I'd say that Roger and Jesse have a ways to go on that perfect solution to the healthcare question. Just as well, my Blue phone is buried in dirty laundry and I'm feeling especially unproductive ever since Michael melted my brain.
Oh yes Michael, I think all are clear that chatter in the comment threads is merely chat.
Rest assured I'm not inferring anything, I was just clowning around a tch. Also your last sentence melted my brain, for shame sir. You'll be hearing from my attourney, as soon as I find one.
If they'd have said "No, we're not offerin nuffin..." then the situation would at least be less muddled that it ended up being. To your latter comment I agree.
Well, I'll dig the Blue phone out from under my bed and call Obama on the hotline. Then Roger will light a fire in his backyard and send smoke signals to the Affiliated-Unaffiliated-Disestablished-Established-Fourth-Reconstituted-Allied-Libertarian tribes. Then the two of us will use the clarity of the proposed solution to force TVD and Koz into digging the Red Phone out of the back of the liquor cabinet at the Club and call Boehner and Cantor on the party line. There'll be a quick vetting and then the alternative HCR legislation will fly through the houses and be signed by all the party leaders with much pomp and celebration; while the far left and right partisans and the anarchists all hurtle themselves into the sea in despair (or pique). After that I shall leap astride my platinum Pegasus (his name is Archimedes) and we shall have a leisurely flap up to the Mare Imbrium where I shall enjoy an amicable Thursday evening tea with the Empress of the Moon (she's sweet on me).
But seriously, why not chat about what ideal solutions to the healthcare concerns in the comment threads? I checked out back of the League and the barrels of internet ink are still full; there's plenty of room and it's not like the GOP is offering any alternative proposals.
Oh and in fairness to Obama, I acknowledge readily he'd have had to pay a price if he'd jumped into politics as usual off the bat. I can't even say for sure he'd have turned out better than it ended up turning out this way.
Okay well consider this, let's assume we end up with something similar to PPACA either way. Which way would have been better to get there:
Obama's way- Start out with something much like PPACA, a centrist idea chock a block full of GOP ideas. The GOP ignores the concessions, swears opposition and Obama is forced to pass it on party line votes and this warty middle of the road is now Obama's baby. The GOP forswears ever liking the idea and dedicates themselves to its destruction.
The possible alternative- Start out with what Dems wanted, some moderate version of single payer or a heavy duty public insurance scheme. The GOP counters with something a lot like PPACA and through horse trading pulls Obama's plan to the right and we end up with PPACA but with the GOP forced to buy in and presumably with GOP support votes traded in exchange for the concessions that were given?
I consider the latter a better outcome. From where I'm sitting instead of playing politics Obama tried to do his hope'n change schtick and say "here, I'll meet you half way and we can be post partisan and I can get a huge victory as a post partisan President and we can sing kumbaya." The GOP replied "Bite us Commie, you get nothing." and then finally Obama, with time run out, gets stuck defending all on his own what is in essence a mongrel solution to the HCR question.
This is, mind, without going into the cascading issues the HCR debacle poured out onto the legislative session. If they hadn't spun their wheels so long on HCR maybe the Dem house could have passed a better budget. That could have eliminated the ruin of the debt ceiling fiasco. Maybe if Obama hadn't given away the farm on the Bush Tax Cut expiration maybe we could have gotten Sarbanes Oxley enacted.
It's armchair quarterbacking I know but I feel like the posture Obama adopted enabled his opposition to run headlong into the weeds and produced a lot of counterproductive results. I'm a neophyte and an amateur at politics but it seems to me that the American political system works pretty well when the politicians actually get in there and fight.
I almost halfway agree. Obama should certainly have started out trying to get what liberals actually wanted and then forced the GOP to lay out an alternative. Maybe we'd have ended up pretty close to where PPACA is now but at least then it'd have been a collaborative project.
Michael, my concerns were actually more tactical and tonal than what you're discussing. Consider, for instance, Obama's starting position. He came out right out the gate advocating the 1994 GOP position. What did he get for this? Anything at all? He certainly didn't get hailed by his opposition for meeting them part way. He gave away everything to the left of it and got nothing in return. This is a pattern of Obama's that he replicated repeatedly right up to and through the debt ceiling debate. Obama would look at the opposition, assume what he felt they wanted and then preemptively give it to them as a starting position. This maneuver utterly enraged his allies to the left and was scorned and then denied by his opponents to the right; they just pocketed his pre-emptive concessions, called him a far left socialist anyhow and bargained as if he'd never offered anything at all. Frankly the only thing I see him having gained in the long run from this behavior was his perception with the electorate as being far less partisan than his opposition. Fat lot of benefit that's done him. Best case voters think he's adult, worst case they think he's a feeb.
On a similar note he flat out refused to respond to what his opposition said and did. Waterloo was rolled out early on but Oama flat out ignored it. The GOP was sitting there pretty much saying "we're trying to run out the clock" and Obama generally let it happen. If Pelosi and Reid hadn't leaped into the breach after Scott Brown then nothing would have passed at all (and I can't begin to imagine how much worse 2010 would have been with the Dem base in flat out revolt).
Closer I think but you're still dancing around your point. Or else it's coded in rightwingese so heavily that I'm missing it. I somehow don't think Obama was deficient in popular esteem when he started up the HCR deliberations in 2008.
My assertion is on the table; Obama's bargaining style and governing philosophy regarding his opposition post election was terrible and served him poorly. I think you might disagree, maybe, but if you do you may need to assert something more clearly because at the moment you just seem to be doing the commentary equivalent of mumbling darkly. Now I think that’s fine but it sure isn’t laying out your own position very well.
Koz me lad, you say the damndest things but this time I don't have any idea what you're actually saying. Try again? TVD? I could photoshop some awsome sunglasses onto my icon if you'd like but I doubt it'd give me any of Tom's superpowers with prose.
Well one thing it'll definitely do is put paid to the Obama rainbow's and unicorns style of governance that he practiced in the aftermath of his election. This isn't to say that his posture hasn't been mostly snapped around back to reality by the debt ceiling debacle but if he loses his signature achievement from that period when he was doubling down on his Hope&Change post partisan shtick; an achievement, note, that was utterly riddled with Obama brand pre-emptive concessions; then I expect that his bargaining style will go down in the history books as one of the worst ever. It's relatively apparent that he's pretty much concluded that his posture in those early years was an error but I dare say this'll cement it.
I wouldn't shed many tears over the death of that particular delusion. But that's about all the good I can say about it.
Don't sweat it dude; focus on getting well. If fumbling in the comment thread a bit helps you pass the time recovering more easily that's a price I have no doubt the League will be willing to collectively pay.
I'm too much of a squish to take many hard positions that I can easily reverse. But I'm only 32 so there's surely time for those firm positions I have to invert. It'd be interesting if any of them do.
Well courage and taking risks hasn't been his MO since he's been elected. Obama's SSM position is completely consistant with his entire posture since becoming elected.
On “If The Supreme Court Kills Obamacare, You Can Keep Your Silver Lining”
I'd say that Roger and Jesse have a ways to go on that perfect solution to the healthcare question. Just as well, my Blue phone is buried in dirty laundry and I'm feeling especially unproductive ever since Michael melted my brain.
"
Oh yes Michael, I think all are clear that chatter in the comment threads is merely chat.
Rest assured I'm not inferring anything, I was just clowning around a tch. Also your last sentence melted my brain, for shame sir. You'll be hearing from my attourney, as soon as I find one.
"
If they'd have said "No, we're not offerin nuffin..." then the situation would at least be less muddled that it ended up being. To your latter comment I agree.
"
Well, I'll dig the Blue phone out from under my bed and call Obama on the hotline. Then Roger will light a fire in his backyard and send smoke signals to the Affiliated-Unaffiliated-Disestablished-Established-Fourth-Reconstituted-Allied-Libertarian tribes. Then the two of us will use the clarity of the proposed solution to force TVD and Koz into digging the Red Phone out of the back of the liquor cabinet at the Club and call Boehner and Cantor on the party line. There'll be a quick vetting and then the alternative HCR legislation will fly through the houses and be signed by all the party leaders with much pomp and celebration; while the far left and right partisans and the anarchists all hurtle themselves into the sea in despair (or pique). After that I shall leap astride my platinum Pegasus (his name is Archimedes) and we shall have a leisurely flap up to the Mare Imbrium where I shall enjoy an amicable Thursday evening tea with the Empress of the Moon (she's sweet on me).
But seriously, why not chat about what ideal solutions to the healthcare concerns in the comment threads? I checked out back of the League and the barrels of internet ink are still full; there's plenty of room and it's not like the GOP is offering any alternative proposals.
"
Oh and in fairness to Obama, I acknowledge readily he'd have had to pay a price if he'd jumped into politics as usual off the bat. I can't even say for sure he'd have turned out better than it ended up turning out this way.
"
Okay well consider this, let's assume we end up with something similar to PPACA either way. Which way would have been better to get there:
Obama's way- Start out with something much like PPACA, a centrist idea chock a block full of GOP ideas. The GOP ignores the concessions, swears opposition and Obama is forced to pass it on party line votes and this warty middle of the road is now Obama's baby. The GOP forswears ever liking the idea and dedicates themselves to its destruction.
The possible alternative- Start out with what Dems wanted, some moderate version of single payer or a heavy duty public insurance scheme. The GOP counters with something a lot like PPACA and through horse trading pulls Obama's plan to the right and we end up with PPACA but with the GOP forced to buy in and presumably with GOP support votes traded in exchange for the concessions that were given?
I consider the latter a better outcome. From where I'm sitting instead of playing politics Obama tried to do his hope'n change schtick and say "here, I'll meet you half way and we can be post partisan and I can get a huge victory as a post partisan President and we can sing kumbaya." The GOP replied "Bite us Commie, you get nothing." and then finally Obama, with time run out, gets stuck defending all on his own what is in essence a mongrel solution to the HCR question.
This is, mind, without going into the cascading issues the HCR debacle poured out onto the legislative session. If they hadn't spun their wheels so long on HCR maybe the Dem house could have passed a better budget. That could have eliminated the ruin of the debt ceiling fiasco. Maybe if Obama hadn't given away the farm on the Bush Tax Cut expiration maybe we could have gotten Sarbanes Oxley enacted.
It's armchair quarterbacking I know but I feel like the posture Obama adopted enabled his opposition to run headlong into the weeds and produced a lot of counterproductive results. I'm a neophyte and an amateur at politics but it seems to me that the American political system works pretty well when the politicians actually get in there and fight.
"
I have no doubt it's difficult, Nob, but this is the kind of response he thrives on. I sympathize but political discourse ain't beanbag.
"
I almost halfway agree. Obama should certainly have started out trying to get what liberals actually wanted and then forced the GOP to lay out an alternative. Maybe we'd have ended up pretty close to where PPACA is now but at least then it'd have been a collaborative project.
"
Michael, my concerns were actually more tactical and tonal than what you're discussing. Consider, for instance, Obama's starting position. He came out right out the gate advocating the 1994 GOP position. What did he get for this? Anything at all? He certainly didn't get hailed by his opposition for meeting them part way. He gave away everything to the left of it and got nothing in return. This is a pattern of Obama's that he replicated repeatedly right up to and through the debt ceiling debate. Obama would look at the opposition, assume what he felt they wanted and then preemptively give it to them as a starting position. This maneuver utterly enraged his allies to the left and was scorned and then denied by his opponents to the right; they just pocketed his pre-emptive concessions, called him a far left socialist anyhow and bargained as if he'd never offered anything at all. Frankly the only thing I see him having gained in the long run from this behavior was his perception with the electorate as being far less partisan than his opposition. Fat lot of benefit that's done him. Best case voters think he's adult, worst case they think he's a feeb.
On a similar note he flat out refused to respond to what his opposition said and did. Waterloo was rolled out early on but Oama flat out ignored it. The GOP was sitting there pretty much saying "we're trying to run out the clock" and Obama generally let it happen. If Pelosi and Reid hadn't leaped into the breach after Scott Brown then nothing would have passed at all (and I can't begin to imagine how much worse 2010 would have been with the Dem base in flat out revolt).
"
Closer I think but you're still dancing around your point. Or else it's coded in rightwingese so heavily that I'm missing it. I somehow don't think Obama was deficient in popular esteem when he started up the HCR deliberations in 2008.
"
My assertion is on the table; Obama's bargaining style and governing philosophy regarding his opposition post election was terrible and served him poorly. I think you might disagree, maybe, but if you do you may need to assert something more clearly because at the moment you just seem to be doing the commentary equivalent of mumbling darkly. Now I think that’s fine but it sure isn’t laying out your own position very well.
"
Koz me lad, you say the damndest things but this time I don't have any idea what you're actually saying. Try again? TVD? I could photoshop some awsome sunglasses onto my icon if you'd like but I doubt it'd give me any of Tom's superpowers with prose.
"
Well one thing it'll definitely do is put paid to the Obama rainbow's and unicorns style of governance that he practiced in the aftermath of his election. This isn't to say that his posture hasn't been mostly snapped around back to reality by the debt ceiling debacle but if he loses his signature achievement from that period when he was doubling down on his Hope&Change post partisan shtick; an achievement, note, that was utterly riddled with Obama brand pre-emptive concessions; then I expect that his bargaining style will go down in the history books as one of the worst ever. It's relatively apparent that he's pretty much concluded that his posture in those early years was an error but I dare say this'll cement it.
I wouldn't shed many tears over the death of that particular delusion. But that's about all the good I can say about it.
On “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and thinks its a duck…”
Don't sweat it dude; focus on getting well. If fumbling in the comment thread a bit helps you pass the time recovering more easily that's a price I have no doubt the League will be willing to collectively pay.
On “The Passionate Zeal of the Rebel Outcast – A Question for the League”
Maybe Pierre, or maybe you and I are just especially thoughtful and insightful. *coughs*
"
You with no sense of humor must have been a rather scary you to be around.
"
That there is a win. I think?
"
I'm down with that. To the battlecry of the agnostics:
I don't know and neither do you!
"
Plinko me lad, isn't firm agnostic a contradiction in terms? *Agnostic fistbump?*
"
Agnostic fistbump! Or should that be "agnostic fistbump?" ?
"
I'm too much of a squish to take many hard positions that I can easily reverse. But I'm only 32 so there's surely time for those firm positions I have to invert. It'd be interesting if any of them do.
On “The Secret Hearts of Politicians”
Agreed, I don't think the comparison is exactly fair. But it's not entirely unfair.
"
Well courage and taking risks hasn't been his MO since he's been elected. Obama's SSM position is completely consistant with his entire posture since becoming elected.
On “Thoughts From Travelworld”
Seriously.
On “Quick, turn on E! so we can see if he’s dating JWoww!”
Ah, perhaps that explains why I don't know who she is. I was aware of the Situation, but then I would wouldn't I?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.