...and I wonder what some of the consequences of the Mass. Senatorial election will be.

Will the dems try more underhanded and sneakier tricks to get this healthcare billl passed? What tricks will they use?

Or will they go back, open the doors, invite in the formerly excluded and start over, in the normal way, with debate, discussioon, and compromise?

Maybe they will just stick their heads further into the sand, insist that nothing they do or have done is wrong, its all someone else's fault, and they still know what's good for America better than the Americans.

Will the Repubs be in a mood to start over and work with the dems, after a year of being kicked to the curb and treated like mushrooms?

The elections of 2010 are a long way off - i am more interested in what happens the next week and the next month.

I don't think we'll know in the next week, and probably not the next month. It's back to the drawing board to see how if they can get from here to there. Jim Webb's statement definitely put a halt on anything further voting happening on the health insurance legislation. Let's see what the tone is in the State of the Union message. It will probably say a lot, though it will hardly provide the roadmap.

I do know one set of platitudes we'll see over and over again in the SotU - jobs, jobs, jobs. And we feel your pain and are doing things about it. What policies it will lead to is hard to say, though I'm guessing Stimulus II (aka Congressional job security) won't be far behind.

(01-20-2010 01:35 PM)gsloth Wrote:  I do know one set of platitudes we'll see over and over again in the SotU - jobs, jobs, jobs. And we feel your pain and are doing things about it. What policies it will lead to is hard to say, though I'm guessing Stimulus II (aka Congressional job security) won't be far behind.

+1

I think President Obama heard that message clearly, and knows the importance of seeing results on the jobs front before incumbents (mostly Democrats) face the electorate again in November.

(01-20-2010 01:53 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(01-20-2010 01:35 PM)gsloth Wrote:  I do know one set of platitudes we'll see over and over again in the SotU - jobs, jobs, jobs. And we feel your pain and are doing things about it. What policies it will lead to is hard to say, though I'm guessing Stimulus II (aka Congressional job security) won't be far behind.

+1

I think President Obama heard that message clearly, and knows the importance of seeing results on the jobs front before incumbents (mostly Democrats) face the electorate again in November.

On the other hand, they are going to scale it back to try to give Obama a claim to victory.

I don't like it. I'm against anything that can be used later on to impose a more intrusive plan through Reconciliation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_o...e_overhaul

(01-20-2010 01:53 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(01-20-2010 01:35 PM)gsloth Wrote:  I do know one set of platitudes we'll see over and over again in the SotU - jobs, jobs, jobs. And we feel your pain and are doing things about it. What policies it will lead to is hard to say, though I'm guessing Stimulus II (aka Congressional job security) won't be far behind.

+1
I think President Obama heard that message clearly, and knows the importance of seeing results on the jobs front before incumbents (mostly Democrats) face the electorate again in November.

Why do you say that?

His comments today gave no indication that he got any such message.

He's at that turning point where it's obvious that his BS isn't working.
When Bill Clinton reached that point, he turned back to the middle and had a relatively successful run.
When Shrub reached that point, he dug in his heels and became widely disliked.
Obama's comments today are out of the dig in your heels playbook. If he stays that course, he really does have a chance to go down as the worst president in history.

(01-20-2010 09:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why do you say that?

His comments today gave no indication that he got any such message.

He's at that turning point where it's obvious that his BS isn't working.
When Bill Clinton reached that point, he turned back to the middle and had a relatively successful run.
When Shrub reached that point, he dug in his heels and became widely disliked.
Obama's comments today are out of the dig in your heels playbook. If he stays that course, he really does have a chance to go down as the worst president in history.

Am interested in the specifics of the "dig in your heels" vibe that you got from the press reports today.

I haven't seen/read the whole ABC interview, but the following quote is contrary to your assertion of Shrub-like obstinance, at least with respect to health care:

Obama urged lawmakers not to try to jam a bill through, but scale the proposal down to what he called "those elements of the package that people agree on."

"We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people," the president said in an interview with ABC News. "We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't then our budgets are going to blow up. And we know that small businesses are going to need help."

Obama seeks pared down health care bill

I've seen a couple of blog posts that the best way forward for politically is for him to call up Eric Cantor and say "OK lets vote on your plan." Can't see that happening, but an interesting idea.

Landrieu, Nelson and Lieberman have to be bummed tonight given the shift of power to the moderate R's. All that horse trading for naught.

(01-20-2010 10:52 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(01-20-2010 09:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why do you say that?

His comments today gave no indication that he got any such message.

He's at that turning point where it's obvious that his BS isn't working.
When Bill Clinton reached that point, he turned back to the middle and had a relatively successful run.
When Shrub reached that point, he dug in his heels and became widely disliked.
Obama's comments today are out of the dig in your heels playbook. If he stays that course, he really does have a chance to go down as the worst president in history.

Am interested in the specifics of the "dig in your heels" vibe that you got from the press reports today.

I haven't seen/read the whole ABC interview, but the following quote is contrary to your assertion of Shrub-like obstinance, at least with respect to health care:

Obama urged lawmakers not to try to jam a bill through, but scale the proposal down to what he called "those elements of the package that people agree on."

"We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people," the president said in an interview with ABC News. "We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't then our budgets are going to blow up. And we know that small businesses are going to need help."

Obama seeks pared down health care bill

I've seen a couple of blog posts that the best way forward for politically is for him to call up Eric Cantor and say "OK lets vote on your plan." Can't see that happening, but an interesting idea.

Landrieu, Nelson and Lieberman have to be bummed tonight given the shift of power to the moderate R's. All that horse trading for naught.

Nelson gave up the "Cornhusker Kickback" last week. Landreiu and Nelson probably knew their bribe was conditional as well.

"conditional bribe" = sort of pregnant?

(01-20-2010 10:52 PM)ausowl Wrote:  I haven't seen/read the whole ABC interview, but the following quote is contrary to your assertion of Shrub-like obstinance, at least with respect to health care:

"We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people," the president said in an interview with ABC News. "We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't then our budgets are going to blow up. And we know that small businesses are going to need help."

That's not what that quote says to me, but if you want to read it that way, go ahead. What it says to me is, "Damn, they didn't fall for the BS we were selling them, so let's repackage it and sell it a different way."

The coming months will tell us which interpretation is correct.

(01-20-2010 11:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That's not what that quote says to me, but if you want to read it that way, go ahead. What it says to me is, "Damn, they didn't fall for the BS we were selling them, so let's repackage it and sell it a different way."

The coming months will tell us which interpretation is correct.

"those elements of the package that people agree on" - coupled with taking reconciliation off the table - means nothing?

Even if you think the O-man is full of BS - he is saying out loud that he acknowledges the D's are in a weaker position.

Even Cantor-McCain are on record as of Tuesday saying the US of A needs health care reform.

So yep, I guess we'll see.

I suspect that negotiating with Cantor-McCain might produce some change we can believe in (Hah!).

After watching the full ABC interview - way too much "our problem is a failure to communicate."

Has there ever been a politician after getting B-slapped by the voters who didn't say something along the lines of "we just need to communicate better."

Will be interesting to see if this anti-Obama mood is really more of an anti-incumbent vibe and how if that translates into more support for Medina in the R-primary.

(01-21-2010 11:11 AM)ausowl Wrote:  

(01-20-2010 11:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That's not what that quote says to me, but if you want to read it that way, go ahead. What it says to me is, "Damn, they didn't fall for the BS we were selling them, so let's repackage it and sell it a different way."
The coming months will tell us which interpretation is correct.

"those elements of the package that people agree on" - coupled with taking reconciliation off the table - means nothing?
Even if you think the O-man is full of BS - he is saying out loud that he acknowledges the D's are in a weaker position.
Even Cantor-McCain are on record as of Tuesday saying the US of A needs health care reform.
So yep, I guess we'll see.
I suspect that negotiating with Cantor-McCain might produce some change we can believe in (Hah!).
After watching the full ABC interview - way too much "our problem is a failure to communicate."
Has there ever been a politician after getting B-slapped by the voters who didn't say something along the lines of "we just need to communicate better."
Will be interesting to see if this anti-Obama mood is really more of an anti-incumbent vibe and how if that translates into more support for Medina in the R-primary.

I think Obama is a lying, scheming, conniving Chicago street hustler, who still thinks he can BS his way out of anything. I took his comments as his next effort to BS his way out of this, instead of facing the reality that, as you say, he got B-slapped.

I hope he can convince me otherwise, because we really do need someone who can rise above that and be the kind of transformational leader that he said he'd be. But I don't see it coming from Obama, and I have far more confidence in him than I do in Reid or Pelosi or Rahm.

We do need health care reform. My own preference is a French/German Bismarck insurance-based system, with Swedish no-fault malpractice insurance. That doesn't take 2000 pages.

As a Medina supporter, I hope it does translate into more support for her. None of the other choices--Perry, Kay, White--do a thing for me.

(01-21-2010 11:11 AM)ausowl Wrote:  Will be interesting to see if this anti-Obama mood is really more of an anti-incumbent vibe

The Obama camp has tried to spin this as part of the anger that put Obama into office. I don't see it as the same - in 2008 the anger was with Bush. Now, the anger is at Obama, for his broken promises, hamhanded tactics, and lack of results with both houses solidly in the control of the Dems. Same "kind" of anger, different target, different reasons. I don't think it is anti-incumbent at all. Who was the incumbent in Mass.? Nobody.

I think Obama is giving lip service to working with the Republicans, a promise that died on the Inauguration stand, but I think in the back rooms, when he is talking to Emmanuel, Axenrod, Pelosi, and Reid, the target remains the same and the preferred method is still No Republicans Wanted.

Tomorrow: One year since he promised to close Gitmo in one year. Unless there are a lot of transfers happening today, not going to happen. Easy to criticize during a campaign, no so easy when you are the decider. Terrorist trials in NY played a large part in electing Brown.

(01-21-2010 11:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Terrorist trials in NY played a large part in electing Brown.

That's interesting - hadn't thought about that angle. Do you know if that issue got polled at all?

Stuck at home today with ceder allergies and sick kid, so might have time to look into if there were exit polls.

(01-21-2010 12:58 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(01-21-2010 11:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Terrorist trials in NY played a large part in electing Brown.

That's interesting - hadn't thought about that angle. Do you know if that issue got polled at all?

Stuck at home today with ceder allergies and sick kid, so might have time to look into if there were exit polls.

Post-election internals said that was second factor after health care.

that's really interesting re ny trials - that's so far off my radar of top 10 things to be worried about - motivated to vote on - never would have considered

the handling of the X-mas bomber yes, ny trials - never would have guessed

couldn't find any published polling - yet

from politico:

Good Tuesday morning. A DAY WITHOUT DATA: No exit polls from today’s Senate special in Massachusetts, where the polls are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. The consortium scrambled to put something together — for the “why,” more than for the call — but wasn’t confident a reliable system could be built so fast. After all, it was just nine days ago that the Boston Sunday Globe carried the banner headline, “Senate poll: Coakley up 15 points.” (Note to self: In a volatile political environment, don’t save a poll conducted Jan. 2-6 for the paper of Jan. 10.)

I should say more correctly that I heard a report that post-election internals said it was the second factor. Haven't seen anything hard on that, and can't vouch for anything more than that I heard it.

Did the same polling information also list how big of a deal Coakley calling Schilling a Yankees fan was? As a sports fan (that's why I'm on these boards in the first place, after all)...there's bone-headed political moves, there's shooting a reporter in Missouri (thanks, John Kerry), there's riding a tank like it was a parade float (thanks, Michael Dukakis), and then there's calling the Hero of the Bloody Sock a Yankees fan.

(01-21-2010 01:44 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  Did the same polling information also list how big of a deal Coakley calling Schilling a Yankees fan was? As a sports fan (that's why I'm on these boards in the first place, after all)...there's bone-headed political moves, there's shooting a reporter in Missouri (thanks, John Kerry), there's riding a tank like it was a parade float (thanks, Michael Dukakis), and then there's calling the Hero of the Bloody Sock a Yankees fan.

She was pretty much done by the time she said that. I doubt it helped, but it didn't turn the tide. The gaffes in total were not high on the list I saw.

I said Trials in NY, but it was a more generic attitude toward terrorist trials and attittudes toward them in general, and did include the Christmas bomber wannabe and his treatment. Some commentators and interviewed voters said it was a bigger factor than healthcare, but I find that debateable. In his acceptance speech (victory speech?) he hit all the main points of his campaign, from the "People's Seat" to the truck, to health care (the crowd starting chanting "41, 41, 41"), to bringing back honesty in government (the crowd started chanting "Yes, we can"), and he also made mention of this issue. As best as I can remember, he said our Constitution is there to protect OUR country, and that taxes should go to fight the terrorists, not to hire lawyers for them. It got a roar of approval, and clearly was of importance to that crowd.

If they are going to have the Terrorist Trials in the Moynihan Courthouse there in Manhattan, I feel sorry for the neighbors. That will be a security nightmare.