Waterloo

[Mr. Peabody]

Interesting take on the passage of the HCR bill by conservative David Frum -

Waterloo
March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm by DAVID FRUM | 101 Comments |

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu1q17rUkVU

[balli]

No wonder republicans are losing it. Deep in their cruel, vicious little souls they know exactly what is happening. Whether they admit it or not, I couldn't even begin to imagine the self loathing and fear they feel about who and what they are and how they've chosen to not compose themselves.

Too bad their hatred is projected out at the rest of us, but hey, I can take being called a 'fascist' by a bunch of unintelligent and hate filled sub-humans. If that's the cost of doing business, so be it, because I think the gut-punch 'conservatives' just took is entirely self inflicted and they know it. The column did a good job of summing up just that.

[Marcus Bryant]

There's little difference between "ObamaCare" and "RomneyCare." Now, as a condition of your citizenship, or your existence, if you prefer, you are required to transfer a significant amount of personal funds to large corporate insurers on an annual basis. Seems more in line with the status quo than a sharp change, but whatever gets you through the night.

[Marcus Bryant]

No wonder republicans are losing it. Deep in their cruel, vicious little souls they know exactly what is happening. Whether they admit it or not, I couldn't even begin to imagine the self loathing and fear they feel about who and what they are. Too bad their hatred is projected out at the rest of us, but hey, I can take being called a 'fascist' by a bunch of unintelligent and hate filled sub-humans. If that's the cost of doing business, so be it, because I think the gut-punch 'conservatives' just took is entirely self inflicted and they know it. This column did a good job of summing up just that.

You're a ing moron.

[balli]

You're a ing moron.

Right back at you. In fact, in addition to being a moron, you're just some ing hypocrite trying to play it like you have an ounce of decency or intelligence beyond that of the average tea-bagging idiot. But you don't fool anybody with your wanna-be moderate image. In fact, I think you're just a ing chump like the rest, without the courage of conviction. Basically, a pussy.

[Marcus Bryant]

That you believe me to be a "moderate" speaks well to your intellect.

[balli]

And that you think that I think you're a moderate, speaks poorly of yours.

[Marcus Bryant]

Straw man. I never did, dumbass.

[Marcus Bryant]

Now that we've established that the Congress can require every individual to purchase something from the corporate interests that own them, what's the limitation now? Not to mention that the impetus for this was provided by liberal Democrats/progressives/whatever, the self-chosen saviors of us all. What else can we expect the benefactors of our Congress to require us to pay for?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That you believe me to be a "moderate" speaks well to your intellect.

Mostly youre a political contrarian from what I can tell.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Now that we've established that the Congress can require every individual to purchase something from the corporate interests that own them, what's the limitation now? Not to mention that the impetus for this was provided by liberal Democrats/progressives/whatever, the self-chosen saviors of us all. What else can we expect the benefactors of our Congress to require us to pay for?

Ever heard of car insurance?

[Marcus Bryant]

Driving on a public road is a privilege. Next.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Driving on a public road is a privilege. Next.

Thats not the point. The point is that there is empirical evidence of a similar system where you are mandated by law to purcahse an insurance policy and youre not ed in the market.

I don't give a about your personal opinion on human rights.

[Marcus Bryant]

Kinda similar, that is. Not to mention that would be a state requirement.

I don't really give a about your existence, but to each his own.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Kinda similar, that is. Not to mention that would be a state requirement.

I don't really give a about your existence, but to each his own.

Feeling is mutual, bucko.

Care to expand on the federalist angle or are you just going to spew the cliche corporate overlord schtick again?

Bottomline is that there is a working system in another insurance industry where the state compels you to purchase said insurance. There are also parallels to water and power. All you posit is typical fearmonger corporate boogeyman nonsense.

That is not to say that lobbyists are not a concern but quite frankly your take smacks of Galileo and the WTC. Nebulous fear is lame.

[whottt]

No wonder republicans are losing it. Deep in their cruel, vicious little souls they know exactly what is happening. Whether they admit it or not, I couldn't even begin to imagine the self loathing and fear they feel about who and what they are and how they've chosen to not compose themselves.

Too bad their hatred is projected out at the rest of us, but hey, I can take being called a 'fascist' by a bunch of unintelligent and hate filled sub-humans. If that's the cost of doing business, so be it, because I think the gut-punch 'conservatives' just took is entirely self inflicted and they know it. The column did a good job of summing up just that.

Hypocrite? When was the last time you went and paid for a stranger's health care?

I have no insurance, I'm thinking getting some dental work tomorrow. You need to pay for it.

[Marcus Bryant]

Not the same, cuckoo.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hypocrite? When was the last time you went and paid for a stranger's health care?

I have no insurance, I'm thinking getting some dental work tomorrow. You need to pay for it.

Uhmm every paycheck he ever has a withholding from?

[balli]

I have no insurance, I'm thinking getting some dental work tomorrow. You need to pay for it.

Okay. That's not what this bill does. But okay. My family is rich as compared to most. I think we can afford to break off 3.8% of our capital gains so that your southern, texas fried teeth don't fall out.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not the same, cuckoo.

No its not the same. But at least its a similar model where it works.

All you have is:

FEAR THE CORPORATE OVERLORD!!! HE IS UNDER YOUR BED!!!!

Hmm?

Which is the more compelling argument?

[whottt]

Thats not the point. The point is that there is empirical evidence of a similar system where you are mandated by law to purcahse an insurance policy and youre not ed in the market.

I don't give a about your personal opinion on human rights.

Who says you're not ed? I've paid probably 20k thousand dollars in automoble insurance in my lifetime. I have yet to collect on a dime of it. My insruance company has yet to pay out a dime on my behalf to anyone.

Don't tell me I am not getting ed when I have paid 20k for nothing imbecile. Even the stupid of ing morons should understand that is a horrible ing deal.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who says you're not ed? I've paid probably 20k thousand dollars in automoble insurance in my lifetime. I have yet to collect on a dime of it. My insruance company has yet to pay out a dime on my behalf to anyone.

Don't tell me I am not getting ed when I have paid 20k for nothing imbecile. Even the stupid of ing morons should understand that is a horrible ing deal.

So youre advocating no compulsion to purchase auto insurance?

[Marcus Bryant]

No its not the same. But at least its a similar model where it works.

All you have is:

FEAR THE CORPORATE OVERLORD!!! HE IS UNDER YOUR BED!!!!

Hmm?

Which is the more compelling argument?

LOL. Yeah, being required to drop a large amount annually to a Congressman's sugar daddy is no big deal. And yes, there's also a difference between the cost of auto and health insurance.

[whottt]

Okay. That's not what this bill does. But okay. My family is rich as compared to most. I think we can afford to break off 3.8% of our capital gains so that your southern, texas fried teeth don't fall out.

Then why weren't you doing it idiot. Why weren't you and your family taking your 3.8& capital gains, and going and paying for health services for the 50 million that lack them? Since it is something you feel strongly about..why didn't you get off your dumb ing ass and go do it?

You think funneling it to the poor through the governement is a more efficient way of doing it?

It's like like scoring a bag of weed with 15 middle men in on the deal.