Overblown Overreach
David Brooks, predictable enough, says Democrats are overreaching and destined to reap the whirlwind. Frankly, I have some doubts about this. Remember yesterday’s Washington Post poll that was full of bad news for Barack Obama? The one about how the public is losing faith in him and his agenda? Well, here was their question about who the public trusts on some key issues:
I think the straightforward reading of this survey data is that congressional Democrats ought to ignore congressional Republicans and pass the ideas Barack Obama has proposed. And, again, the straightforward reading of November’s election results was that the public wanted (1) Barack Obama to be President and (2) members of congress sympathetic to Barack Obama. Congressional Democrats are good at overthinking political issues, and at coming up with rationalizations for why giving in to special interest demands are the only politically feasible option, but the evidence suggests that the public remains enthusiastic about Obamaism.
Meanwhile, I have to say that I think the general phenomenon of “overreach” — and especially of “liberal overreach” — is wildly overblown. It’s not as if what happened in 1994 was the congress passed Bill Clinton’s big health reform package, then the public didn’t like it, then in revulsion they turned against Democrats. Nor did congress pass the proposed BTU tax, then the public didn’t like it, and then in revulsion they turned against Democrats. The noteworthy thing about the first two years of the Clinton administration was the lack of ambitious progressive programs put in place. And you could say the same about Jimmy Carter. Whatever it is people reacted against in 1978, 1980, and 1994 it wasn’t actually existing left-wing governance.
Again, to try to avoid overthinking things, a health care bill that gets signed into law and makes people’s lives better should be pretty popular irrespective of what gets said on cable the week before congress votes. Conversely, even a bill that polls really well won’t be very popular if, when implemented, it makes people’s lives worse.
55 Responses to “Overblown Overreach”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 21st, 2009 at 10:49 am
Makes you feel real good that Obama is still somewhat popular, don’t it? Well, sooner or later, he’ll be connected to the Democratic Congress that are actual vehicles that are passing the Health Plan. The numbers are inevitably trending one direction, and you know it.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:52 am
No question. These numbers indicate Obama is forcing the democratic congress to take a stand. His agenda is a much safer bet for them than the alternative, which is to do nothing.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:56 am
Aren’t republicans petrified that health care passes and the public proceeds to adore the program and thank the democrats and Obama for giving it to them? Thats what happened with social security, and while nobody really reaped electoral benefits, medicare is extremely popular. If thats the case (and I think it is, at least in part) why are “blue dog” democrats so resistant?
July 21st, 2009 at 10:57 am
I agree that congressional Democrats should pass ideas that Obama proposes. The problem, as David Brooks pointed out, is that congressional Democrats don’t care about Obama’s proposals. Note that this chart sets up support for Obama against support for “Republicans”, generically. I bet those numbers change when it’s congressional Democrats versus Republicans. The point is, the policy agenda is being entirely driven by the worst dysfunctions of Congress, which is why, for example, cost control (the Big Obama Idea) appears nowhere in either the House or Senate health care proposals.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:57 am
Aren’t republicans petrified that health care passes and the public proceeds to adore the program and thank the democrats and Obama for giving it to them? Thats what happened with social security, and while nobody really reaped electoral benefits, medicare is extremely popular. If thats the case (and I think it is, at least in part) why are “blue dog” democrats so resistant?
July 21st, 2009 at 11:01 am
This phenomenon is known as conservative overreach.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:01 am
Overthinking is a good way to put it. There’s the old saying that not all conservatives are stupid people, but all stupid people are conservatives. That could have something to do with the amazing discipline the congressional GOP shows. When the Democrats get in power they tend to second-guess and outsmart themselves (the whole herding cats thing). Then nothing gets accomplished. The GOP out of power then runs around saying “they can’t do anything except tax and spend on stupid big government programs that don’t work!” Which isn’t strictly true; the programs might work fine, but the most visible part of government, Democrats in Congress, are the very picture of dithering and indecisiveness in the face of huge problems they were put in power to solve. After a year or two of that the general public is disgusted and votes the GOP into power. And shit gets done! No one ever accused the Republicans of being ineffective. Years later the disastrous results of the GOP philosophy become clear and the public votes Democrat. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Of course most presidents lose ground in the first Congressional election after they came to the White House, so it’s predictable that Obama’s numbers will drop at some point. Plus the GOP is so unserious right now it’s tough to see them winning much in 2010. But I’m pretty sure that if the Democrats right now were laying waste like Genghis Khan, they would look at lot better in the public’s eyes.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:09 am
As far as some of the donks in Congress getting cold feet, I think as far as MY’s parting sentence that the Dem health care bill making people’s lives better or worse after it passes will matter more than for the Dems chances than how it polls before is why they’re getting cold feet. I think not thinking that is more than a bit daft.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:10 am
I see they had to close comments on Brooks’ op-ed a little early today. He’s back to his ‘real America’ schtick (Appleby’s, anyone?) and ‘overreach’ as a synonym for ‘policy.’
I guess he’s been taking heat for being too reasonable lately. Pity.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:14 am
The degree to which folks in The village are now pretending Obama is cratering astonishes even someone as been-around as myself. The numbers in these most recent polls show not problems for Obama, but exceptional support, especially for a president in the teeth of serious recession. Pretty much every cable channel has zeroed in on that “approve of Obama on health care” number — an apparently humiliating 49% (about what Bush had for an overall in his re-election year) — without even stopping to consider, as Matthew suggests, that the disapproval might be simply over the fact that the plan hasn’t yet been passed. All other numbers show the public wants pretty much what Obama’s proposing. Yet every cable gasbag and David Brooks (but I repeat myself) is asserting the utter opposite.
As Josh Marshall says, DC remains wired for the GOP. Read Richard Cohen’s latest embarrassment this morning, his treatise on why Sotomayor isn’t as good a justice as she ought to be because she’s not enough like Scalia (and didn’t support Ricci). People like Cohen — and they, sadly, are what passes for liberal in this DC era — continue to believe, despite all, that the Republicans are the cool guys with all the neat ideas. They’re EMBARRASSED by liberals, despite liberals having been right about basically every issue in the last ten years and having major public support now.
I believe Obama is going to succeed, but it’s going to have to be against the scorn of the DC establishment. If there’s any consolation, it’s that FDR endured much the same. Remember: the most famous poll of its day said FDR was going to lose the ‘36 election, and no history I’ve read says the major thinkers of the time thought that absurd. It always takes a long time for the establishment to understand the world has moved past them.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:17 am
Whom. It should read “Whom do you trust on…”
July 21st, 2009 at 11:19 am
I remember November of 2004, when young Yglesias was telling us that Bush–with poll numbers similar to Obama’s now–was what the American people wanted, and that people were enthusiastic about Bushism.
What, what? He didn’t write that then? Oh.
As for Matt’s history of the 90s: The bills didn’t pass because “progressive” platitudes when reduced to legislation look unappetizing. And Clinton was unpopular because of that, and because he didn’t have a solution to the problem of unemployment and stagnant wages in the aftermath of a recession that ended years before he became president. I’m sure that things will go much better for Obama, who’s actually going to preside over the recession and not just the jobless recovery.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:24 am
The extent of the rightwing propaganda machine is impressive. Righwingers run the major papers, broadcast and cable TV, comment magazines and think tanks.
They can produce a constant stream of misinformation and distortion that eventually convinces the public that mysterious forces won’t allow improvement in their status.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:24 am
You remember wrongly, Thomas. Bush was lucky to crack 50% approval in the fall of 2004, with a net positive in the single digits. Obama is currently around 60% approval, with a net positive of about 25-30%.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:25 am
I remember November of 2004, when young Yglesias was telling us that Bush–with poll numbers similar to Obama’s now–was what the American people wanted, and that people were enthusiastic about Bushism.
Um, no, you’re completely bullshitting. Bush’s approval numbers were far lower (around 48/48 if I recall in just about every poll) and certainly not 20 points above the Democrats on every issue like Obama is. He would have lost had he not been a wartime president or had John Kerry not been such an uninspiring candidate who ran such a poor campaign. You know all this, and you’re lying.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:27 am
Brooks is demonstrating the same error that he, and so many other conservatives, made throughout the presidential campaign: he doesn’t seem to realize that it’s 2009, not 1989. Public opinion has changed enormously.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:27 am
What’s especially baffling about Brooks’ column is that he (uncynically!) calls the Blue Dogs “courageous moderates” right after he lashes out at Obama for letting Congress gut cap and trade, reduce the stimulus to ineffectiveness, and eliminate serious cost-control measures in the health care proposals. Um, which faction of Congressional Democrats is responsible for all those developments?
July 21st, 2009 at 11:27 am
Wow, a banner day- links to McMegan and Bobo, one right after the other. [headdesk]
July 21st, 2009 at 11:30 am
It seems a large problem with America is that a modern, responsible, reasonable society is necessarily a social democracy. That is, a mixed economy of moderate government regulation and provision of social services such as education and a safety net.
The public understands this, but is repeatedly swayed by a large, entrenched conservative movement that publicly decries taxation and waste in government that arises from these programs, yet in fact supports them in practice. California is a perfect example of this: massive amounts of debt owing to spending the public supports but is afraid to pay for through much maligned “taxes”.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:31 am
And just so our good liar Thomas knows exactly why Bush won in 2004:
MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE BUSH KERRY
Taxes (5%) 57% 43%
Education (4%) 26% 73%
Iraq (15%) 26% 73%
Terrorism (19%) 86% 14%
Economy/Jobs (20%) 18% 80%
Moral Values (22%) 80% 18%
Health Care (8%) 23% 77%
Yeah, that’s right, MORAL VALUES was the largest category. The last gasp of the culture wars raging against abortion and gay marriage. Followed closely by the 19% convinced that only a Republican could go get them terrorists and string up Osama.
Meanwhile, the sum of the economy, health care, and Iraq was only the concern of 43% of the voters. And hey, look how they voted!
How fucking depressing to recap.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:33 am
The American people want health care. Much past that and we get confused very fast.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:38 am
I completely agree with about half of Brooks’ article – that is, the half that describes a big part of the problem as the fact that nobody in Congress fears Obama, and there doesn’t seem to be any penalty for members of Congress defecting from his agenda.
The problem with Brooks’ article is the implication that the reason health care reform is encountering problems is because the proposed legislation is too liberal. First of all, as you and Ezra and many others have been arguing, it isn’t clear what “too liberal” even means in the context of health care reform. Is it “liberal” to propose increased government control (e.g. a public plan) or is it “liberal” to proposed increased government spending? The problem is that if you don’t do one, you’re doing the other, so regardless of where the bills make their compromises the wise moderates like Brooks will be able to portray the bill as hopelessly left-wing.
The second big problem in Brooks’ piece is that he completely avoids mentioning the elephant in the room that is the pharmaceutical lobbyists, the AMA, and the health insurance lobbyists. There’s an obvious connection between the CBO saying that the health care bill won’t control costs and the fact that the AMA is now in support of the bill: the AMA doesn’t want to control costs because “controlling costs” means the AMA makes less money. The problem isn’t that Democrats are overreaching and producing a bill that is too liberal. The problem is that Democrats are underreaching and producing a bill that has given away too much to special interest groups.
Still, I think Brooks is right that the response needs to be that these alleged centrist Democrats need to fear defecting from Obama’s agenda.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:45 am
Judging from history, it certainly seems that laying out an ambitious agenda and then failing to get it accomplished is the worst possible outcome for a political party. So at this point, actually failing to pass serious health care reform due to Democratic obstruction–which is the only way it can fail–would indeed be incredibly foolhardy.
Fortunately, I highly doubt that will happen. We’re seeing the last gasps of a well-funded and institutionally-entrenched opposition, but Obama and his congressional allies have set up the playing field such that in the end, the marginal Democrats are going to have to play along.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:49 am
Also, I find Brooks’ criticism of the stimulus – a rehashing of the CW – to be especially tired. The stimulus was far from perfect, but Brooks and his ilk are constantly complaining that the stimulus didn’t do enough for “job creation,” then criticize it as a “porkfest.” What make-work jobs do they support that they wouldn’t also deride as a porkfest? During the stimulus debate, you had conservatives raise an enormous fuss about things like aid to movie and television producers and millions of dollars to restore the National Mall, both of which were the exact definition of immediate job creation. The vast majority of the stimulus’ job creation that remained intact is in infrastructure spending, all of which takes time to ramp up, no matter how “shovel-ready.” How do things like weatherization, broadband expansion, and road construction not count as job creation?
Moreover, most economists’ critique of the stimulus package is that it was too small, and that it didn’t include enough spending. Yet it was Brooks’ beloved Blue Dogs who pulled out $100+ billion worth of aid to states.
As Krugman has pointed out – and remember, he’s critical of the stimulus package – it will reduce unemployment 1-2% by next year, which is what it was designed to do. Arguing that it has proven a failure when it is exactly on schedule is pretty disingenuous.
Were Brooks’ and most of the CW-brokers arguing that the tax cut portions of the stimulus were ineffective and should have been a payroll tax holiday, they’d be on strong grounds. But that’s not the focus of their critique. Instead, they’re arguing that it should have focused on some other type of magical “job creation” in contrast to the somehow “fake job creation” that the stimulus represents.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:57 am
joe, adam, what the fuck is wrong with you? I mean, the Gallup stuff is on the web. Look it up, you lazy lying sacks of shit. Gallup had Bush at 55/42 in late November 2004. They have Obama at 55/41 as of two days ago. (You might want to look at the nice little comparison tracker that USA Today has up–pretty cool.) I know, Obama’s numbers are still much more impressive, because he’s cool, just like you.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I am, and it shows that Bush didn’t break 50% after day 1,519. Comparing Bush two months into his second term to Obama six months into his first, furthermore, is something so stupid that only a conservative would think it was an argument.
Bush blew it going after social security. Right now, health care reform in general, and the public option in particular, are more popular than Obama himself. Until he delivers, his numbers will suffer.
No comparison.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Thomas,
You’re cherry-picking highs and lows. Using the Real Clear Politics average, as of 10/28/04 (the last day before Election Day I can retrieve), Bush’s Approval/Disapproval was 48.9 to 47.1. RCP currently has Obama at 56.6 to 37.9. That really isn’t close.
In fact, even looking for the best possible date in RCP during the brief honeymoon Bush had after winning the 2004 election, the best I could find was 11/20/04, when Bush was 52.7 to 43.0. That still is way worse than Obama.
Of course by this point in his second term, Bush was way less popular: 45.3 to 49.1 on 7/22/05.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Even if I take Thomas’ Bush second/Obama first term comparison and then look at similar dates, Thomas still looks like an idiot.
Bush II: July 15, 2005 49 – 48
Obama: July 19, 2009 55 – 41
Thanks for my new tool, Thomas.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Consider this. Walt Minnick is a Democratic house member in Idaho because Bill Sali was kind of an asshole. Minnick will probably not get reelected. This has nothing to do with overreach. I think similar stuff happened in 1994 especially with Democrats in the south.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Thomas is off by a factor of 10.39.
Good enough for conservative policymaking, I guess ….
July 21st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
how many of the people who now disapprove of Obama’s handling of healthcare do so because the he and Congressional Dems are not going far enough?
July 21st, 2009 at 12:34 pm
85% support either “fundamental changes” or “complete rebuild” of the health care system.
72% think the government should offer a public option to compete with private insurers.
64% think the government should guarantee insurance for all Americans.
The right will pretend that America is rejecting Obama’s agenda when in fact they’re just impatient for it.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:40 pm
… and now it looks like there will be no August recess.
Heh.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
JM, first the data is what the data is, and I accurately described it. As for the suitabiliy of first vs second term comparisons: suit yourself–compare the first term numbers. Do you think Obama will be 57/34 or better in a month? Want to make it interesting?
And, no, people aren’t impatient to have their taxes raised and their medical care taken over by the Democratic party. Call your congressman to get your hip replaced. Make sure you’re active in the party if you want to live a long life. No, that’s not what people are looking for.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:53 pm
By being off by a factor of 10?
Nighty-night.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Thomas, once again, you are completely disingenuous. You’re cherry-picking individual polls, not the RCP average which is far lower. And you’re picking polls from a specific short-lived upturn just following the election, which you then expand to “November 2004″. Let’s try rewriting your first post with the accurate information:
I remember a single day’s Gallup poll sometime in late November 2004, which was several points higher than the RCP average at the time, that average itself being a short-term peak compared to his much lower ratings both before and after, when young Yglesias was telling us that Bush–with poll numbers similar to Obama’s now–was what the American people wanted, and that people were enthusiastic about Bushism.
Yes, Thomas, it’s amazing why he wouldn’t use Bush’s highest outlier poll during a short-term spike, which is still lower than Obama’s daily numbers of course, as evidence that the people enthusiastically wanted Bushism.
Stop lying. Everyone here sees right through it. I explained to you exactly why Bush won with a 48/47 approval rating. You know it and you’re still trying to lie.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:56 pm
And, no, people aren’t impatient to have their taxes raised and their medical care taken over by the Democratic party.
Oh, and yes, they actually are. There is majority approval for the specific tax structure in the House plan (which affects 1.2% of the population of course), and a public option has 72% approval.
Once again, stop lying.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Why anyone pays any attention to the hidebound, hopelessly fatuous, four-eyed, dandruff-laden, neocon chickenhawk schlimiel David Brooks is beyond me.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I agree with the gist of your post, Matt, but I believe Brooks has a point when he states that Obama is deferring much of his agenda to the “Old Bulls” in a Congress that doesn’t fear him. Yes, Obama came into office with a progressive agenda (Wall Street bailouts notwithstanding) that the public seems to find popular. But he’s left it up to Congress to shape policy, and – especially in the Senate – this has led to watered-down half-assed measures that don’t inspire much confidence in his agenda. other administrations have had more success pushing their priorities through Congress partly by playing hardball – Obama’s post-partisan consensus-building approach (or whatever they’re calling it these days) is basically getting him rolled.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:03 pm
HARDER! YOU ARE NOT CLUTCHING YOUR PEARLS HARD ENOUGH!
You can do it!
July 21st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Bush is looking better and better as each day passes. Watch out what you pray for because you just might get it (and also have to pay for it.) Obama didn’t win because of his left wing ideas. He won because he was not Bush.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:46 pm
As I said over @ Ezra’s blog, watching a few Democratic senators slowly throw away what the party has been trying to do since Truman should honestly be embarrassing to every Democrat.
PLEASE go on over to ActBlue and make yourself heard.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Congressional Democrats are good at overthinking political issues, and at coming up with rationalizations for why giving in to special interest demands are the only politically feasible option, but the evidence suggests that the public remains enthusiastic about Obamaism.
=========================================================
Absolutely enthusiastic!!! Giddy even, if you ignore the evidence!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-20-obama-poll-economy_N.htm
At six months in office, Obama’s 55% approval rating puts him 10th among the 12 post-World War II presidents at this point in their tenures.
However, there is a widening disconnect between Obama’s personal standing and support for the policies he advocates:
• By 49%-47%, those surveyed disapprove of how he is handling the economy, a turnaround from his 55%-42% approval in May. The steepest drop came from conservative and moderate Democrats.
• By 50%-44%, they disapprove of how he is handling health care policy.
• A 59% majority say his proposals call for too much government spending and 52% say they call for too much expansion of government power.
• Expectations of the economy’s turnaround are souring a bit. In February, the average prediction for a recovery was 4.1 years; now it’s 5.5 years.
• The administration’s stimulus package isn’t seen as a benefit by most whether viewed in the short term or the long term, in how it will impact the country or individuals. Only a third think it will help their own family’s finances in the long run.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:59 pm
other administrations have had more success pushing their priorities through Congress partly by playing hardball
Really? I’d say the track record of that approach in recent years is pretty dismal.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Campesino, it’s as if there’s been some sort of “backlash” to passing a stimulus or doing bank bailouts w/o them having an immediate impact on the economy! Weird.
In the real world, that stuff takes time. And as always, the Dems have to mop up the mess Repubs made with the economy. It costs them political points in the short term, but eventually things will get better for workers and for the Dems.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Meanwhile, I have to say that I think the general phenomenon of “overreach” — and especially of “liberal overreach” — is wildly overblown. It’s not as if what happened in 1994 was the congress passed Bill Clinton’s big health reform package, then the public didn’t like it, then in revulsion they turned against Democrats. Nor did congress pass the proposed BTU tax, then the public didn’t like it, and then in revulsion they turned against Democrats. The noteworthy thing about the first two years of the Clinton administration was the lack of ambitious progressive programs put in place. And you could say the same about Jimmy Carter. Whatever it is people reacted against in 1978, 1980, and 1994 it wasn’t actually existing left-wing governance.
============================================================
Of course, Matt has totally forgotten (if he ever knew) about this little Democratic health care faux pas that happened back when he was in grammar school.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/18/us/conferees-agree-to-repeal-disputed-medicare-program.html
House and Senate conferees agreed early this morning to repeal the 16-month-old Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act, intended to protect 33 million older Americans from the high costs of extended illness.
In an action tinged with bitterness and disappointment, the negotiators responded to the protests of thousands of elderly people, who resented the surtax they paid for benefits many already received as retirees. The surtax, up to $800 a year, was paid by the wealthiest 40 percent of beneficiaries, who assailed it as an unfair tax burden.
The conferees ended weeks of negotiations by adopting the House postion to repeal the program, which limits a patient’s hospital payments to $560 a year and would have provided other benefits in the future: a ceiling on payments to doctors starting in 1990, and 50 percent of the cost of prescription drugs starting in 1991. The Senate had voted 99 to 0 to retain the ceiling on hospital payments, financed by a flat premium paid by all Medicare beneficiaries. Back to the Full Congress
The bill now goes back to the full Congress for final action this weekend, and there will be efforts in the Senate to preserve the hospital benefits.
============================================================
Let’s see: surtax, unfair burden paid by wealthiest beneficiaries, ceilings on payments to doctors for cost control. Sound familiar??
So sorry Matt, you’re wrong again – there really is an example of “overreach” on health care reform where Congress had to eat crow in the face of a voter revolt in 1989.
If you think the current members of Congress don’t know about this, you’re wrong. Also, if you don’t think Blue Dogs and Moderates are doing their own polling in their districts and acting in accordance with the results you’re wrong on that too.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Aw, I run the grocery store, and all that’s left of Thomas when I get back is a little stain on the pavement.
Thanks a lot for leaving some for me, fellas.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:50 pm
…
Heh. You know what would really kill Obama? Some race-baiting, just like the Willie Horton ads.
Man, I hope it takes a long time for Republicans to learn this lesson.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Heh. You know what would really kill Obama? Some race-baiting, just like the Willie Horton ads.
Oh Joe, you just can’t help yourself can you?
July 21st, 2009 at 6:22 pm
What happened in 1994 was that Republicans killed the progressive agenda. Democrats were dispirited and didn’t show up to vote, while Republicans were invigorated and showed up in droves. This is why it’s so important that Obama gets Health Care done.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:22 pm
pass the ideas Barack Obama has proposed
Which ideas are those ? Surely you don’t think that the House bill, that even Mr. Obama himself said he isn’t entirely familiar with, is his handiwork.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:30 pm
[...] to Comments It’s time to ignore the Repiglicans and get this stuff passed. clipped from yglesias.thinkprogress.org David Brooks, predictable enough, says Democrats are overreaching and destined to reap the [...]
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:53 am
No, I can’t. Watching the failure of race-baiting during the 2008 elections was one of the most enjoyable, encouraging develops in my political life. You kind did everything you could to use Obama’s race and background against it, and I have to admit, I was afraid it was going to work.
But it didn’t. It failed. That kind of politics is gone.
You’re right, I just can’t help myself from enjoying the death of the longstanding stain on this country’s honor, and reliving how it happened. I was there!
July 22nd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I think you are right – and also note that the poll found a majority supports the House health plan, which also was buried in the “Obama and health reform are DOOMED” bent of the Post story.
Bottom line – it’s July 2009, 16 months before the next election. If the Democrats can get their crap together and pass a bill in the next few months, over a year later we could very well be looking at an improved economy and people saying, “hey, they actually did pass health reform and a large stimulus bill and things are OK, I guess all that stuff Republicans said was bullsh*t.”
So bring on Waterloo, baby – perhaps it hasn’t occurred to Jim DeMint that Obama’s the Duke of Wellington and his pathetic, shrunken crazed rump of a party is the Napoleon here?
July 25th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Wow— The mis-quoting and fabricating of facts in this Blog is amazing. If you want accurate Poll #’s, go to Rasmussen. Too many of you only believe what you read from people whom support your leanings. That then turns you deeper in to your path. Usually that is bad.
Right now=== like it or not, Obama has a -8 negative rating. He has lost the independent. Obviously the Dems and Repubs have remained about the same. The Southern Dems are kick up dust on the health care bill, ‘Course they should. A bad bill (and this is) is worse than doing nothing. First, do no harm— Congress should remember this.