Greg Sargent and Adam Serwer’s (as well as liberal donation cheque books) have reacted approvingly to Rep. Alan Grayson’s, “the GOP wants you to die quickly” comments in regards to GOP foot dragging and obstructionism on health care reform.
What’s really going on is that the Dem rank and file, radicalized by years of watching Dems cowed by Republican rhetoric on patriotism, national security, and many other issues, just want to see Dems show some fight and some fearlessness, and not back down every time Republicans say “boo.” It’s really that simple. The specifics of what he initially said are almost incidental.
You could argue that Grayson’s comments are beyond the pale of appropriate civil discourse. But between the Obama as Hitler comparisons and “bury Obamacare with Kennedy” signs, we’ve been far beyond that for some time. The difference is that the political press has always accepted this kind of behavior from Republicans without questioning their motives or sincerity. They’re used to it from Republicans. They’re not used to it from Democrats, and so they’re having a hard time accepting it.
Maybe Dana‘s right that Grayson’s being “unhinged,” but from a political point of view, Democrats not in the White House would probably be advised to follow Grayson’s lead and hit back. Politeness and civility were sacrificed long ago — for the Democrats, it should be all about getting the bill passed. Republicans mobilized their base to great effect — Democrats should be doing the same thing.
As I’ve said a couple of times, I’m all in on the Democrats adding a bit more gusto to their game and think that a willingness to stand up to some of the muck being flung by Republicans in the healthcare debate would do them wonders both internally and externally vis-a-vis the debate. But sinking to the level of Republicans in terms of hyperbolic and distracting debate tactics was, let’s just say, not what I had in mind.
Grayson’s comments might have been the first to hit back in something approaching a manner in kind to the talking points against which Democrats have been battling, but the nature of his comments strike me as every bit as unhelpful as much of what one has heard coming out of the GOP. There are a variety of ways that Democrats might choose to get in the game and throw some elbows that won’t draw yellow flags based on arguments that rest basically on precisely what Grayson was pointing out in a more effusive and yet still on point fashion.
Indeed, I gave one example not long ago that, while perhaps not the strongest argument overall, is certainly better than telling people that the GOP wants them to die quickly should they get sick.
And so I had wanted to go on and write a post criticizing Grayson’s comments and those who’ve fallen into the hooting and hollering about finally throwing some punches, pointing out that those punches are clearly low blows that Democrats ought to be avoiding. I was going to premise at least part of my rationale for that post on the idea that playing into these kinds of antics is now way to win over the ever important independents and build a lasting coalition for positive change in the country.
Sadly, I can’t write that post because the facts don’t support it (stubborn as they are),
As the above graph adeptly points out, Democrats having been losing ground with independents to Republicans in a fairly steady manner since Obama took office, during which time just the types of antics about which I have been wagging my finger have been employed. It might be pointed out that the poll in question, from which the above graph is derived, also notes that, “independents are more likely to oppose than support healthcare reform, and to express concerns about increased government spending and the expansion of government power,” which, of course, is true.
But the kinds of rhetorical messaging that I seek to condemn have, in no small part, played a roll in shaping public opinion on just those two debates. So it would seem that wheat is not so easily nor cleanly cut from chaff in this case and that Grayson may well be on exactly the right path for the times.
What I’m left thinking is that it is a sad state of affairs when “death panels” and “the GOP wants you to die quickly” are the rallying cries that animate independently-minded voters in the country and that we have a good deal of work remaining in reinvesting a sense of intellectual rigourousness into our political discourse.
Miss Mary 
Anne 
Jaybird 
Ryan Noonan 
dhex 
Burt Likko
{ 95 comments }
You gotta admit it’s interesting to watch though. *hands Scott some popcorn*
In a schadenfreude kind of way, I guess.
You’re not fooling me Scott me lad. I know you find all that wholesome parlimentary, question period filled Canadian political scene horribly dull.
Good reminder that I’m behind in my Canadian political blogging. Things are, I would offer, equally interesting in Canada right now, though certainly in a different way. The biggest problem for Canadians, if you ask me, is that the leadership problem facing US conservatives/Republicans besets our entire system. At whose face does one cast an admiring glance in the Canadian political scene right now? It’s not a matter of dullness, things are anything but dull right now, it’s a matter of emptiness.
Though, in my defense (re: being behind in blogging), everyone knew that government was going to stand this week, despite Iggy’s best efforts. But the next few weeks/months should be interesting.
And it seems that, like Rodney Dangerfield, no system can get my respect. Perhaps I’m just an intolerable elitist.
I hope you’re working on your Voegelin assignment?
I promised to read and post on it, I didn’t say when ;) It’s on my always too long list. Will probably get a start this weekend.
My mum keeps me appraised of Canadian tidbits but her party (the NDP) is running things in Nova Scotia so all I get from her now is provincial politics because she’s always going to their meetings. Gag me with a spoon!
Well yes to it all. D’s can and should do better then copying the sleaziest tactics of R’s. Especially when they could sling so many more honest killer blows at the R’s. Yes is about time the D’s started to show some spine and fight back. And yes there is a massive double standard about acceptable behavior. R’s have been saying this kind of sleaze and worse for years and that gets a brief tut-tut. Now that a D does it panties are bundling.
Do you think they’re bundling or maybe bunching? Bundling is giving me visions of people’s panties flying off their bodies and clustering like a colony of bees. Either way I love it so I’m going to steal it and save it for future use. Thanks Greg!
Strategically I understand where you’re coming from, Greg. But do you really want the basis of your party’s success to be about playing the Republican game better than the Republicans? Is that something to be proud of?
You know, I wonder what planet you guys come from. I always thought the Repubs were the sissy boys and the commie-dems the abortion/euthanasia death squad, kgb, control goons….did I miss anything? How’s this for a tea party placard….”Stamp out life on Earth, Vote Commie-Dem
I think, by and large, the prize for intemperate hyperbole tends to go to the Republicans, particularly over the past, say, six months.
Bob- R’s are only sissy boys when they are with their paid dominatrix’s after they finish writing speeches about gays being evil and how R’s are so moral.
got a good chuckle from that… thanks.
The problem with playing dirty politics is that it can quickly anger those who dislike the waste of time associated with doing so and it removes what little respect many already have for their political leaders. Low voter turnout, like that in the US, is often a sign of voter apathy based on not believing that voting has any effect. When the politicians waste effort with this sort of theatrics, many people will be even more disillusioned.
North- I think is a sack vs bag or pop vs soda kind of thing. In some regions panties bunch in others they bundle.
Scott- well I’m not a dem, although I do play one on the intertoobz. My preference leans toward wonkish policy analysis and spirited but polite debate. So I’m old enough to accept that there many ways which I am just out of touch with modern American life. Sadly the choice seems to be between letting the R’s corner the market on sleaze or sleazing back. If that is the best we can do, I think the D’s need to at least show some spine and fight back. I wish we had a good FDR or teddy r, to fight back at a higher level.
PS teddy r would likely be a flaming liberal now.
The best fighters fight clean and hard. Win with honour, die with honour.
was that from 300?
Heh, no. But it could have been. That thar is a Scott H. Payne original you’ve got on yer hands.
Impressive. But I expect you to have a beefy, buffer icon soon.
For that quote to really sing you need to ramp up the homo-eroticism quotient a bit.
Duly noted.
I don’t know how much I’d read into that graph as a demonstration of the success of GOP tactics. Note how in 2005, the numbers were equal at percent, and at around the time of the elections last year, GOP identification was at an all-time low and Dem identification at an all-time high. A lot of that seems to me to be disgust with how the GOP behaved while it was in power. But now it’s not in power any more, so that fact alone is going to cause something of a reversion to the mean. Meanwhile, the Dems are in power now, which is going to cause some reversion to the mean on their end as people who sided with them because they weren’t Republicans rather than because of any real agreement on Dem policies start jumping ship.
Since we’re only talking about a 2-3 point shift in favor of the Republicans and a 3-4 point shift against the Dems, I think this is a more likely explanation than anything having to do with GOP tactics. Lest we forget, the GOP was really, really unpopular a year ago. It may be that GOP tactics are at least not hurting it, but I’m not sure I’d say this is evidence of those tactics actually succeeding.
Well, even those tactics not hurting them undermines the basis of what I was hoping to argue. So in terms of the post, whichever way you choose to read the chart, the effect is essentially the same.
I tend to think – and this is an argument I’ve been (subtly, perhaps) making since my piece at Schwenkler’s old digs about Talk Radio Dogmatism – that rhetorical style doesn’t mean a heck of a lot when it comes to electoral success and failure. However, I think it makes a big difference in the long run when you’re talking about your ability to actually govern when you’re in power. When you turn everyone who disagrees with you on a given issue into a clear enemy, they’re not going to be willing to help you out much when you’re in power and are working on an issue that they actually do agree with you on.
Relatedly – and I hadn’t thought about it quite like this in the past – these costs may not be terribly large to Republicans with close ties to the base, even in the long run, because movement conservatives generally are not too interested in passing a lot of legislation and/or reforms to begin with.
But for the Dems, these kinds of attacks may well create significant long-term problems because movement liberals are highly interested in passing lots of legislation when they’re in power. I’m just speculating, but I wonder if maybe this explains why Dems are generally less willing to engage in this sort of over-the-top rhetoric and attack.
I’m inclined to push back against the first component of your suggestion, Mark. I would offer that rhetorical style was a reasonable factor in Obama’s win over McCain.
That the election was stacked in Democrats’ favour was, of course, the biggest factor. But even on that point, there was no small amount of consternation about whether other of the Democratic candidates would be able to do the trick. Hence the fireball that was the Edwards campaign.
And so when one looks at the Democratic primary race, rhetorical style was, perhaps the determining factor, which, in turn, perhaps supports your final speculation.
All I’m suggesting, though, is that rhetoric still seems to play more of a role in electoral success or failure than you seem to be suggesting. After all, elections are at least in part (perhaps in large part) won or lost on the candidates’/parties’ ability to “sell” their narrative.
No doubt that Obama was an excellent candidate, while at least the 2008 iteration of McCain was exceptionally weak. One thing I just suggested in the other thread was that I think the quality of candidates you get from a particular party is a direct function of how motivated and passionate your base is in its willingness to support the party, which I suspect is a function of the economy and the progress of wars. I haven’t thought that much about this, but at first thought, it seems to be pretty plausible.
Regardless, in the general election, I’m skeptical that Obama’s rhetorical style made that much of a difference. While the election was by no means close, let’s not forget that Obama only got 53% of the vote to McCain’s 46%. Considering the fact that we were entering a recession and were in an increasingly unpopular war, that’s about the margin of victory you would expect. In fact, under the various political science forecast models (mostly based on factors external to the actual candidates), Obama was expected to garner between 48 and 58% of the vote, with the clear majority of models making predictions in the upper part of that range (52-58%). Point being, Obama did just about exactly what you would have expected a generic Democrat to do last year.
I suppose I would ask what it is that you think set up those parameters in the first place? I’m not suggesting that it had everything to do with rhetorical style, but neither would I say that rhetorical style had nothing to do with it.
This was a particularly lengthy election that informally went on for the better part of two years. So if we divorce rhetorical style from a particular candidate and latch on to parties, it could be said that the run up to the general, with prevailing circumstances playing out as they did, left plenty of room for rhetorical style to weave a narrative that each party presented, the electorate then mulled over, and then set the parameters for success/failure.
Well, most of the parameters that are used in those forecast models are purely economic, which has little to do with the narratives established by the parties. Another parameter is often just the amount of time the incumbent party has had control of the White House, which again has nothing to do with any narratives. Popularity of the sitting President is an element in some of those models, and I suppose that can be a function of the narrative the two parties build, but in this case, I’m not so sure: Bush’s extraordinary unpopularity was the result of a lot of things, but I don’t know that many of those things can be attributed to the Dem narrative about Bush. A huge factor was obviously the Iraq War (and I would argue civil liberties issues), but the Dem Party (as opposed to liberal activists) didn’t have that much of a compelling narrative on that since so many of them had supported the war from the beginning and had proven spineless when it came to warrantless wiretapping and the like. To the extent that the Dems had a compelling anti-GOP narrative blaming them for the economy going into the tank, I can see that playing a small role, but even there the history is pretty clear that the party in control of the Presidency almost always gets the blame for/takes the credit for the the state of the economy.
Is it possible that rhetorical style can make a point or two difference, though? I’m sure it is. But the forecast models in this case would suggest that it probably didn’t even make that much of a difference.
Though, I am inclined to agree with you that rhetorical focus of the variety we are debating tends to be a very short-sighted strategic animal.
I agree that scorched earth rhetoric makes it very hard to work with the other side. I don’t think D’s have avoided those tactics out of a desire to work with r’s in the future. I just don’t think that is part of the calculation for either side.
My read, which I’ve seen in other places, is that D’s have grown timid in debate because most of them came of age since the Regan era. They had to move right as a party and felt attacks from the right were difficult to counter. Also the MSM, which D’s tend to care about unfortunately, has many biases and blind spots. One is that they often take the R framing of issues and see D’s and Lib as somehow less authentically American. So D’s have avoided directly challenging some really bad , nasty arguments. This debate is an example. R’s have been calling out death panels, etc, Con columnists like coulter call L’s traitors, Derbyshire at the NR says woman shouldn’t have the right to vote, yet that doesn’t seem to be big deal. However a D saying something naughty and it is an issue.
It really is striking what an impact Reagan had on US politics.
We can dislike it, but Bob on cue per his statement below, shows why there is a difference between honor and naiveté. at some point the game is what it is and puffing about the way it should be just doesn’t cut it.
Would it be completely irrational to note that the word “holocaust” has other denotations/ connotations, it *does not* always and everywhere point to the Nazi slaughter of millions of Jews and others.
It’s clear to me that the Representative was *not* evoking the Nazi era.
So another non-apology apology is needed. “I’m sorry that bat-shit crazy loons on the right were to dumb to understand that ‘holocaust’ has more than one meaning.”
“Usage Note:
Holocaust has a secure place in the language when it refers to the massive destruction of humans by other humans. Ninety-nine percent of the Usage Panel accepts the use of holocaust in the phrase nuclear holocaust. Sixty percent of the Panel accepts the sentence As many as two million people may have died in the holocaust that followed the Khmer Rouge takeover in Cambodia. But because of its associations with genocide, people may object to extended applications of holocaust. When the word is used to refer to death brought about by natural causes, the percentage of the Panel accepting drops sharply. Only 31 percent of the Panel approves the sentence In East Africa five years of drought have brought about a holocaust in which millions have died. In a 1987 survey, just 11 percent approved the use of holocaust to summarize the effects of the AIDS epidemic. This suggests that other figurative usages such as the huge losses in the Savings and Loan holocaust may be viewed as overblown or in poor taste.·When capitalized Holocaust refers specifically to the destruction of Jews and other Europeans by the Nazis and may also encompass the Nazi persecution of Jews that preceded the outbreak of the war.
“WORD HISTORY:
Totality of destruction has been central to the meaning of holocaust since it first appeared in Middle English in the 14th century, used in reference to the biblical sacrifice in which a male animal was wholly burnt on the altar in worship of God. Holocaust comes from Greek holokauston (“that which is completely burnt”), which was a translation of Hebrew ‘lâ (literally “that which goes up,” that is, in smoke). In this sense of “burnt sacrifice,” holocaust is still used in some versions of the Bible. In the 17th century the meaning of holocaust broadened to “something totally consumed by fire,” and the word eventually was applied to fires of extreme destructiveness. In the 20th century holocaust has taken on a variety of figurative meanings, summarizing the effects of war, rioting, storms, epidemic diseases, and even economic failures. Most of these usages arose after World War II, but it is unclear whether they permitted or resulted from the use of holocaust in reference to the mass murder of European Jews and others by the Nazis. This application of the word occurred as early as 1942, but the phrase the Holocaust did not become established until the late 1950s. Here it parallels and may have been influenced by another Hebrew word, ô’â (“catastrophe,” in English, Shoah). In the Bible ô’â has a range of meanings including “personal ruin or devastation” and “a wasteland or desert.” ô’â was first used to refer to the Nazi slaughter of Jews in 1939, but the phrase ha-ô’â (“the catastrophe”) became established only after World War II. Holocaust has also been used to translate urbn (“destruction”), another Hebrew word used to summarize the genocide of Jews by the Nazis.”
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/holocaust
A notable pre-1940s usage is to be found amongst the closing pages of The Great Gatsby. I shan’t spoil the end of that novel for those who’ve not read it, but it’s quite jarring to the contemporary reader to come across it. Made even more so, I suppose, by the usage pre-dating the term’s application to Nazi genocide.
It makes me despair that “undecideds” are undecided not because they have yet to resolve their internal debate but because said debate has never started… and, as such, they are impressionable to the point where a politician yelling “(other party) wants you to kill and eat your pets!” makes them say “No, not Fluffy!” rather than “what vile slander!”
If we’re lucky the commie-dems in the house will be sticking screw drivers into each others ears by Friday…we can hope!
Is that hyperbole?
I think it’s time, once again, to link to Josh Marshall’s “B*tch Slap Theory” of politics:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/003295.php
“is certainly better than telling people that the GOP wants them to die quickly should they get sick.”
Oh man, you too?? Am I the only one who can tell the difference between “The Republican plan is don’t get sick, and if you do, die quickly” and “Republicans want you to die quickly?”
Now clearly Grayson’s statement is NOT HELPFUL to the debate, but I think much of that has to do with mischaracterizing what the man said. I ask you, what’s the most accurate way to describe Grayson’s point:
A) The Republicans have no plan.
B) Republicans want people to die quickly.
If you answered B, you’re not helping the debate either.
from matt yglesias’ blog:
“The rule is that conservatives talk about their causes in stark, moralistic terms and progressives don’t. Instead, progressives talk about our causes in bloodless technocratic terms.”
very true.
Is it just me, or has Sullivan handed out more Moore awards than Malkin awards this past week?
Scott,
In a review of the comments I’d like to offer some balm that I don’t think has been proffered yet. Your analysis seems to be based on looking at both parties as being of similar makeup when such is not currently the case.
It is surely significant that the Republican support at the moment represents primarily their die hard base. As such their base would respond very positively to fire breathing “red meat” rhetoric since these people are true believers. The Democratic Party at the moment and certainly in the recent past, had a truly huge number of independent voters, of you’re not Bush voters and “jump on the victory wagon” voters.
As such I’d submit that while Republicans can see a benefit from yelling their heads off; they motivate their base and charge up the believers the Democrats can not employ the same strategy because they have so much more to loose. Certainly they can charge up their base but for every true Democrat believer they rile up they’ll chase off several of the moderates who are currently loosely in the Democratic orbit. Keep in mind that all we’re looking at is a minute shift in the polls. Consider the Republican situation: they’re virtually a regional rump party at the moment. There’s not a serious commentator in the house who thinks they have a hope in hell at the Presidency in 2012 and I’ve not read any credible analysis that says they’ll even seize the majority in either house next election. (the structural advantages are overwhelmingly Democratic in terms of incumbency and seats to defend).
Sure the Republicans have been seizing some news cycles but lets be substantive for a moment. Obama is proceeding calmly about his foreign policy goals with nary a substantive bump in the road from right wing inveigling. The Senate and House are slowly grinding towards progressive aims and the primary substantive opposition there has come not from Republican operators but timid blue dog Democrats. A very quick reminder: this is year one! Obama was sworn in last November! The election isn’t around the corner, it’s at the other end of the street. Politically the Democrats have an enormous amount of time remaining to achieve their policy goals. The law of politics says that the closer you get to getting actual proposals into law the less popular you’ll be because people have something specific to complain about. These poll numbers seem to me to be indicating profound powerlessness on the right wing. They’re pouring out all that smoke because they have no heat.
It is surely significant that the Republican support at the moment represents primarily their die hard base. As such their base would respond very positively to fire breathing “red meat” rhetoric since these people are true believers. The Democratic Party at the moment and certainly in the recent past, had a truly huge number of independent voters, of you’re not Bush voters and “jump on the victory wagon” voters.
Early in W’s presidency, the Republicans support was much more than “their die hard base”. Certainly for 2001-2003. Yet, the rhetoric from Republicans was similar “red meat”. How many times were people labeled Traitor! if they did not agree with the Republican rhetoric at the time? Even Sullivan pushed this canard (how many times did he label the anti-war left a “fifth column”?).
I don’t see any difference in how Republican are acting now and how they acted when they were in power and had a much different (and larger) base of support. This is what Republicans do. They’ve done this for decades. Their goal has always been to demonize those they disagree with and explain to the public why they should be afraid of those demons. They can’t win with logic, so they resort to fear.
Well early in W’s presidency they didn’t do any such thing or at least no where near to the degree that they do now. The entire reason Al Gore lost (aside from his shoving Clinton in the closet and being a windbag with the charisma of a dead skunk) was that W was a rather genial harmless seeming dope. But the right certainly did embrace that attitude whole heartedly after 9/11. I dare say that the whole country going out of its’ mind in terror after that event probably factors into it as well.
The worst part about what Grayson said is that it’s not true. Republicans don’t care if you die quickly, slowly, or not at all. The point is they don’t care.
If you die slowly then it’s more expensive.
Just stepping in here, I’m torn on this, as someone who admired Grayson as exactly the kind of principled liberal that we need more of (especially here in Florida). That he represents what was until recently a solidly Republican district (voted for Bush both times and Ric Keller for four terms) but doesn’t feel the need to pander to thoughtless centrism is something I admire.
He also won points with me for this.
Scott,
I think that this is an interesting article, but I’m none to sure if I agree with it entirely. I think that the “Die Quickly” approach is a good one: it took a ferocious socialist like Nye Bevan to get Britain’s healthcare system universally covering everyone. A bunch of softly humming technocrats aren’t going to be suffecient for America, either. The kind of attitude you need is the sort where even after you’ve triumphed you grouch that you were only able to defeat opponent doctors because you “stuffed their mouths with gold”. That’s seemingly just how it goes.
However: is there not a possibility that the independent “lean” stuff is just a consequence of response to the party which is in government? People who refuse to identify with either party are presumably none too happy with the political system as a whole (since either one party or the other is invariably in charge of it). Accordingly the party they favour least will be the one operating the machinery of politics.
Oh, I like this far more than what I thought was going on.
Very nice.
That last paragraph of yours is political poetry.
James, it certainly is possible and, in fact, is likely. But, as I said to Mark above, that that trend herds independents to the GOP, given the rhetorical tactics in which the GOP engaged over the past couple of months, still leaves me feeling less than thrilled. And it, I would argue, does little to dissuade Democrats from jumping in the mud as well.
Further, I’m not opposed to the ferocity that you describe in your first paragraph, to be sure. I’ve called for an increase in aggressiveness on the part of Democrats a couple of times now. But I remained convinced that how that aggressiveness is framed matters and that Grayson’s framing isn’t the best possible option out there — that is plays into exactly the kind of lowest common denominator emotionalism that already pervades much of the debate. Can we not call for a higher level of ferocity?
Here’s how it works: the leading GOP shills, most notably Glenn Beck, style themselves as some kind of revolutionaries, immersed in forging a movement that will overturn the political system, thwart socialism & return power to the people. The result is that people who have disdain for the entire process find themselves sympathising far more with the GOP, who are high-mindedly digging in their heels & having nothing whatsoever to the actual political process (for instance, refusing to participate at all in the healthcare bill) than with the active, clearly politically engaged Democrats.
Although the desired outcome of the GOP’s tactics is the maintainance of the status quo, the appearance makes them more amenable to the grouchy anti-political types.
But that aside, yes, it would do the Democrats some good to actually start using some rhetoric. That would be as fitting a tribute as any to Kennedy. This we are agreed on. What I’m not sure of is how exactly you expect it to manifest: Grayson simply points out that the Republican plan is the continuation of the situation America is presently in, where if you are not covered you are in serious trouble & would do the economy a lot of good to die immediately, rather than lingering around chewing through dollars nobody’s quite sure who pays for. The state of America is terrible, & the Republicans have nothing to suggest save some orders issued by the insurance companies which they reckon would make them more profits.
Okay, well here’s a framing I think I could get behind,
“Listen, there’s lots of talk about health care reform from Republicans, but the fact of the matter is: they don’t have an alternative plan. The Republican willful inaction means that they are putting the lives of those for whom the system is fundamentally failing at risk. Period. End of story. Republican obstructionism is risking American lives and I think that is unconscionable.”
I think that framing is ferocious, it’s hard hitting, it encapsulates what you’ve described above, and it speaks to the potential outcome of Republican actions (or lack thereof) instead of imputing false motives, of which I think Grayson’s comments are guilty. Again, I’m not saying that Democrats shouldn’t go full contact, but the nature of the war that you wage matters, it makes a difference and that is a difference that is worth paying attention to.
Scott my lad. The Dems have been saying stuff like this since what, July? It’s not going to stick in the brain of yoru average knuckle dragging independant or lilly livered moderate and as such it’s pretty weak tea.
I must have missed it, I don’t personally recall hearing anything that was quite that stark and pointed. But, I’m not omnipresent.
No Scott, this from the Honorable John Boehner, is “ferocious” “hard hitting,” “I listen to my Democrat friends, and I wonder if they’re more interested in protecting terrorists than in protecting the American people.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/12/AR2006091201484.html
So your suggestion is that Democrats need to sound more like John Boehner circa 2006?
I’m suggesting that democrats need to get a spine, become ferocious and hard hitting. I find you suggestion neither.
You know Scott, I really don’t think of you as a person with democrats best interests at heart.
You’ve got my number, Bob. This is all just a great big ruse to screw Democrats over. Good investigative journalism there, friend.
Friend-O, it is opinion.
Right, and your opinion is that to be sufficiently “ferocious” and “hard hitting” Democrats need to start sounding more like John Boehner…?
No.
My *suggestion* is that democrats need to get a spine, be more hard hitting.
My *opinion* is that you are not the best person to give advise to democrats.
Like John Boehner, the person whose quote you used to demonstrate what getting a spine and being hard hitting would look like.
It was hard hitting. No on ever accused John of being spineless – that I know of.
Interesting theory, that Democrats should shoot for a replication of John Boehner. Not the direction in which I would have gone, but, as they say, it’s a free country.
“Not the direction in which I would have gone….”
Yeah, I know. You take the “weak-sister” route as you wrote so eloquently above.
Scott, I think you get all gooey and warm when a commie-Dem smiles at you!
B.C., your brain is “gooey” but not “warm.” Haha.
Wow. Scott got “concern troll”ed?
Damns.
For the record, dude, I understand where you’re coming from and tend to agree. Compromise enough of your principles for the sake of pragmatism and, next thing you know, you’re without principles. If you’ve abandoned everything and haven’t accomplished anything thereby… you’re an empty shell with neither principle nor accomplishment to point to.
“For the record, dude, I understand where you’re coming from and tend to agree.”
We have three dudes here, Scott, BC and myself. So who are you agreeing with?
Scott.
I also think that “Concern Troll”ing Scott (our benefactor) is so far off base that even I (Jaybird!!! OF ALL PEOPLE!!!) am willing to say it’s off base.
I’ve thought he was wrong before. I’ve thought that he overstated things before. I’ve *NEVER* thought he was presenting a position that didn’t come from himself. Other than that, I don’t think I’ve seen him post other than earnestly (except when it was obvious sarcasm on his part or that pin-stripe mafia… content).
Saying “you know what, I think you’ve got ulterior motives” is just weak-assed shit right there.
I mean, shit. Come out and call him a Canadian and say that his opinions matter to you as much as French opinions mattered the week after 9/11. Get jingoistic. That is, at least, talking about your internal state. To call him out on his internal state not being what he (quite obviously earnestly) is treating him far shabbier than he deserves.
I think it’s a bit unfair to ask conservatives to come up with an alternative to a national health care. It would be a kin to asking liberals to find a way to undermine the feds.
I found this article by Chait intriguing. I especially like Wyden’s proposal.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113425104
Wyden seems to have a lot of very good proposals.
Well in that case they need to explain why the tens of thousands who’ve died (according to a recent study) don’t deserve to live.
I’m giving you the “hook.” Cohn. J. Cohn.
I have two words regarding state plans, Jim Crow.
In what way does Jim Crow play here? Different states would have different quality plans? Wouldn’t a state with an inferior plan eventually be forced by its electorate to change? Or is it more direct, that ‘Bama wouldn’t insure blacks?
1. I think of myself as an American, not a Mississippian (Kansan) so inequality biased on residency is not acceptable to me.
2. Who ended Jim Crow laws? Did Mississippi end such laws on their own?
I’m a coastal elite and hence not a “real American”. I find it incomprehensible why I should settle for what Mississippi will agree to and then pay for a good chunk of their share for the hash that’s offered. I’d much rather lead by example and let them find their own solution.
Who is asking you to “settle?”
Single payer is back on the table? The original proposal was that if my state could craft a better, more comprehensive solution to health care we could opt out of the national one. That suggests the national would be inferior. If we’re not allowed to choose a better option, I call that settling. What would you like to argue?
“Single payer is back on the table?”
Why the question mark?
Because it isn’t going to happen.
Lori Montgomery: Single-payer was off the table before the Congressional debate began. That’s why you don’t see most policy reporters wasting time on it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/10/01/DI2009100103934.html
Care to provide a link that suggests it’s being seriously considered?
Please point me to where I said it was “being seriously considered.”
So it’s on the table but not being seriously considered? Yup, and I want to sign on to this double speak? No thanks.
The double speak began when you confused “Chait” with Cohen. Yep, no thanks!
I blogged about this but I’m of the opinion that the Grayson claim was a stunt to raise money and nothing deeper than that.
Grayson could finance his re-election. I hear he has zillions.
He could, his minimum net worth is 31.2 million, but that hasn’t stopped wealthier politicians than he from fund-raising, besides there’s big difference between the ability to self-fund and raking in political contributions to a PAC you can use to support other candidates, not to mention becoming a darling star of the base.
I’m just saying the guy used props, this was planned and there wasn’t anyway the White House could avoid commenting negatively on this.
So why would a freshman Rep in a Republican leaning district risk running afoul of the President, when he won based on success in a county that is presumed to have gone his way because it went Obama by 12 points. It was a calculated political move and I could be cynical but I don’t think it was particularly genuine.
This is it exactly. The GOP has been doing this to a greater degree for decades. It started small but continued to grow into the mainstream GOP throughout the 90s and with the election of Obama there’s not even an attempt to dress it up as anything other than what it is. And Democrats have been unable to counter it and the media echoes it.
No effective way to counter it has yet been found. Not even by Obama. During the campaign the constant claims and constant losses in the news cycle meant that until the economic crisis forced people to actually sit down and think about what was best for the country, he had fallen behind for the first time in the polls.
So there is no choice. A large part of the GOP elected officials either parrot or actually are the same kind of odd nihilists as the vocal base. This kind of response forces people to actually think how ridiculous the arguments the Republicans are espousing are. The GOP is fighting for the status quo, and the status quo results in increased deaths. If they don’t want you to die if you get sick, what is the purpose for their steadfast refusal to propose anything that actually has any kind of logical chance of success? It’s only the shocking things that force people to stop being lazy and think about the situation. The Democratic solution to reform might not be the best one, but it’s the only one we currenlty have.
What about propaganda do any of you not get? As unpleasant as it is to contemplate a debate in which Democrats sink to the level occupied for years by Republicans, Grayson’s gambit is far better propaganda than the cogent arguments one could mount against any number of the Republicans’ so-called “ideas.” Their willingness to toss aside rational argument and to inject emotion wherever possible into the national discourse is the only real advantage Republicans have–and a huge advantage it is. Unfortunately, as Hitler long ago pointed out [http://fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/PEOPLE/DocPropa.htm], that is a winning strategy because logic is never as compelling to the average person as vitriol.
Yes. The Democrats totally need to be more like Hitler.
HEY!!! OBAMA!!! EVEN HITLER WAS ABLE TO GET THE OLYMPICS IN 1936!!!
You know perfectly well that I was not saying the Democrats need to be more like Hitler. I was tempted not to reply because if you were really interested in honest debate and discussion, you wouldn’t make such absurd remarks. The point is that the Republicans have the advantage, like Hitler, of having no scruples. Moreover, you can bet that Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Grover Norquist, et al., have read Mein Kampf carefully. Their tactics are straight out of Hitler’s playbook: the mindless slogans, the whopping lies, the name-calling, all calculated to appeal to the lowest common denominator. (If you think Limbaugh, for example, believes half the stuff he says, you need a brain transplant.) It is no wonder that, out of sheer frustration, some Democrats are ready to fight dirty.
You offer a perfect example of the idiocy of some of the Republican tactics, the complete abandon with which the–and you– attack Obama over the Olympics. Why wouldn’t POTUS attempt to bring the Olympics here, especially when the host city would be his hometown? Recall that W went on vacation to the previous Olympics and spent four days as a spectator. Actually, he spent eight years as a spectator, watching the country spiral down the tubes on account of his policies.
I think that someone should inform Tony how often you’re meant to take Jaybird seriously & completely at face value…
Message received. Thanks.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }