OO - I'll grant him this. You ignore the out of pocket that typically come ourside of the premium payments. However, even for a family, it typically is capped at $3k to $5k out of pocket per year.

There are the cases where a procedure might be done that isn't in network or isn't covered, which I'm sure would ramp up the costs. I'm guessing that number is if someone had no coverage and no leverage to reduce what one gets billed for (or have the insurance company negotiate a lower rate), that their out of pocket might nominally be that, if one has some a major procedure or two along the way. In which case, maybe that figure applies.

(01-07-2010 05:07 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  Without commenting on the merits of these bills one way or the other, here are some better examples of railroading:

Medicare prescription drug benefit: Introduced in House 6/26/03, passed House (by one vote) at 2:32 a.m. on 6/27/03, passed Senate 7/7/03.

Tax cuts of 2003: Introduced in House 5/8/03, passed House 5/9/03, passed Senate (by simple majority, not supermajority) 5/15/03.

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001: Introduced in House 10/23/01, passed House 10/24/01, passed Senate 10/25/01, signed into law 10/26/01.

Those are some fast trains.

I sincerely understand opposition to the current health care bill, even if I don't agree with many of the arguments advanced. I think that, given the opinion polls d1owls4life mentions, that it is politically risky in the short term for Democrats to pass this bill.

Still, given all the attention this legislation received over many, many months, including the eventful month of August, I cannot agree that the deliberative process failed in this case. Democrats won big in the last two elections; voters rewarded them with sizable Congressional majorities and the White House; they proposed a bill they campaigned on; they debated it for many months among themselves, with their constituents, and, yes, with Republicans; and they crafted a bill in the end that received 60 votes (a supermajority!) in the Senate. Isn't that how it is supposed to work?

Elections have consequences. This bill is one of them.

As much as many of you are despairing, realize that there are many, many of us across our vast country who (still!) support the President in general and this bill in particular. We voted Democrat in 2006 and 2008 and are happy to see them deliver on their legislative and policy agenda. We hope it keeps up.

Come 2010 and 2012, we may prove to be in the minority. If so, the Democrats will lose seats and power and maybe even the White House. If that happens, I for one won't be very happy, but what can I say? Elections have consequences.

While I understand your position, the fact that Democrats won the elections in 2008 had very little to do with health care, and had a lot to do with political popularity, or lack thereof.

I posted on another thread what I thought the most important factors were in the presidential election in 2008 (don't recall if you had comments there), but the Democratic Party platform was not in the Top 5. Again, if the agenda were what won elections (for the majority of the voters anyway, on either side) than Howard Dean could've won in 2008 . . . . and that had NO chance of occurring.

Whatever you think of the current President, health care, etc, good or ill, P.T. Barnum's maxim about the inability to underestimate the intelligence of the American public is something to keep in mind at all times.

Neither political party is much interested in trying to persuade the American public on facts or presenting real detail or information about things. Emotion is what leads people to vote. Always has.

The problem with Democracy is that it takes a strong middle class to work. That is, it takes a standard of living that makes most people relatively comfortable with their lives.

People will generally opt for the common good, provided they don't feel oppressed, taken advantage of, etc.

The more the standard of living slips, whether through unchecked immigration of an underclass or some other increase in population where resources and opportunity don't keep up . . . . .

I believe Tocqueville wrote the Democracy will work until people realize they can vote themselves money . . . . .

well, the less satisfied people are with what they have in the grand scheme of things, the more likely that is to occur.

When a political party exploits that fact, if they are not careful, it can lead to devastating consequences.

Hitler took advantage of economic difficulties in Germany.

Venezuela is arguably much worse off today than when Chavez took office, with no relief in site.

While Cuba has 'improvements' they can point to in the 50 years of Communist rule, it's undeniable that their overall population has suffered and that their standard of living in almost all regards has not kept up with other countries in the hemisphere.

I've digressed. No, I don't equate either Obama or the Democrats to Chavez or Castro, so please don't go there.

My point is that the swing voters and previously unaffiliated voters who gave Obama and the Democrats the election not only were not voting on health care, but many of the voters had no real idea health care was an issue when they cast their vote.

Not to say that you and a quantifiable minority didn't care, which you did. Or that there weren't educated voters who voted on the health care portion of the platform, and nothing else.

But if it were the platform that was being voted on, then Howard Dean could've run for President and run.

And in any event, for both Republicans and Democrats, the platforms are rarely discussed in dispassionate terms. The appeal to both sides is based much more on emotion than it is on logic or rational thought.

I took those numbers to be the cost of the insurance, not a cost of insurance and/or out of pocket costs. My insurance that i reference is a $5000 deductible. I don't know about my son's.

Mainly I am just curious about where he got those numbers - both of them.

(01-11-2010 06:59 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  While I understand your position, the fact that Democrats won the elections in 2008 had very little to do with health care, and had a lot to do with political popularity, or lack thereof.

I posted on another thread what I thought the most important factors were in the presidential election in 2008 (don't recall if you had comments there), but the Democratic Party platform was not in the Top 5. Again, if the agenda were what won elections (for the majority of the voters anyway, on either side) than Howard Dean could've won in 2008 . . . . and that had NO chance of occurring.

The reason that the Democrats scored large Congressional wins in 2006 and 2008 was basically the voters were upset about the War in Iraq and that Obama wasn't Bush.

Had Bush not gone into Iraq and if Bush had finished Afghanistan by 2006, Obama wouldn't be President. I don't know who would be President, but it wouldn't be Obama.

As for Iraq, the "real story" about how the Operational Core of Al Qaeda was destroyed by the US Military won't be told for a while, given how Special Operations are classified. Thousands of Jihaidis went to Iraq from all over the Muslim world to "fight the infidels" and a large percentage of them died there.

Fighting Jihadis in Iraq was both a blessing and a curse. On the positive side terrorists coming to Iraq gave the US the ability to kill or capture experienced terrorists otherwise they would have been lying dormant in their home countries, where they would have posed a threat to their government or to the US. The war also gave the U.S. vital intelligence on Al Qaeda’s networks and support and logistics systems. Iraq was like "fly paper" in a way.

On the negative side lots of our people were killed and the financial cost was astronomical. We still don't know how Iraq will turn out.

(01-11-2010 11:20 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(01-11-2010 06:59 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  While I understand your position, the fact that Democrats won the elections in 2008 had very little to do with health care, and had a lot to do with political popularity, or lack thereof.

I posted on another thread what I thought the most important factors were in the presidential election in 2008 (don't recall if you had comments there), but the Democratic Party platform was not in the Top 5. Again, if the agenda were what won elections (for the majority of the voters anyway, on either side) than Howard Dean could've won in 2008 . . . . and that had NO chance of occurring.

The reason that the Democrats scored large Congressional wins in 2006 and 2008 was basically the voters were upset about the War in Iraq and that Obama wasn't Bush.

Had Bush not gone into Iraq and if Bush had finished Afghanistan by 2006, Obama wouldn't be President. I don't know who would be President, but it wouldn't be Obama.

As for Iraq, the "real story" about how the Operational Core of Al Qaeda was destroyed by the US Military won't be told for a while, given how Special Operations are classified. Thousands of Jihaidis went to Iraq from all over the Muslim world to "fight the infidels" and a large percentage of them died there.

Fighting Jihadis in Iraq was both a blessing and a curse. On the positive side terrorists coming to Iraq gave the US the ability to kill or capture experienced terrorists otherwise they would have been lying dormant in their home countries, where they would have posed a threat to their government or to the US. The war also gave the U.S. vital intelligence on Al Qaeda’s networks and support and logistics systems. Iraq was like "fly paper" in a way.

On the negative side lots of our people were killed and the financial cost was astronomical. We still don't know how Iraq will turn out.

Generally agree with you, although I believe Obama was a unique candidate. Intelligent, a gifted public speaker, and demographically he was the right man at the right time. Hilary was ambushed, and given the economy and the media's packaging of Iraq, I don't believe any Republican could've beaten him (and probably not Hilary either)

Democrats had no one else who would've been nearly as marketable or galvanized so many special interest groups and young people.

I think ultimately Iraq will turn out better than Afghanistan. I suspect people knew that early on. Saddam Hussein's need to bluff with WMD's (because Iran was a constant threat, among a host of ill-conceived reasons) provided ample cause. The U.S intelligence community weren't the only people who misread the shell game. But ultimately Hussein's long history of abusing his own people (Kurds), neighbors (Kuwait), and his stance on Israel (openly paying bounty money to the families of suicide bombers after peace talks broke down at the end of the Clinton era) made him a perfect target.

I understand the argument that if we go into Iraq, we should go in other places, or not at all. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand that logic. I don't understand the point that Saddam's regime was an innocent victim of our aggression. I don't agree with the implication that our presence is responsible for all the deaths in Iraq since the invasion, as if the resistance were primarily Iraqi people who hated America.

As you point out many, and probably most of the people we were fighting were terrorists imported from outside Iraq. The Iraqi people, by and large, were not fond of Hussein. He was tolerated in the same way that Hitler and others who bring temporary stability are tolerated.

I think it will be some time before we can accurately assess the costs (some of which we obviously know) versus what was accomplished in Iraq.

I don't agree with the concept that our presence in Iraq made people in the middle East hate us more. We rescued Kuwait, have tried many times to broker peace, have been allied with some of those we believe hate us . . . . and we still had 9/11 and reaction in that part of the world was one of jubilation.

I think if long-term, Iraq is stabilized and conditions improve, our own image will improve as a result.

Obviously that's something on which the jury is still out, and it's clearly a long road ahead.

But whether our own self-loathing allows us to see it or not. The terrorists, beheading kidnappers, the suicide bombers and the militias and their death squads are the ones who've taken the greatest the greatest toll on the Iraqi people.

I believe that the average Iraqi citizen has a much clearer view of that than we do here in our relatively safe country.

(01-12-2010 12:02 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-11-2010 11:20 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(01-11-2010 06:59 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  While I understand your position, the fact that Democrats won the elections in 2008 had very little to do with health care, and had a lot to do with political popularity, or lack thereof.

I posted on another thread what I thought the most important factors were in the presidential election in 2008 (don't recall if you had comments there), but the Democratic Party platform was not in the Top 5. Again, if the agenda were what won elections (for the majority of the voters anyway, on either side) than Howard Dean could've won in 2008 . . . . and that had NO chance of occurring.

The reason that the Democrats scored large Congressional wins in 2006 and 2008 was basically the voters were upset about the War in Iraq and that Obama wasn't Bush.

Had Bush not gone into Iraq and if Bush had finished Afghanistan by 2006, Obama wouldn't be President. I don't know who would be President, but it wouldn't be Obama.

As for Iraq, the "real story" about how the Operational Core of Al Qaeda was destroyed by the US Military won't be told for a while, given how Special Operations are classified. Thousands of Jihaidis went to Iraq from all over the Muslim world to "fight the infidels" and a large percentage of them died there.

Fighting Jihadis in Iraq was both a blessing and a curse. On the positive side terrorists coming to Iraq gave the US the ability to kill or capture experienced terrorists otherwise they would have been lying dormant in their home countries, where they would have posed a threat to their government or to the US. The war also gave the U.S. vital intelligence on Al Qaeda’s networks and support and logistics systems. Iraq was like "fly paper" in a way.

On the negative side lots of our people were killed and the financial cost was astronomical. We still don't know how Iraq will turn out.

Generally agree with you, although I believe Obama was a unique candidate. Intelligent, a gifted public speaker, and demographically he was the right man at the right time. Hilary was ambushed, and given the economy and the media's packaging of Iraq, I don't believe any Republican could've beaten him (and probably not Hilary either)

Democrats had no one else who would've been nearly as marketable or galvanized so many special interest groups and young people.

I think ultimately Iraq will turn out better than Afghanistan. I suspect people knew that early on. Saddam Hussein's need to bluff with WMD's (because Iran was a constant threat, among a host of ill-conceived reasons) provided ample cause. The U.S intelligence community weren't the only people who misread the shell game. But ultimately Hussein's long history of abusing his own people (Kurds), neighbors (Kuwait), and his stance on Israel (openly paying bounty money to the families of suicide bombers after peace talks broke down at the end of the Clinton era) made him a perfect target.

I understand the argument that if we go into Iraq, we should go in other places, or not at all. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand that logic. I don't understand the point that Saddam's regime was an innocent victim of our aggression. I don't agree with the implication that our presence is responsible for all the deaths in Iraq since the invasion, as if the resistance were primarily Iraqi people who hated America.

As you point out many, and probably most of the people we were fighting were terrorists imported from outside Iraq. The Iraqi people, by and large, were not fond of Hussein. He was tolerated in the same way that Hitler and others who bring temporary stability are tolerated.

I think it will be some time before we can accurately assess the costs (some of which we obviously know) versus what was accomplished in Iraq.

I don't agree with the concept that our presence in Iraq made people in the middle East hate us more. We rescued Kuwait, have tried many times to broker peace, have been allied with some of those we believe hate us . . . . and we still had 9/11 and reaction in that part of the world was one of jubilation.

I think if long-term, Iraq is stabilized and conditions improve, our own image will improve as a result.

Obviously that's something on which the jury is still out, and it's clearly a long road ahead.

But whether our own self-loathing allows us to see it or not. The terrorists, beheading kidnappers, the suicide bombers and the militias and their death squads are the ones who've taken the greatest the greatest toll on the Iraqi people.

I believe that the average Iraqi citizen has a much clearer view of that than we do here in our relatively safe country.

What has me worried about the future of Iraq is the prospect of some serious "ethnic cleansing" by the Shias and the Kurds against the Iraqi Sunnis.

Before the war, Iraq was about 35% Sunni. Since the war about 40% of the Sunnis have left Iraq and resettled in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. Many got out because they had links to the Baathists.

The Iraqi Insurgency was organized by mainly Sunnis. They killed a bunch of Shias, as well as US troops. The Shias and Kurds are still pissed.

Now the US is leaving, and some Kurds and Shias would like for the remainder of the Iraqi Sunnis to leave as well- or else. If the US pulls out of Iraq without a solution to this problem, its going to get messy- just like Cambodia I'm afraid.

We will have to be re-settling Iraqi Sunnis in Detroit it looks like.

Never fight a war you don't intend to win. Shrub got us into two of them--Iraq and Afghanistan. The inevitable results were two quagmires that he handed off to Obama. Now Obama has three choices for each--fight to win, give up and lose, or continue the quagmire. His rhetoric says he would choose the first for Afghanistan and the second for Iraq, but I don't know how that rhetoric stands up to facts. On the other hand, if he doesn't bring an end to the quagmires, he's probably a one-termer.

The economy may make him a one-termer. Jobs are not coming back any time soon. Right now nobody is going to hire until they see what happens with health care "reform." If it passes with financing provisions that raise the cost of employment (and it's hard to see how to raise enough money without) then I would expect an increase in unemployment. Maybe a half to one percent, as the market has already discounted for a lot of this. If health care "reform" implodes, Obama and the dems have egg all over their faces, but we probably do not get the further job losses. Cap-and-trade is next, and it will clearly cost jobs. There can be no question that it will move a bunch of jobs overseas to places like India and China. I have seen estimates as high as five million. If card-check is next, I think it will drive away more jobs than cap-and-trade. Arrayed against these massive job loss drivers, we have federal make-work programs and green jobs. We can't pay for the make-work jobs except by borrowing from people who may decide to quit lending to us at any point (some signals have already been sent), or by further tax increases that will inevitably drive more jobs offshore. The green jobs are good, but they are a drop in the bucket compared to the problem.

I've read where pundits say if unemployment stays over 10% the republicans sweep back to power in 2010 and 2012, if it's under 8% the democrats stay in power, and if it's in between then it will be a dogfight. If the Obama agenda of health care, cap-and-trade, and card-check passes, I don't see any way that 10% can be anything but a pipe dream.

Given how much trouble passing health care "reform" has been (and is being), I don't know how far or fast the dems can go. We're still on track for the disaster scenario I've predicted, but we are moving much more slowly than I had expected, primarily because the Obama agenda is proceeding much more slowly than I had feared. For now, I've put my plans to leave on hold, waiting to see what happens.

For now the best scenario I can foresee is a republican takeover of the house and significant gains in the senate in the 2010 elections. If unemployment stays over 10% and the wars continue, both of which I expect, then that seems certain. That gets us absolute gridlock, which suits me just fine. The problem is 2012. At this point I don't trust either party enough to want one-party rule, and I don't see any republican that I would like to see as president. I think my best-case scenario is Obama's popularity tanks to the point that dems decide they need a change at the top and go with Hillary, and she squeaks into the white house with very short coattails, while republicans solidify hold on both houses of congress. In that scenario, I think Bill might actually be able to broker some real bipartisanship, and we might start getting some sensible actions.

(01-12-2010 06:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Never fight a war you don't intend to win. Shrub got us into two of them--Iraq and Afghanistan. The inevitable results were two quagmires that he handed off to Obama. Now Obama has three choices for each--fight to win, give up and lose, or continue the quagmire. His rhetoric says he would choose the first for Afghanistan and the second for Iraq, but I don't know how that rhetoric stands up to facts. On the other hand, if he doesn't bring an end to the quagmires, he's probably a one-termer.

The economy may make him a one-termer. Jobs are not coming back any time soon. Right now nobody is going to hire until they see what happens with health care "reform." If it passes with financing provisions that raise the cost of employment (and it's hard to see how to raise enough money without) then I would expect an increase in unemployment. Maybe a half to one percent, as the market has already discounted for a lot of this. If health care "reform" implodes, Obama and the dems have egg all over their faces, but we probably do not get the further job losses. Cap-and-trade is next, and it will clearly cost jobs. There can be no question that it will move a bunch of jobs overseas to places like India and China. I have seen estimates as high as five million. If card-check is next, I think it will drive away more jobs than cap-and-trade. Arrayed against these massive job loss drivers, we have federal make-work programs and green jobs. We can't pay for the make-work jobs except by borrowing from people who may decide to quit lending to us at any point (some signals have already been sent), or by further tax increases that will inevitably drive more jobs offshore. The green jobs are good, but they are a drop in the bucket compared to the problem.

I've read where pundits say if unemployment stays over 10% the republicans sweep back to power in 2010 and 2012, if it's under 8% the democrats stay in power, and if it's in between then it will be a dogfight. If the Obama agenda of health care, cap-and-trade, and card-check passes, I don't see any way that 10% can be anything but a pipe dream.

Given how much trouble passing health care "reform" has been (and is being), I don't know how far or fast the dems can go. We're still on track for the disaster scenario I've predicted, but we are moving much more slowly than I had expected, primarily because the Obama agenda is proceeding much more slowly than I had feared. For now, I've put my plans to leave on hold, waiting to see what happens.

For now the best scenario I can foresee is a republican takeover of the house and significant gains in the senate in the 2010 elections. If unemployment stays over 10% and the wars continue, both of which I expect, then that seems certain. That gets us absolute gridlock, which suits me just fine. The problem is 2012. At this point I don't trust either party enough to want one-party rule, and I don't see any republican that I would like to see as president. I think my best-case scenario is Obama's popularity tanks to the point that dems decide they need a change at the top and go with Hillary, and she squeaks into the white house with very short coattails, while republicans solidify hold on both houses of congress. In that scenario, I think Bill might actually be able to broker some real bipartisanship, and we might start getting some sensible actions.

Nothing personal, but health permitting, I see almost no chance that the Democrats run anyone but Obama in 2012.

The type of scandal it would take to get him out as the nominee may be possible, but right now it's totally unforeseeable. Assume he's never been clubbin' with Tiger Woods . . . . . . that's the type of firestorm it would take . . . . raised to the tenth power.

(01-12-2010 10:13 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Nothing personal, but health permitting, I see almost no chance that the Democrats run anyone but Obama in 2012.
The type of scandal it would take to get him out as the nominee may be possible, but right now it's totally unforeseeable. Assume he's never been clubbin' with Tiger Woods . . . . . . that's the type of firestorm it would take . . . . raised to the tenth power.

If he's sitting on 30% popularity and dem congressional candidates think its toxic for him to come into their districts, there will be a lot of pressure to replace him. He's not there yet, but if current trends hold, he will be there.

He needs a game-changer, and with 40% for and 55% against, health care reform ain't it.

9/11 saved Shrub for a while, and turning moderate saved Clinton. I don't see either of those happening to help Obama.

(01-12-2010 03:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-12-2010 10:13 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Nothing personal, but health permitting, I see almost no chance that the Democrats run anyone but Obama in 2012.
The type of scandal it would take to get him out as the nominee may be possible, but right now it's totally unforeseeable. Assume he's never been clubbin' with Tiger Woods . . . . . . that's the type of firestorm it would take . . . . raised to the tenth power.

If he's sitting on 30% popularity and dem congressional candidates think its toxic for him to come into their districts, there will be a lot of pressure to replace him. He's not there yet, but if current trends hold, he will be there.

He needs a game-changer, and with 40% for and 55% against, health care reform ain't it.

9/11 saved Shrub for a while, and turning moderate saved Clinton. I don't see either of those happening to help Obama.

Interesting last paragraph.

I see the biggest problems Bush had were Iraq and Afghanistan. Even our economic issues are tied to those wars. Our deficit surely is worse as a result. Other big issue seems to be Guantanomo and our loss of civil liberties (Patriot Act).

Unless you truly believe Republicans are evil, I'd argue that whether you like what they did or not, most of the problems people had with how we treated detainees, Abu Ghraib, etc, would NEVER have come up without September 11th. I see no way that we ever have any issue with the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, detainees, etc, because absent September 11th there is NEVER a reason to believe any of these things would've happened. They only occurred in an attempt to make us safer. People may not like that or have disagreed but it doesn't mean that the motivation was anything but that.

You may as well go back and talk about the Roosevelt Administration and their treatment of West Coast Japenese Americans and their creation of detention camps during WWII. Terribly, terribly regrettable, totally unconstitutional, but in the light of the climate at the time, something that happened, and most people bought as necessary.

I don't think 9/11 saved Bush at all. It ultimately doomed his popularity, especially given that we're in an Information Age, as opposed to how news and information was transmitted in the 1940's.

Back then, it took a long time for momentum to swing, and in general people trusted government.

What would the U.S., our economy, and the world looked like if September 11th had not happened?

What if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor?

Rhetorical questions that are wasted because those things did happen and they can't be undone.

(01-12-2010 03:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-12-2010 10:13 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Nothing personal, but health permitting, I see almost no chance that the Democrats run anyone but Obama in 2012.
The type of scandal it would take to get him out as the nominee may be possible, but right now it's totally unforeseeable. Assume he's never been clubbin' with Tiger Woods . . . . . . that's the type of firestorm it would take . . . . raised to the tenth power.

If he's sitting on 30% popularity and dem congressional candidates think its toxic for him to come into their districts, there will be a lot of pressure to replace him. He's not there yet, but if current trends hold, he will be there.

He needs a game-changer, and with 40% for and 55% against, health care reform ain't it.

9/11 saved Shrub for a while, and turning moderate saved Clinton. I don't see either of those happening to help Obama.

Remember in 1980 Teddy Kennedy tried to pull the carpet out from under Jimmy Carter because Carter wasn't "liberal enough"..

If you read some of the Democrat "Base" Websites like Democrat Underground and Daily Kos, you can see that many in the Hard Core Left Wing Democrat Base are not happy with Obama. They think he is a "sell out" with broken promises. Obama supposedly isn't liberal enough for them.

Now the Unions are PO'ed with Obama about his idea to tax their very generous Health Care plans.

Obama has wasted 9 months on this Health Care BS and I bet no Health Care Bill with any significance gets signed.

Something that requires coverage and no discrimination based pre-existing conditions would get passed. But Obama won't take what he can get and call it a day. He will push Pelosi and Reid for a modified Senate Bill and the whole Heath Care "House of Cards" will implode.

In the meantime the voters continue to get pissed.

If the Republicans get 8 or more seats in the Senate and more than 35 in the House, Obama will have a Primary Challenger, and it will be someone more significant than Dennis Kucinich.

(01-12-2010 10:26 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2010 03:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-12-2010 10:13 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Nothing personal, but health permitting, I see almost no chance that the Democrats run anyone but Obama in 2012.
The type of scandal it would take to get him out as the nominee may be possible, but right now it's totally unforeseeable. Assume he's never been clubbin' with Tiger Woods . . . . . . that's the type of firestorm it would take . . . . raised to the tenth power.

If he's sitting on 30% popularity and dem congressional candidates think its toxic for him to come into their districts, there will be a lot of pressure to replace him. He's not there yet, but if current trends hold, he will be there.

He needs a game-changer, and with 40% for and 55% against, health care reform ain't it.

9/11 saved Shrub for a while, and turning moderate saved Clinton. I don't see either of those happening to help Obama.

Remember in 1980 Teddy Kennedy tried to pull the carpet out from under Jimmy Carter because Carter wasn't "liberal enough"..

If you read some of the Democrat "Base" Websites like Democrat Underground and Daily Kos, you can see that many in the Hard Core Left Wing Democrat Base are not happy with Obama. They think he is a "sell out" with broken promises. Obama supposedly isn't liberal enough for them.

Now the Unions are PO'ed with Obama about his idea to tax their very generous Health Care plans.

Obama has wasted 9 months on this Health Care BS and I bet no Health Care Bill with any significance gets signed.

Something that requires coverage and no discrimination based pre-existing conditions would get passed. But Obama won't take what he can get and call it a day. He will push Pelosi and Reid for a modified Senate Bill and the whole Heath Care "House of Cards" will implode.

In the meantime the voters continue to get pissed.

If the Republicans get 8 or more seats in the Senate and more than 35 in the House, Obama will have a Primary Challenger, and it will be someone more significant than Dennis Kucinich.

Maybe, but ditching Obama after 4 years will alienate a significant part of the coalition that elected a Democratic President in the first place.

It would be a pyrrhic victory in the primaries for the challenger (absent some major scandal on Obama, which I do not expect).

(01-12-2010 10:53 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-12-2010 10:26 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2010 03:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-12-2010 10:13 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Nothing personal, but health permitting, I see almost no chance that the Democrats run anyone but Obama in 2012.
The type of scandal it would take to get him out as the nominee may be possible, but right now it's totally unforeseeable. Assume he's never been clubbin' with Tiger Woods . . . . . . that's the type of firestorm it would take . . . . raised to the tenth power.

If he's sitting on 30% popularity and dem congressional candidates think its toxic for him to come into their districts, there will be a lot of pressure to replace him. He's not there yet, but if current trends hold, he will be there.

He needs a game-changer, and with 40% for and 55% against, health care reform ain't it.

9/11 saved Shrub for a while, and turning moderate saved Clinton. I don't see either of those happening to help Obama.

Remember in 1980 Teddy Kennedy tried to pull the carpet out from under Jimmy Carter because Carter wasn't "liberal enough"..

If you read some of the Democrat "Base" Websites like Democrat Underground and Daily Kos, you can see that many in the Hard Core Left Wing Democrat Base are not happy with Obama. They think he is a "sell out" with broken promises. Obama supposedly isn't liberal enough for them.

Now the Unions are PO'ed with Obama about his idea to tax their very generous Health Care plans.

Obama has wasted 9 months on this Health Care BS and I bet no Health Care Bill with any significance gets signed.

Something that requires coverage and no discrimination based pre-existing conditions would get passed. But Obama won't take what he can get and call it a day. He will push Pelosi and Reid for a modified Senate Bill and the whole Heath Care "House of Cards" will implode.

In the meantime the voters continue to get pissed.

If the Republicans get 8 or more seats in the Senate and more than 35 in the House, Obama will have a Primary Challenger, and it will be someone more significant than Dennis Kucinich.

Maybe, but ditching Obama after 4 years will alienate a significant part of the coalition that elected a Democratic President in the first place.

It would be a pyrrhic victory in the primaries for the challenger (absent some major scandal on Obama, which I do not expect).

I'd do any part, including giving some money, to encourage some insurgency within the Democrats. Throw in an established left winger like Kucinich and watch Obama pander to the left for support. And in the meantime Hillary "reinvents" herself as a "moderate" to try to get appeal to the Independents.

Anyway, if the economy is still sputtering at the end of 2010, or if there is a significant terrorist attack on the US mainland in 2010-2011 Obama won't be re-elected.

Another back room deal with a special interest - the unions. The Dems are against pandering to special interests, ecept those that support them, like unions and trial lawyers.

Change you can believe in = more of the same, much more.

Unions are depressingly hilarious: there is probably no institution in the country that does more to REDUCE employment and LIMIT economic opportunity than organized labor.

My opinion is that they are very good things for their members and very bad things for nonmembers.