blamed for it. Whether it is fair or not is another matter.
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/12/2009 @ 10:46 amI think it has to do with the many golden promises made during the elections. Promises that are now taking time to keep.
You must understand that people like Axelrod and Obama have no experience of talking to anyone other than hardcore Dems. They’ve made their entire careers based on worrying about their other Dem primary opponents, and not having to deal with genuine dissent and dissatisfaction among those who don’t necessarily agree with them on everything in a lockstep manner. And even on that score, Obama and Axelrod have succeeded in using a prostrate and adoring local press along with scumbag tactics in order to eliminate potential Dem and GOP rivals.
This is all they know, which is why they possess tin ears akin to Dumbo’s on so many issues of concern to most Americans today.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/12/2009 @ 10:58 amA.W. – You are correct. The new spin is that the electorate in 1994 was so enraged by health care reform NOT passing that they carried the party that OPPOSED health care reform to a landslide realignment in the House of Reps.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 11/12/2009 @ 10:58 amMike, that’s disturbing.
Hoffman was tallied as getting zero votes in several districts? How does that happen? Why does that kind of thing never happen to a democrat?
What gets me is that a lot of people are talkign about how this election proved all kinds of things about the weakness of Hoffman’s position and supporters, and yet it was this close that it’s not even decided yet. If Hoffman wins, of course, that will mean nothing to the media.
The labor unions were out in force in this race, and I sure hope people are being very careful about these ballots. I don’t think I’ve evern seen a race with so much union involvement. They even snuck a fake republican spoiler in.
If Hoffman’s polls showed that he won with Scozzafava in, and Owens won if she bailed, then that explains why Scozza, no doubt having similar intel, bailed and endorsed Owens. It was the only way she could come out of this with any face saved.
I’m not holding my breath for a turnaround… the democrats would fight it quite hard.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/12/2009 @ 11:09 amWhat if the absentee ballots gives Hoffman the higher total? Doesn’t Owens get dumped and replaced with Hoffman?
PCD (1d8b6d) — 11/12/2009 @ 11:18 amDoesn’t anyone remember the House Bank Scandal???
PCD (1d8b6d) — 11/12/2009 @ 11:18 amI wonder how many democrats actually buy into this new spin that 1994 happened because the dems DIDN’T pass health care.
All of them, and it’s not spin.
They sent Bill Clinton to the Hill this week to remind anyone who might be doubtful. You’ve no doubt heard snippets of his message: “Pass something.”
Few people on the blue side are seriously being fooled: To fail in health care would start the same intraparty wars that are currently rocking the Republicans. In fact, we’re already seeing some of that with attacks being leveled against Democratic house members who wandered off the reservation. Also bear in mind that the Dems have staked their domestic agenda on health care. It’s come to far at his point.
On the subject of Owens/Hoffman: I think it’s obvious from my posts which party I align with.
But Hoffman and the GOP got hosed. Even if the results hold and Owens still wins, the fact that Hoffman thought he was behind by 5,000+ voted prompted him to concede. My understand is that his concession is what allowed Owens to be seated — and cast a big vote on health care.
Dirty, dirty, dirty, if that’s the way it went down. Those aren’t my Democrats, who are as pure as the driven snow.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 11:20 amWhat if the absentee ballots gives Hoffman the higher total? Doesn’t Owens get dumped and replaced with Hoffman?
Yes.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 11:23 amThese numbers, and the history of 1994 and 2006, show what happens when a Congressional majority forgets what they promised the voters they would do when entrusted with power; and with that power, just goes off on a hubris-laced tangent.
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 11:28 amPlus, with severe challenges on the foreign-policy/national security front, the American People could decide (again) that the Dems are not to be trusted with the security of the United States.
AD: Democrats promised health care reform. President Obama mentioned it in literally every speech, bar none. So they are attempting to do “what they promised voters they would do.”
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 11:35 amSo is there some controversy brewing in NY 23 that I am unaware of???
HeavenSent (01a566) — 11/12/2009 @ 11:41 am34% say that most members of Congress should be re-elected
that’s terrifying. Who are these people? Dumb bunnies would be my guess I think. Probably not very votey.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 11/12/2009 @ 11:42 amMyron, the only way your scenario plays out is if they gut the monstrosities they are debating and write a new bill that does essentially nothing and call it reform. That would actually be smart politics but these people have been getting elected by gerrymandering, where they choose the voters instead of the other way around, that they have forgotten what it is like to really run for office. The Senators, on the other hand, have to run state-wide and have some smattering of political skills left, unless they are Obama who managed to get the Tribune to eliminate his opponent.
When Chris Dodd is in trouble you know they are paying attention. The Obama and Pelosi people are not smart enough to do what I suggested.
MIke K (2cf494) — 11/12/2009 @ 11:42 amMyron
> All of them, and it’s not spin
Give me a break. In 1994 the electorate was shocked at how far Clinton had governed from the right. Then when the republicans came into power, Clinton decided to survive was the important thing and governed from the center left. And was reelected as a result and had a pretty good run there.
> To fail in health care would start the same intraparty wars
As opposed the peaceful serenity dems are having over abortion and the public option.
> that are currently rocking the Republicans.
Or so Keith Olberman has told you.
> President Obama mentioned it in literally every speech, bar none. So they are attempting to do “what they promised voters they would do.”
People voted for Obama despite those promises, not because of them. Obama won because the economy went down the toilet and mccain came off as an idiot on the subject, while obama carefully hid his economic idiocy. That and the frission electing our first black president.
By the way, if we are going to talk about promises, well, let’s see here. Obama promised to win in Afghanistan. He promised not to raise taxes for anyone below $250,000 in income. He promised not to take away anyone’s coverage…
Are you going to hold him to those promises, too?
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/12/2009 @ 11:47 amMeghan’s daddy really did come off as an idiot. I think it’s partly cause he’s not a very clever person. You can tell he tends to just believe what he reads in the papers. I see this a lot in ESL people, but wikipedia says Meghan’s daddy spoke english his whole life.
Confuzzling.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 11/12/2009 @ 11:54 amMike K: I don’t know what scenario will play out, in terms of the specifics of the bill.
But if they have to gut it, they will gut it, with the intention of shaping it into how they want it later. That was the not-so-secret code of Bill Clinton’s words the other day. Ted Kennedy, the symbolic father of this effort, was a big believer in incrementalism. (So am I, incidentally.) Don’t think that Ted’s name has not be used a million times over the last few weeks in D.C.
I guess what I’m saying is, if the hope here is that a mass group of Dems will suddenly see the wisdom of killing a bill they have a real shot at for the first time in 70 years — I don’t think such a hope is very well grounded on what we know about the Democratic Party.
They’ve gambled the house (literally) on this bill, and they’re going to get something through.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 11:56 amMyron
there is nothing incremental in any bill’s approach. throwing a person in jail if they don’t buy $15,000 of health insurance is radical not incremental.
and, btw, as a constitutional matter, it is DOA. forget the conservative argument that the government is not affirmatively empowered to do so. i am not saying that is not a good argument, but we are ignoring the better one: if Roe v. Wade stands for anything, it is the right to control our health, to the point of being allowed to kill a fetus. I don’t see how you square that with anything the house or senate want to pass. Seriously, how many liberals can now say with a straight face “keep your laws of of my body”?
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:01 pmA.W.: I wouldn’t get too excited about the abortion thing. That’s the media passing time. The pro-choicers will fall in line rather than kill the bill. Meanwhile, there are any number of things that might happen with the Stupak Amendment along the way. Maybe it’ll die in conference. Maybe it’ll be walking along the street and fall into an open man hole.
I believe even Stupak himself said before the vote that he only wanted a vote, and the vote alone would have brought 20 blue dogs to the table. I think the overwhelming passage surprised a few folks.
(Which illustrates that strategically, the Republicans were right to vote for it, even though some on the red side have been beating up on the pro-lifers.)
I see only one real existential threat to the overall bill: The public option.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:02 pmhappy
well, clearly mccain would have been better for the economy, not because i have alot of faith in mccain, but because it would be hard to imagine how he could be worse.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:02 pmMeghan’s daddy is a cap n trade goofball. He’s not good for America.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:07 pmPeople voted for Obama despite those promises, not because of them.
Pure spin.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:07 pmthrowing a person in jail …
I’ll bet you $100 right now that no one will ever go to jail if they don’t have health insurance. This sounds like “death panel” talk to me.
Let’s give it five years from 2013. If by 2018, no one has gone to jail b/c they don’t have insurance, you pay me. If anyone goes to jail in that time, I pay you. Deal?
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:11 pmYes, Myron, your comments are indeed pure spin.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:13 pmThen why put it in there, if there is no intention of enforcing it, Myron?
JD (0d603d) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:14 pmmyron
give me a break. have you ever voted for a politician who agreed with you 100% on everything?
No, every person says, “well i agree with him this, that and the other thing but not on this one issue, so on balance i like him better, so i will vote for him.”
The big mistake the left is making is thinking that america is sudddenly on the left. well, sorry but those elections showed otherwise. in 2005 McDonnel and Deeds squared off for VA AG. McDonnell barely squeeked it out. this time it was a landslide. as krauthammer observed, that is as close to a controlled experiment you are likely to get in american politics. did deeds suddenly become less likeable? no. the democrat brand became less likeable. i mean my god, mcdonnel won northern virginia. that is almost like winning san fransisco people are so liberal here.
As for NY-23, well, i will repeat my analysis from other threads. have you seen hoffman talk? let’s be honest he doesn’t make a very good first impression. And even then, and even with Dede literally doing all she could to sabotage him, he barely lost (assuming he actually lost). if he looked as nice and spoke as well as sean hannity, he would have been sworn in already. Maybe that’s not fair, but it is reality. so the fact he did that well showed how hungry america was at least for a balance to obama’s liberalism.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:20 pmBTW Myron A.W. was not arguing whether or not there should be abortion coverage in the PelosiCare bill (that is a strawman you artfully created), he plainly stated that if the precedent of Roe v. Wade means anything in current law, it means that the Federal Government cannot compell an individual to engage in, or not engage in, any specific course of health care.
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:24 pmAnd that, is why PelosiCare, and all the other unwritten plans, are Un-Constitutional per se.
Myron
> I’ll bet you $100 right now that no one will ever go to jail if they don’t have health insurance. This sounds like “death panel” talk to me.
You can debate the meaning of those advisory panels Palin cited, but the prison time for no insurance is actually there. Now, maybe the US Attorneys won’t enforce it, but its unequivocally there.
And as for the death panels swipe, if that was so illigitimate why did they take it out?
Democrats have been arguing all year that the purpose of taking over this area is to control costs. They have even spoken glowingly of rationing care. Obama even said that it probably didn’t make sense for the government to pay for an operation like his own grandmother’s hip replacement as she was slowly dying of cancer. And i might add that things like this have happened in EVERY OTHER COUNTRY where socialized health care has been put it. so its not exactly hyperbole to say we are afraid of people judging the value of your life when considering treatment. You can pretend there is nothing to Palin’s arugment all you want, but if that was really the case, then they wouldn’t have taken that part out.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:25 pmAD
thanks for making my argument for me. i missed where myron said that.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:28 pm“…If by 2018, no one has gone to jail b/c they don’t have insurance…”
Oh, Myron, I can guarentee you that by that date someone will either go to jail or the morgue for not having health insurance – for, I shall not purchase PelosiCare, and when they come to arrest me, somebody’s going to get hurt.
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:29 pmAnd, I’m not alone in that commitment.
I’ll bet you $100 right now that no one will ever go to jail if they don’t have health insurance.
I agree. I also agree that there will be no mandate enacted. By the way, did you notice that Obama opposed mandates in the primary ? I don’t think any bill will pass because I don’t think the looney tune members of your party are smart enough to come in out of the rain and that means 2010. They are not smart enough to pass an empty bill. The one they have is empty enough but it does set up a 500,000 person bureaucracy to write the rules.
I will take your bet about the unemployment rate a year from now, though. Obama stood on TV this morning and said employment was up. That’s EMPLOYMENT, not unemployment.
The unemployment rate rose from 9.8 to 10.2 percent in October, and nonfarm
payroll employment continued to decline (-190,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. The largest job losses over the month were in con-
struction, manufacturing, and retail trade.
That’s from BLS November 6. I expect to see a You Tube video of that Obama talk this morning next November.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:35 pmAD
btw, my fear is that the supreme court might only strike down the mandate, but nothing else. so then the insurance company would have all these extra costs without the increase in enrollment to pay for it.
add in a public option, and soon all those private insurance companies are going out of business and the public option is the only one left standing.
and i get the creeping feeling that this might actually be the plan. it makes me think of a movie i watched about a year ago, called “Amazing Grace.” it was about wilberforce and the fight against the slave trade in england. He tried for years to destroy it directly, and failed. then one day a colleague had a brilliant plan. they supported a law that seemed technical and benign but the effect was that it stripped all slave ships of their right to invoke the protection of the british flag from piracy. they passed it in the dead of night and before the pro-slave-trade forces could do anything the entire slave trade was wiped out. So then they found it easy to ban it completely because it was no longer an economic power.
Now that kind of underhanded subterfuge, if you can ever justify it, can only be justified in that case because the slave trade was so manifestly evil that pretty much the rule of “by any means necessary” applied. I mean you justify that dishonesty the way you justify Oscar (sp?) Schindler’s because the consequences of being honest were too horrible to contemplate.
My worry is that dems hate the capitalist health care system so much that they are willing to use similar tactics. besides it has been clear for some time that democrats have decided the only way to win is to lie through their teeth about their true agenda. remember that next time you hear a liberal repackage themselves as a progressive.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:37 pmThen why put it in there, if there is no intention of enforcing it, Myron?
I made a simple bet. If A.W. wants to take me up on it, fine, that’s his business. If you guys think the government is going to go around throwing people in jail over lack of health insurance — I’ll let you stay awake at night worrying about that. I’m convinced it won’t happen. It’ll be treated like car insurance. There’ll be penalties.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:40 pmAlthough I am glad at least the polling numbers show an increasing dislike of the Democrats, I hope that doesn’t mean many Republicans will be re-elected. I’m in John Boehner’s district. I was elated when he was named minority leader. Sent him emails, called, etc. He’s done next to nothing. I will not vote for him again.
Throw both of those partys out. Neither should be counted on for anything good.
Corwin (ea9428) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:40 pmMyron
tell me you at least understand it is in the pelosi bill–5 years if you don’t buy insurance.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:41 pmA.W.: What the VA race showed is that Democrats stayed home b/c Deeds did not excite him. He seemed like kind of a goober, actually.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:42 pmA.W.: What the VA race showed is that Democrats stayed home b/c Deeds did not excite them. He seemed like kind of a goober, actually.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:42 pmMike K:
I’m also skeptical the mandate will pass. I personally don’t want it to pass without the public option.
And yes, I noted the president’s flip-flop on the mandate. He really beat Hillary up on that.
And no, I’m not betting anyone on unemployment numbers. But that’s the main number Democrats have to worry about, vs a generic Dem vs. Rep. poll.
I always say you can’t spin the economy. People know whether they have a job or not.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:45 pmMyron
> What the VA race showed is that Democrats stayed home b/c Deeds did not excite them. He seemed like kind of a goober, actually.
then why did they come out for Deeds four years ago? why did they make it close last time but not this time?
And being a goober is not all bad in VA. i mean hell, in 2002 Cooter from the Dukes of Hazard ran for the house of representatives in virginia. And you can’t get a much bigger goober than a cooter.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:47 pmbesides it has been clear for some time that democrats have decided the only way to win is to lie through their teeth about their true agenda.
Reading much material from both sides of the aisle, I’m continually amazed at how partisans in both camps make the identical charges against the other side.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:48 pmMyron complaining about Partisanship….
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:49 pmmyron
Of course the identical charge is made. that is how the game is played. but we can catch the dems on tape over and over saying that the way to win is by subterfuge. do you have anything comparable with republicans?
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:50 pmComment by Myron — 11/12/2009 @ 12:48 pm
Myron complaining about Partisanship…
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:51 pmtell me you at least understand it is in the pelosi bill
A.W.: Yes, I know it’s in the bill. I’m supposing that it will be stripped out, or that it’s one of those things that will never be enforced.
But yes, in the house bill, refusing to pay for your own health care would be treated like tax evasion, which could lead to jail time.
I would think that Republicans — the alleged party of personal responsibility — would want people to pay their own bills, though.
Isn’t part of the opposition to health care is that we shouldn’t in any way pay for anyone else’s care?
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:51 pmMyron is a complete failure on deducing the reasons why the USA was created, and why it has survived and flourished.
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:54 pmA.W.: I have the Republicans’ legislative record.
For instance, they say they are for health care reform. But when they had all power, they did zilch.
Similarly, they are now the biggest defenders of Medicare, let them tell it. But when the legislation was being proposed, they fought vigorously against it.
They did, however, manage to pass a tax cut for the wealthy — but never ran on the platform, “We’ll cut taxes for the wealthy.”
They talk middle class and vote upper class.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:55 pmAD: Stick it. I’ll put my American history chops up against a character like you any day.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:56 pmThat was so impressive. If your understanding of our history is so comprehensive, why is it you get so many things wrong?
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 12:59 pmYou are nothing but a partisan troll.
Myron complaining about Partisanship…
I’m not complaining. It is what it is. I just don’t want anyone to be fooled into thinking they have a monopoly on outrage at the other party.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:01 pmWhat do you have against upper class people?
I should also add that a Republican governor signed a bill that created universal child health care in Hawaii. Tennessee’s version of the public option was adopted by a Republican governor.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:02 pmwell he did run against that slimy weasel, Terry McAuliffe and won, so there’s that, going for him.
bishop (996c34) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:03 pmYes, we forgot good old Terry:
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:05 pmThe Man from Global Crossing!
“…biggest defenders of Medicare…”
ISTM that the GOP’s defense of Medicare/Medicaid is that the changes proposed by PelosiCare will bankrupt the States, which are undergoing severe financial stress as it is, without the additional requirements that P-Care imposes upon them.
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:08 pm…plus they are bringing to light the hypocrisy of the AARP in selling out their members in the quest of more insurance business paid for by the Federal taxpayer.
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:10 pmMichael Ejercito:
And a Republican governor signed on for universal reform in Massachusetts — though he seems loathe to admit it now.
I’m not saying that no Republican anywhere wants reform. I’m saying that the GOP as a congressional party had — and has — no interest in it.
And I have nothing against the upper class. My point was that the GOP usually support policies that benefit them, if anyone, yet runs on claims that they support the middle class.
No one is surprised that the gap between the ultra-wealthy and everybody else increased greatly during Bush II.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:13 pmThen why did the ultra-wealthy vote overwhelmingly for OBH?
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:15 pmMyron at 47 – The Republicans cut the income tax. Every person in the US who pays income tax got a cut.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:15 pmOops…BHO?
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:15 pmbishop: McAuliffe wouldn’t have done much better against McDonnell. I don’t know about the other guy in the Democratic primary.
The larger point is that McDonnell seems like he’s a good fit for the state. He won for old-fashioned reasons: Better campaign and better ideas. He ran in part on improving public transportation. I thought that was pretty meat-and-potatoes and down-to-earth. (And having lived in northern VA, I know it’s a big problem.)
I consider him the first Repub. in a long time I think could be a legitimate contender for Obama. This Thune fellow holds promise, too.
But then I liked McCain, so don’t listen to me. 🙂
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:20 pm“…But then I liked McCain…”
Now we know why you have no understanding of the economy.
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:24 pmMyron, what you call rich, are not the highest class of wealth in America… those people don’t pay income tax because they don’t need income.
Those you say the GOP benefit, are the ones who create all the jobs. That’s why the GOP says they are helping the middle class by reducing the burden of government. It’s the truth.
The wealthy already pay the lion’s share… there’s no reasonable way to reduce the burden of government without disproportionately benefiting those who shoulder that burden over those who do not shoulder that burden.
You’re practicing class warfare, though you’re careful not to be too overt about it. Sure, you like the upper class, but what about the other people!!! Well, the lower and middle classes are much better off if they can get a job or live in a healthy economy.
You’re claiming Pelosi’s ‘fair to send people to jail’ provision is not going to be enforced… but it’s still a fact that the democrats have passed a House bill that is egregiously destructive to freedom and human rights. It might be so awful that the feds rarely enforce it, but it’s still passed the house. That alone is enough. People will remember that in 2010.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:30 pmPeople voted for Obama despite those promises, not because of them.
Pure spin.
McCain and Obama were even in the polls until the crisis hit in September. If the idea of Obama “reforming” health care was what won for him, that wouldn’t have been the case. He would have been ahead before that.
Democrats promised health care reform. President Obama mentioned it in literally every speech, bar none. So they are attempting to do “what they promised voters they would do.”
The term “health care reform” can mean almost anything. Putting limits on lawsuits would be health care reform. Talking about “reform” without specifics means nothing. Clinton did the same in 1992. Democrats present this black box with the letter “health care reform” printed on the outside. Nobody knows what’s inside. People who follow this stuff in detail have a pretty good idea what’s inside but that’s hardly anyone.
Bottom line, saying these health care bills are what people were expecting is pure BS.
Gerald A (a66d02) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:30 pmMyron – I’m not even a citizen (yet) and *I’ll* put my American history chops up against a character troll like *you* any day …
It is often instructive to observe a true believer in the ‘Democratic’ Party talk about the GOP voting record on various things, yet the same true believer Democrats frantically try to divert attention from their party’s record on Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s … how much of the watershed legislation back then was passed by Congress in spite of the then-Democrat-majority in the House ? The GOP votes back then were critical to passage …
“Similarly, they are now the biggest defenders of Medicare Civil Rights, let them tell it. But when the legislation was being proposed, they fought vigorously against it.” – your ‘Democratic’ Party’s voting record back in the 1960s …
Alasdair (205079) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:30 pmMaybe it should be handled by individual states- as Tennessee, Massachussetts, and Maine had.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:31 pmMyron
> I would think that Republicans — the alleged party of personal responsibility — would want people to pay their own bills, though.
Wow, that is hacktastic. So not wanting to throw a person in jail for not buying $15,000 worth of health insurance is promoting irresponsibility.
> For instance, they say they are for health care reform. But when they had all power, they did zilch.
Um, sorry, they said they were willing to support a more limited compromise reform. And when exactly did republicans have 60 votes in the senate?
> Similarly, they are now the biggest defenders of Medicare, let them tell it. But when the legislation was being proposed, they fought vigorously against it.
Um, most of the people who fought against Medicare is now dead, or at least out of congress.
> They did, however, manage to pass a tax cut for the wealthy — but never ran on the platform, “We’ll cut taxes for the wealthy.”
That’s because that line “tax cuts for the wealthy” was democratic spin. They actually cut everyone’s taxes, not just the wealthy. And what do you know? They did run on that.
I mean seriously, are you under the impression that our income tax suddenly became regressive? No, George Bush, like everyone else, discriminated against the wealthy in taxes, but because he didn’t discriminate as much as the democrats wanted him to, that became “tax cuts for the wealthy.”
By the way, now that NY is instituting higher taxes for the wealthy, how is that working out for you. Last I heard the wealthy are saying “f— it” and leaving the state in droves. One of the most basic things democrats don’t get about regulation is that sometimes those facing regulation might choose to act to avoid that regulation entirely.
> And a Republican governor signed on for universal reform in Massachusetts — though he seems loathe to admit it now.
Yeah, because it is a disaster. And the democrats are saying, “hey, let’s try it nationwide!”
> He won for old-fashioned reasons
But you have yet to explain why the Deeds/McDonnell match up was close in 05, but a landside in 09.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:33 pmFor instance, they say they are for health care reform. But when they had all power, they did zilch.
That’s not true. The whole managed care concept comes from Republicans. It began with Nixon and continued under the Bushes. The HMO was a Republican measure, as was the for-profit HMO which I think was a nefarious concept as it was used.
What you mean is that universal single payer is the Democrats’ concept of reform. All others are not considered reform.
I actually favor the non-profit HMO concept as one leg of reform. When I was first in practice in 1972, when insurance was still pretty cheap, I saw many families with both parents working. One would have Blue Cross and the other Kaiser. That way they could use private docs for common minor problems but had the HMO if disaster struck. That was in Burbank where many worked for Lockeed.
Now, I believe we need a multi-option program with HMOs as one option. The others, who want more choice, need a high deductible insurance plus they should pay for routine care from an HSA. That requires realistic retail prices and that requires that Medicare stop the phony discount scheme and start to allow balance billing. Now, Medicare tells the patient that it pays the whole cost and actually pays about 20% of charges. That’s why doctors are dropping out of it.
The Pelosi bill is more lies. Should they pass it, an unlikely prospect, it would quickly bankrupt the country. That plus Cap and Trade would be the end of the US as we know it. We would become Argentina.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:36 pmSo what exactly does that prove?
Bush campaigned on an across the board tax cut. That’s what was passed. Further they appear to have boosted revenues from the rich, as supply side predicts. He never implied he would cut taxes only for people below some threshold. That’s actually what Obama said, which appears to be a lie.
Gerald A (a66d02) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:42 pm(sigh) in my comment #64, there were strike-outs that showed in the Preview – but didn’t make it to the actual posting, it seems …
In the first line, “character” was replaced by “troll” …
In the bold text, “Medicare” was replaced by “Civil Rights” …
I apologise for any confusion …
Alasdair (205079) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:42 pmThe Dems complain tha Republicans are now defending Medicare. But the Dems assured the people that they could trust the Dems with their fate. The Dems would care for them and pay for their medical care.
Now the Dems say they need the money for something else.
And the Dems criticize the Republicans for pointing out they are reneging an the deal they made.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:50 pmIn thirty years will the Dems need the universal health care money for some other boondoggle?
Have Blue (854a6e) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:52 pmCan you imagine if Bush had passed some kind of bill that would put you in jail for not buying a product?
Like, what if he privatized social security by giving you the choice to opt out and buy your own investment… only, you go to jail if you don’t have a retirement plan that Bush liked.
It would not go over.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/12/2009 @ 1:53 pmDustin
to be fair. nothing bush did was ever good enough. because they were convinced he was eeeeevil. evil!
So that’s just partisan hackery. but clearly the democrats are in love with the idea of running your health care, roe v. wade notwithstanding.
Okay, that is not a very good defense for them but fwiw.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/12/2009 @ 2:02 pmMore how the powers-that-be in the Democrat Party look out for the “little-guy” and stick it to “The Rich” (H/T InstaPundit)
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 2:07 pmhttp://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/11/no-blood-for-oil-unless-it-is-for-democrats.html
From the NYT, but using Census Bureau figures:
The Census Bureau has tracked the economic fortunes of affluent, middle-class and poor American families for six decades. According to my analysis, these tabulations reveal a wide partisan disparity in income growth. The real incomes of middle-class families grew more than twice as fast under Democratic presidents as they did under Republican presidents. Even more remarkable, the real incomes of working-poor families (at the 20th percentile of the income distribution) grew six times as fast when Democrats held the White House. Only the incomes of affluent families were relatively impervious to partisan politics, growing robustly under Democrats and Republicans alike.
That last part, incidentally, answers why even rich folks would vote for Obama. They’re good either way. I think that squares with reality.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 2:10 pmHere’s the link to that story, btw.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 2:11 pmAlasdair: If you want to be an informed citizen — and not just a citizen — you might want to research the civil rights movement before you spout off.
Democrats were in the majority and wrote and passed the major pieces of civil rights legislation. Democratic presidents sent federal troops to actually integrate southern schools.
Dixiecrats — the racist Dems — became Republicans.
This is so basic, I am embarrassed to have to tell you this. Look it up.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 2:17 pmWell, we’ve descended past Lies,
through Damn Lies,
and now we’re at Statistics.
I am so reassured.
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 2:18 pm. So not wanting to throw a person in jail for not buying $15,000 worth of health insurance is promoting irresponsibility.
Wrong.
The issue is someone not taking responsibility for their own medical care. I thought you guys were big on that.
The truly poor would be covered by Medicaid.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 2:23 pmRACISTS !!!!!!!!!
JD (506f9c) — 11/12/2009 @ 2:23 pmThe “History Chops” can’t even get the votes in Congress during the 60’s correct. A greater percentage of the GOP in each of the Houses of Congress voted in the affirmative for the Civil-Rights legislation than did the Dems….You Can Look It Up!
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 2:24 pmOh, and let’s not forget the civil-rights history of one of our most prominant Dems on the scene today:
Grand Kleegle Robert Byrd, the Senior Dem Senator from WV.
Just remember, the Klan was composed of Democrats, fighting a rear-guard action against those Damn Yankee Carpet-baggers sent into the South by Lincoln (R-IL).
And, just who pays for Medicaid?
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 2:26 pmMyron at 78 – So Al Gore Sr. became a Republican? You know what, I missed that.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 11/12/2009 @ 2:32 pmMyron, a lot of segregationists stayed democrat. Pinning the actions of democrat segregationists on the GOP is asinine. The GOP has been remarkably consistent on racial equality, from Republican MLK to Republican GWB.
The democrats have changed their racial politics around quite a bit as demographics have changed, because they are more populist, but they have the same core principle of playing races against one another.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/12/2009 @ 3:01 pmNo one is surprised that the gap between the ultra-wealthy and everybody else increased greatly during Bush II.
Myron, it also increased greatly during the late 90s. Economic bubbles have that effect, regardless of who is in office.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 11/12/2009 @ 3:18 pmDemocrats were in the majority and wrote and passed the major pieces of civil rights legislation.
Myron, this is so dishonest. Let’s look at the record.
By party
The original House version:[9]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
So 96 Democrats voted no.
Who led the filibuster, Myron ? Was he named Byrd ?
Cloture in the Senate:[10]
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
Look at the percentages.
The Senate version:[9]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
So, in all votes the Republicans voted in a higher percentage for the bills.
Democratic presidents sent federal troops to actually integrate southern schools.
I never knew that Eisenhower was a Democrat.
Dixiecrats — the racist Dems — became Republicans.
This is so basic, I am embarrassed to have to tell you this. Look it up.
Comment by Myron
Myron, I never took you for a liar before. Name the Democrat Senator from West Virginia who filibustered the Civil Rights Act and who was KKK officer ?
You are lying and I don’t say that lightly. Or often. The other Dixiecrats died Democrats except Strom Thurmond.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/12/2009 @ 3:18 pmThe issue is someone not taking responsibility for their own medical care. I thought you guys were big on that.
Bull–if personal responsibility was such a big deal to the Obama administration, they’d be forcing the TBTF banks to put all the trash loans on their balance sheets and forcing them to start foreclosure proceedings on everyone who has defaulted. They aren’t doing so because the banks have been threatening to crash the economy if they have to acknowledge all the toxic waste they are holding off-sheet, and because Obama doesn’t want to look like the man who presided over the greatest turnout of homeless people in America since Hoover. Personal responsibility doesn’t have a damn thing to do with it.
Fining individuals $250,000 and throwing them in jail for five years for not buying a service on their own bodies is about control, not about encouraging personal responsibility. I can’t believe you folks on the left get so worked up about warrantless wiretaps but have no problem with the government making people criminals for not buying health insurance. Both have to do with issues of individual privacy, but you guys consider the former to be evil and the latter to be encouraged. At least try and be consistent when it comes to issues of civil liberties.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 11/12/2009 @ 3:27 pmLeftism means never having to be consistent.
AD - RtR/OS! (05d966) — 11/12/2009 @ 3:39 pmAD – RtR/OS! and Mike K and the others – I suspect that basing our opinions on what actually happened is just likely to confuse poor Myron … perhaps it is time for a new word to be coined …
“myronic” – adjective – descriptive of a point of view which is a combination of ‘ironic’ and ‘moronic’ … “I voted for it, before I voted against it” would be an example of a myronic comment …
I became fascinated with the civil rights movement when a colleague less than 6 months older than myself was talking about his childhood … and I learned that what for me was history-book history was what he actually lived … my primary school class (of about 40 kids) in Scotland had a couple of Pakistani-Scots kids in it – they sounded just like us, only with this amazingly dark sun-tan which contrasted greatly with the very light pinkness barely modified by freckles … (the only place I look tanned is where the freckles have merged) …
At that same time, my colleague was living under racial segregation, could only use separate water-fountains, et cetera … that got me to looking into that period in US History more …
And I started to learn that the Democrats are the US’s Labour Party – disastrous from a foreign policy perspective and more oftent han not disastrous from an economic perspective …
In the UK, Myron would probably be a TUC delegate …
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 11/12/2009 @ 3:43 pmI like Myron. He’s a lot better than the trolls.
I disagree that opposing this type of reform is opposition to responsibility, though. I do not want to have to buy health care. Some people want to spend their money on other things, and that should be up to them. It’s very, very basic. Health care is a good enough idea to not require this kind of enforcement. Like seat belts, in my opinion. If someone doesn’t understand why seat belts are good to wear, do we really need to preserve that person?
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/12/2009 @ 3:56 pmThe Census Bureau has tracked the economic fortunes of affluent, middle-class and poor American families for six decades. According to my analysis, these tabulations reveal a wide partisan disparity in income growth. The real incomes of middle-class families grew more than twice as fast under Democratic presidents as they did under Republican presidents. Even more remarkable, the real incomes of working-poor families (at the 20th percentile of the income distribution) grew six times as fast when Democrats held the White House. Only the incomes of affluent families were relatively impervious to partisan politics, growing robustly under Democrats and Republicans alike.
So what’s supposed to account for that, if true? I say if true because it seems to be something the writer calculated. I notice the writer of the article gives no explanation whatsoever. What’s the point of quoting some economic statistic if you don’t link it with some specific policies? Are we supposed to believe that Democrat presidents cause income growth in some mystical fashion, just by being Democrats?
Gerald A (a66d02) — 11/12/2009 @ 4:03 pmMike K’s history lesson is the one I learned. Myron seems to have reached the point where he just wants to hear himself speak. Do Democrats have different history books than the rest of us?
PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 11/12/2009 @ 4:08 pmMike K: Ever heard of Sen. Jesse Helms? Did he die Democrat, too? (Might want to check Wikipedia before you answer.)
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 4:10 pmMike K said: That plus Cap and Trade would be the end of the US as we know it. We would become Argentina.
Mike K: I increasingly marvel how you can write a perfectly cogent post on health care reform that includes good ideas, then ruin it with tea party nuttiness at the end.
It’s like you’re three-quarters logical, one-quarter Palin.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 4:14 pmMyron, I don’t respond to liars so consider this our last exchange.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/12/2009 @ 4:18 pmI didn’t see that earlier lie so I will respond to it. From Wikipedia (no conservative source) Helm’s biography:
Helms announced his candidacy for a seat in the United States Senate in 1972. His campaign was managed by Thomas F. Ellis who would later be instrumental in Ronald Reagan’s 1976 campaign and also become the chair of the National Congressional Club. He won the Republican primary in the first round, winning 92,496 votes, or 60.1%, in a three-candidate field
Liar.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/12/2009 @ 4:21 pmAD: I recognize all of your slip-shod arguments.
The whole GOP “greater percent” thing. Greater percent does not equal greater. Democrats controlled Congress during the civil rights era. Southern Dixiecrats made the legislation difficult, but we know how the south is (I live here). I love the south, but we make many progressive causes difficult.
As for the past racism in the Democratic Party, we all know — or should know — that the parties switched ideologies from the old days when Lincoln and that crowd were the progressives. That’s why “Party of Lincoln” is such a joke in my opinion. (On the other hand, I consider it a matter of pure poetry that Obama came out of Illinois, the land of the emancipator.)
Byrd is a special case. But he has changed — it can happen, look at George Wallace, and for that matter, Strom Thurmond. Byrd endorsed Obama in both the primary and general.
He also backed Sotomayor, and if we need his vote on reform, he will show up, if he can make it.
So, I’ll take the former klansman over your typical Repub any day of the week.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 4:26 pmMike K – Senator Jesse Helms seems to have been the US Senate’s Enoch Powell … whether you agreed with him politically or not, you knew where you sttod with him … I would have been astonished if Helms had ever run as a Democrat … and I just cannot envision Hlems parading around under a white robe with a pointy hood … that sort of behaviour is for the byrds …
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 11/12/2009 @ 4:31 pmNow now guys. Lets bring down the temper. Let’s be friends. Ok?
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/12/2009 @ 4:35 pm(Forgive me if there’s a double-post, but I don’t see my last comment.)
Mike K: Your tantrum aside, Sen. Jesse Helms was a Democrat first.
From PBS one of numerous sources confirming this:
“Born in North Carolina in 1921, Helms attended Wake Forest College in 1941 but never graduated, serving in the Navy as a recruiter during World War II.
Soon after the war he started working in politics, campaigning for segregationist Democrat Willis Smith in 1950.
Throughout his early political career, Helms was a Democrat, but by 1972 he switched parties officially and ran for U.S. Senate as a Republican.”
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 4:42 pmLeftism means never having to be consistent.
Classic other-party-says-the-same-thing-about-you line:
“Stay out of our lives government, except you can reach into a woman’s womb and intervene between a man and his wife, who is in a vegetative state.”
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 4:45 pmAlasdair: Your first mistake is to try to abstract your country’s politics onto American politics.
Every country has its unique political realities, and our racial situation here is unique.
But I’m glad you were able to live vicariously through your friend’s experiences.
I’d recommend a more thorough reading of U.S. history, however, as opposed to just having your head filled up with some of the information they put out on these conservative blogs. Remember, they have an agenda to put forward.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/12/2009 @ 4:51 pm“intervene between a man and his wife, who is in a vegetative state.”
Remarkably stupid.
Gerald A (a66d02) — 11/12/2009 @ 4:57 pmMyron,
Note,that when jim crowe was “legal”, everyone that supported it was a dem. When that issue was taken away, they became repubs.
Doesn’t that mean that the dem party was the racits / segregationist / lynching party? And that once that was taken away, the people found things to agree w/ republicans on?
You seem to infer that once jim crow was no longer legally tolerated and some people became republicans, that means republicans are racist. But, when jim crow was legally and socially sanctioned, all jim crow supporters were dems. That means that dems were proud and out loud about their racism. After all kkk wizard Byrd, still lionized by the left, called people niggers as recently as 1998. Still a dem.
So, my question and point is – we have out loud and proud proof that dems were historically and recently racist. We only have your and other leftist speculation that the right is racist. So, in a court of law, who would win? And, I ask this in all sincerity. Take a logical and true look at the evidence before you answer. there is ample evidence of the democrat party ties to the kkk and racism. There is only modern leftist speculation and hypothesis about the right’s ties to the same.
Monkeytoe (9dedab) — 11/12/2009 @ 4:59 pmI’m still waiting for Myron to explain what accounts for the (alleged) much greater income growth of everyone except the rich when a Dem is in office. Otherwise I’ll think he just cuts and pastes things he reads in the NYT.
Gerald A (a66d02) — 11/12/2009 @ 4:59 pmHmmm…
Now THAT warning is Just. Plain. Hilarious.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 11/12/2009 @ 4:59 pm“our racial situation here is unique.”
In all honesty, in what country in the world would someone rather be black? Rawanda? Somalia? Point out the western european country with the same per capita number of black ceos? or high level black gov’t beauracrats? Or high level gov’t appointees? Or prime minsters/presidents? Or the per capita percentage of black millionaires? or even middle class.
there is no better place in the world to be black than america. To claim otherwise is ignorant and uneducated.
Monkeytoe (9dedab) — 11/12/2009 @ 5:02 pmPalin says “We are not into drama.”
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/12/2009 @ 5:04 pmSo says the Drama Queen.
Can’t stop laughing.
Palin2012 y’all.
I love how lefists will claim everyone has a bias/agenda in all matters, unless it meshes w/ their worldview, in which case it is completely objective (a la fox versus msnbc or cnn). Somehow, only conservatives can be biased or have an agenda.
Monkeytoe (9dedab) — 11/12/2009 @ 5:04 pmMyron – Why is income inequality a bad thing?
daleyrocks (7344d8) — 11/12/2009 @ 5:05 pmMyron – if my primary sources of information were current Democrats, I would probably believe, as you seem to, that Republicans are “EEEEEEVILLLL” (uttered in suitably sepulchral tones) …
Instead, having spent my first 21 years in Scotland, I note that the self-proclaimed peace-loving Democrats took the US into Vietnam and the Democrat-proclaimed war-mongering Republican Nixon extracted the US from Vietnam …
I see Republican students on campus listening to speakers with many and varied (dare I say “diverse”) political and philosophical viewpoints – and I see Democrat students physically chasing speakers off stage and off campus under the pretext that said speakers are “fascist” … (talk about a myronic perspective!) …
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 11/12/2009 @ 5:05 pmthe funny thing is, the left’s biggest hero, Castro, presided over a country that was perhaps the most racist ever. The blacks in that country were/are treated worse than anything that american blacks could imagine.
Monkeytoe (9dedab) — 11/12/2009 @ 5:05 pmThere was a book by a black IBM executive a few years ago about his experience as a company rep in Africa. He thanked god that his ancestors had been brought here, even as slaves. Of course, not all blacks were slaves before the Civil War, a fact often forgotten. Fewer yet know there were black slave owners.
It is an interesting phenomenon that foreign born black students lack the sense of grievance the seems to handicap so many American born blacks. They also disproportionately benefit from preferences at the university level. There was a study a few years ago that would not be repeated today that showed the percentage of foreign born black students at Ivy League colleges who benefit from preferences and financial aid. It was quite high; maybe 30%.
When I was at Dartmouth, I got to know a kid from Africa who worked in the dining hall at night to earn his keep. The dining hall at Dartmouth is open 24 hours. He could not understand why kids would come in there drunk in the middle of the night during the week. I am sure he has done well since then as he had the right attitude. I doubt he had anything to do with the usual victim groups.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/12/2009 @ 5:13 pmMonkeytoe, are you aware that Fulgencio Batista was black ?
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/12/2009 @ 5:16 pmMike K,
Yes, but how does that change my point?
Monkeytoe (9dedab) — 11/12/2009 @ 5:20 pmComment by Mike K — 11/12/2009 @ 5:13 pm
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/12/2009 @ 5:20 pmThere is nothing to gain from playing the victim, Doc. I believe Affirmative Action has done more harm than good.
i’m sitting in the big chair in our great room w/ my wife stroking by arm. Does life get better?
Monkeytoe (9dedab) — 11/12/2009 @ 5:26 pm8) Hmmmm…
The Emperor (82e13a) — 11/12/2009 @ 5:32 pmJeebus. Do you still not know the difference between medical care and medical insurance? If I decide to pay for my medical care out of my own pocket, rather than buy insurance, I am taking responsibility for my own medical care, correct? But under the Pelosi bill, I would be subject to a tax fine and potential jailing.
Some chump (8ef001) — 11/12/2009 @ 5:38 pmMyron #103 – the same colleague got fed up with liberals assuming that he had gotten where he was as a Systems Programmer as a result of Affirmative Action, and telling him how lucky he was that such programs existed … he moved back to Alabama where, in his words, “The bigots at least are proud of themselves, and don’t pretend to be liberal.” … (he was, and I hope still is, a skilled Systems Programmer) …
Take a look at television programs made in the US and in the UK … then try listening to but not watching such programs …
In the US ones, you can pretty much tell the melanin levels of each character … in the UK ones, all you can tell is the country (sometimes the city) of origin – melanin levels are not audibly distinguishable …
I have to admit that, from what I am reading of your comments, the main exercise you seem to get it jumping to conclusions …
Even before leaving Scotland, I was already fascinated by differences between and similarities among cultures … and also fascinated how Islamic cultures continue to practice slavery to this day … even though the Islamic cultures were the harvesters and vendors of the commodity known as African slaves, the Nation of Islam proudly celebrates the religion of the original oppressors of the Africans who ended up brought to the Americas as slaves …
In a fine example of something myronic – as I understand it, the House’s first practising Islamic Representative Ellison was sworn in with a Koran which had belonged to Thomas Jefferson – and the frontispiece/dedication from the friend who gave it to him are references to the Barbary Pirates and how the US will eventually have to fight Islam … as students of US History know, the US Marines were formed to fight aboard US vessels against the Barbary Pirates (hence the “shores of Tripoli” reference) …
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 11/12/2009 @ 5:53 pmI cant wait for the type of car the government is going to “require” that I buy to replace my truck
I cant wait for the type of gas I have to buy (wait they are already doing that)
Where is the waters edge with the Democrats?
EricPWJohnson (9ba6a1) — 11/12/2009 @ 5:53 pmEricPWJ – a Bugatti, perhaps ?
And you’re just *trying* to get an irreverent Kennedy reference in here, aren’t you ? (grin)
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 11/12/2009 @ 6:30 pmI’d recommend a more thorough reading of U.S. history,
Funniest line of the thread…so far.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/12/2009 @ 6:39 pmMyron recommending that someone else learn history is pretty amusing. He’s among the more ignorant of the subject among our trolls.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/12/2009 @ 7:18 pmMyron
> The issue is someone not taking responsibility for their own medical care.
And of course punishing a person for that irresponsibility by throwing them in jail.
And, by the way, that is a total canard. They don’t want these people on the rolls to pay for their own health care. They want them on the rolls to pay for everyone else’s. That is how the financing works. If you can’t force people onto the health care rolls, the entire scheme falls apart.
> Democrats were in the majority and wrote and passed the major pieces of civil rights legislation.
If you mean the civil rights act of 1964, it was mainly republicans who passed that. Learn some history. Of course democratic cooperation was critical, but to pretend that it was a democratic thing is bull and you know it.
> we all know — or should know — that the parties switched ideologies from the old days when Lincoln and that crowd were the progressives.
Not exactly. First off, Lincoln would consider the modern democratic party an anathema. As would all those republican you call progressives. Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, would be horrified at the competition stifling policies of the left.
Really, you think the left isn’t bigoted? Try reading Michelle Malkin’s hate mail. Or try this. See how the left responds to a white man v. a black man invoking God.
For instance, imagine if George W. Bush said that man’s law must be in line with God’s law and that a law in contravention of God’s law should be disobeyed? The left would go nuts. But in fact Bush didn’t say that, but you know who did? Martin Luther King. The left is all for separation of religion from all aspects of politics, unless we are talking about a black man. That is why Barrack Obama could mention Jesus more frequently than George W. Bush and get absolutely no sh-t for it.
> On the other hand, I consider it a matter of pure poetry that Obama came out of Illinois, the land of the emancipator.
Yep, out of Illinois and a black racist church. Let’s not forget that detail. Poetic.
> But he has changed
Really? Well, he hasn’t apologized.
> look at George Wallace
Actually I never bought the Wallace narrative. I think he never cared much for bigotry, or for racial equality. All he wanted was to help himself, and thus was a racist when that helped and was “enlightened” when the winds changed. I am not sure what he actually believed on the subject, but whatever it was, he was just a huckster. Fwiw.
> He also backed Sotomayor
Mmm, an ex-klansman backed a latino racist. We call that moronic convergence.
> [claiming this is inconsistent] “Stay out of our lives government, except you can reach into a woman’s womb and intervene between a man and his wife, who is in a vegetative state.”
Really, you find this inconsistent. Let me see if I can find a common thread. How about this: “leave me alone, so long as I am not going to kill another person.” *rolls eyes*
I mean seriously, since when do democrats presume that husbands always have the best interests of their wives at heart? I mean let’s be honest, it was democrats mainly pushing the violence against women act. So you guys seem to understand that domestic violence is a serious issue.
But let’s turn that around. Democrats don’t like husbands beating their wives, but believe a husband has an unfettered right to kill her if she can’t speak for herself. They believe that our laws should stay out of a woman’s womb, while working toward legislation THAT WILL SUBJECT EVERY OTHER MEDICAL ISSUE to the control of the government. So much for “keep your laws off of my body,” eh? And indeed the democrats just voted for a health care bill that would keep even private insurance from covering abortion. Democrats favor legalization of marijuana and the outlawing of McDonald’s cheeseburgers. By the way, if we want to put fattening food in ourselves, isn’t that, you know, my body my choice? Democrats say they are for freedom of speech, and do support an unfettered right to make porn, but not to say sexist things at work, or to speak freely during the political process to the point of shutting down all advertising for an anti-hillary movie. And for bonus points they don’t raise a peep when Michael Moore makes equally propagandist movies, including the lying anti-Bush screed Fahrenheit 9-11.
At every turn the democrats are anti-freedom. Right now the FTC is pushing for regulations of bloggers of incredible breadth. When facing arguments that these rules were too broad they said, more or less, “don’t worry, we will exercise discretion.” If you know anything about first amendment law, then you know they just confessed to a violation of the 1st amendment. At the same time, they are pushing an interpretation of the term “creditor” to cover a simple plumber, and did so while skipping the formal rule making procedures that agencies are supposed to go through. How any democrat can say they are pro-choice when they are clearly anti-choice on every subject except killing fetuses and women in a vegetative state is beyond me.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/13/2009 @ 6:38 am