Goodbayh, dysfunctional Senate
Another senator who just can't take it anymore
Goodbayh, dysfunctional Senate
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Evan Bayh's decision to quit his Senate seat brings to mind the poetry of William Butler Yeats:
Things fall apart, the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world...
The veteran Indiana Democrat - known mostly for his thwarted presidential ambitions, his chiseled jaw, and his cautious centrism - has certainly loosed anarchy upon the political community in the wake of his stunning Monday announcement. A lot of people have been trying to divine the true reasons behind his bailout (maybe he wants to position himself for a second stint as Indiana governor, or maybe a future presidential bid; maybe he didn't relish the notion of defending the Obama agenda to the Hoosiers back home). A lot of people have been maligning Bayh as a gutless guy (he's bailing despite a 20-point poll lead and $13 million in the bank for a '10 re-election campaign, all because he might actually face the first serious race in his career). A lot of people have been fixated on the national political ramifications, wondering if the Bayh bailout will boost the Republicans' ambitious bid to run the table and take over the Senate.
But I'm most focused on what Bayh's departure says about the gridlocked, polarized chamber that he has inhabited since 1999; in his words, "there are a lot of really good people trapped in a dysfunctional system." His blunt disdain struck me as sincere, precisely because I had heard him talk that way in the past. He had long voiced frustration with the growing chasm between right and left, with the dwindling opportunities for moderates to forge compromises and govern effectively.
On July 28, 2003, he sat with a few of us political scribes and warned, in the spirit of Yeats, that the center cannot hold. At the time, George W. Bush and the Republicans ran the show; in the minority camp, Democrats were falling under the spell of Howard Dean and his liberal netroots. Bayh wasn't happy with either side.
I still have my notes from that Bayh session. Here's some of what he said: "There is so much skepticism in the country about government. We need lean, efficient, productive government...The problem is, the national government is being run by the far right, and the Democratic party is under threat of being taken over by the far left. We need to stay in the center...If we (Democrats) go too far left, we hurt ourselves. It's like assisted suicide....Do we want to vent, or do we want to govern?"
By that summer, however, he was well aware that the center was disappearing, that the Senate was becoming inexorably more polarized, that the Republican members were moving rightward while the Democratic members were moving leftward.
Many of the best moderate Republican dealmakers - Bill Cohen of Maine, Nancy Kassenbaum of Kansas, Mark Hatfield of Oregon, John Danforth of Missouri, David Durenberger of Minnesota - had already bailed from the Senate by the time Bayh arrived. And by the end of 2004, moderate Democratic dealmakers - such as John Breaux of Louisiana, Bib Graham of Florida, and Fritz Hollings of South Carolina - were gone as well. (Breaux explained that moderates "have to have someone to meet with. You can't meet with yourself in a phone booth.")
No wonder things have fallen apart; today's Senate can't even get its act together to create a bipartisan commission on the national debt. No wonder Bayh got fed up. Bayh has long been viewed by the liberal Democratic base as a bit of a bore (which is one reason why his presidential ambitions have gone nowhere), but he's the kind of guy who might well have thrived in a less vitriolic Senate, one that was dedicated to problem-solving. His departure virtually ensures that the Senate will cohere even less.
As former Bill Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry said yesterday, in remarks posted on Politico, "Centrism is not much in fashion these days, but the lack of it is wrecking our country."
Indeed, Senate scholar Sarah Binder of the Brookings Institution warned about "an unprecedented disappearance of the political center. In a political system that demands compromise and accomodation to bring about change, the center is considered vital to the moderate, bipartisan policymaking generally preferred by the American public. Absent a political center, oncreased partisanship and ideological polarization are inevitable - and sure to feed public distrust of, and distaste for, politicians and the political process."
Well, guess what: Binder penned that warning in 1996. Things have been falling apart, at an accelerating pace, ever since. And the question that Bayh posed to us journalists, during that summer '03 meeting, is arguably more urgent today, given all the challenges we face:
"Do we want to vent, or do we want to govern?"
-------
Meanwhile, let's take a look at the calendar.
Today marks the start of this blog's fifth year. Thanks for your continued support.
And tomorrow ushers in the four sweetest words of the English language: Pitchers and catchers report.
Comments (102)
Oh please, spare me the poor Evan Bayh routine which has been making the rounds on the MSM as well. Evan Bayh sold his soul to corporate donors and never met a campaign contribution he or his wife didn't like. He was the walking picture of the spineless Democrat, and good riddance to him.
Mike Welbourn: You want to back that up with some figures on military spending. Defense spending has always been a given in the budget, Republican or Democrat.— p-diddy- Phil Checcia: Read carefully - I wrote "potential vote". I could have substituted "probable".— p-diddy
- swedesboromike: here's the third sentence from the paper you wish to view a sa mature, scientific publication. "Recent papers in the peer-reviewed literature, combined with streams of data from satellites and thermometers, now provide a complete picture of why it is that the UN’s climate panel, the worldwide political class, and other “global warming” profiteers are wrong in their assumption that the enterprises of humankind will disastrously warm the Earth.". Sure sounds like unbiased science to me. second paragraph "has shown no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now persisted for very nearly eight years". The second half of that sentence is blatantly false. Funny, you believe Phil Jones in the interview (that I have no doubt you still haven't bother to read)when he says that there has been no statistically significant warming in the past fifteen years due to the small data set size, yet ignore him on cooling. By that I mean that he was asked, in the SAME interview if there had been statisitcally significant cooling since 2002. his answer? No. And statistical significance would be even more difficult to demonstrate over only eight years. Yes, this "publication" is truly garbage. I guess if the Weekly World News were to refer to Lindzen, then I should take it seriousky, as well.— still_independent
- 'Trickle down' economics works and has been proven to do so lifting everyone's standard of living, GDP & creating jobs after the Carter malaise of the late 1970's. We have seen President Obama's 'trickle up' economics at work this past year (from the stimulus, omnibus, cash4clunkers, etc.) and it seems to be a drag on our recovery & job creation, imho.— NEPhilly
- swedesboromike : YES, I need to see something written BY the doctor. "He explains his positions well". Yes, he does, if all you want is the third grade explanation. Does he have any data to back it up? I assume he does, but I have no idea. Maybe he's published some of thing, I have no idea. So to summarize, you are impressed by an author's description of a professor's power point slides. This constitutes scientific evidence to you. Wow. That says a lot.... And of course, NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with data manipulation.— still_independent
- MG77 - As for the tax cuts let me bring up the 1920 depression which had a bigger economic down turn than the great depression. Most have never heard of it be because the government did just the opposite of what they did during the great depression and what they are doing now. They cut taxes (down to 25%) and government spending (by 50%). The economy recovered in 18 months. This brought of the one the the greatest economic expansion ever in this country that lifted all boats. Unemployment went all the way to 2%. This is one of the reasons that decade was called the roaring twenties. http://www.meltingpotproject.com/mpp/2009/02/the-great-depression-of-1920.html— Mike Welbourn
Comment removed.- Still Indepenent- you said " tr88: thank you for reposting the link that swedesboromike has posted twice. Again, I have asked for something written BY the good doctor, not ABOUT the doctor.".............. So the Penn Proffessor of Geo Enviromental studies is interviewed by Philly Magazine about global warming and you need to see something written by the Doctor? What has that got to do with anything? Read the friggin article for crying out loud! He explains his positions very well. Dr Lindzen from MIT and Dr Geigengack from the Univ of Pennsy. refure man made global warming but " Still Inpendent " the blogger is the resident expert on the subject? You are a guy clinging to the last tree on the branch,
- Still Indendent says this is " garbage" . " Monthly CO2 Report for July 2009 announces the publication of a major paper by Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, demonstrating by direct measurement that outgoing long-wave radiation is escaping to space far faster than the UN predicts, showing that the UN has exaggerated global warming 6-fold."........ To read more here is the link......................... Monthly CO2 Report for July 2009 announces the publication of a major paper by Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, demonstrating by direct measurement that outgoing long-wave radiation is escaping to space far faster than the UN predicts, showing that the UN has exaggerated global warming 6-fold.
- Comment removed.
- Still Independent- You said" please don't dignify that last bunch of garbage as a "publication"."...... Come back when you want to have a serious discussion. ...... In case anyone wants to know what Still Independent is referring to it is this link................. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf
- Comment removed.
- MG77 - if they had done the privatization of SSI and Medicare back in 1983. Instead of the SSI fix they did do. We would not be looking at the $107 trillion unfunded liability we are now starting to deal with.— Mike Welbourn
- Eagle - one of the worse things for me about Jimmy Carter was that for over 3 years of my military service I had to call him my Commander in Chief. During that whole time he was destroying the military with his lack of support. I was electrician in a training squadron of 30 F-14's that for awhile did not have one flyable plane due to a lack of parts. He also would veto pay increase he thought was to high. His thinking was a 5% pay increase was enough while inflation was 10%. I still remember him say that the reason the military was losing so many experienced personnel was not because of low pay but because of the chow hall food. Afterwards many on the left complained about how much Reagan spent on the military. All I can say is he had to after Carter was through with it. I don't know what Obama is doing to the military but lets hope he's not doing what Carter did.— Mike Welbourn
- If people actually read through what the House GOP put together in their budget (it is up just google Paul Ryan and budget), they will realize it is pretty radical including a number of huge changes including partial privatizations of Medicare, SSI, removing capital gains & estate taxes, and radically reducing the top income tax rate to 25%. It is a supply-sider's fantasy. Good for some, not for most.— MG77
- tom: what are the latter two items of your "today is the one..." posting referring to?— still_independent
- bush and cheney and the iraq war accelerated the polarization..— zwarte piet
- today is the one year anniversary of the stimulus bill. The nation's unemployed, the states whose budgets are in a mess from the rules of the stimulus money they received, and those about to receive higher tax burdens because of it all thank the Obama admin for its rigning success.— tom - wilmington, de
- turbo tax still_independent, let's hope you did a better job than turbo tax Tim Geithner...1040, over and out.— tom - wilmington, de
- still_independent, I read that BBC interview with Professor Jones. Three things caught my attention. The first is the chart showing how the warming periods of 1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1975-1998 and 1975-2009 are all similar. Second, the warming from 1975-2009 is less than the period 1975-1998, which to me does not mesh with 2000-2009 being the warmest decade on record, yet the warming trend decreased. Second, he admits from 1995 until present there has been no statistically significant warming, and in the next answer, he shows that since 2002, the trend has been -.12C, which is cooling but not statistically significant because it is too short a period. But this again seems to contradict the 2000-2009 decade being the warmest on record. It is also interesting that he believes "most" of the warming since 1950 is human caused, yet 1860-1880 was warmer than 1975-2009, and if the MWP was warmer than thought, than this period would not be unusual. So if it can be proved that the MWP was globally warmer than previously thought, would that then mean the warming since 1950 was not "mostly" caused by humans? Lastly, Professor Jones seems to acknowledge that the debate on anthroprogenic warming is not settled science. This goes against what we are constantly hearing from our elected officials, the UN, and many others who hold that the debate is over and the science is irrefutable. Since the former head of the CRU says the debate is not over, shouldn't others who held his opinion as gospel fall in line?— tom - wilmington, de
- swedesboromike : please don't dignify that last bunch of garbage as a "publication". Writing something and posting it on your own website is not "publishing" it in the academic sense. You would be more accurate if you wrote that "some of Lindzen's reasearch is misused here". Read the first few paragraphs of this thing and tell me you think it's anything approaching a serious, impartial paper. It's also unreviewed, btw. that's why they would never publish it, as this would cause it to be peer reviewed...... "try using your google feature." - this usually means - "I can't find any"...... For you and tr88, the "science is settled" is a red herring. Of course the science isn't settled. Science is NEVER settled. It's constantly changing. Even old, generally accepted principles are revisited and looked at in new ways. While it would be correct to say that there isn't a lot of actual debate in the scientific community over global warming in general (note I said not a lot, not that there isn't any), there is a LOT of debate over the specifics. I would even go so far as to agree that anyone that says that the "science is settled" knows little of science in general.... And finally, how did your accusations of "data manipulation" morph into an argument over whether the science is settled? Other than the fact that you still haven't been able to find anything to back it up....— still_independent
- So Bayh is leaving the Senate because it is too dysfunctional. He said if he could help a small business create one new job that would be more jobs than Congress created in the past six months. Of course, I recall reading and listening to all those speeches and interviews Bayh did on how the Senate was too partisan. I recall how he went public asking Harry Reid to include Republicans in heatlhcare legislation, instead of writing the bills with Baucus, Dodd, Emmanuel and Sebelius in some backroom somewhere. He spoke about how the deals cut with Landrieu and Nelson were shady and non-transparent. Wait, he didn't do any of that? Well then, was he part of the problem or part of the solution?— tom - wilmington, de
- tr88: thank you for reposting the link that swedesboromike has posted twice. Again, I have asked for something written BY the good doctor, not ABOUT the doctor.— still_independent
- Comment removed.
- Attention all Libs, progressives, communists, or whatever the name of the day is. GW Bush, villian that you see him as, actually worked with dems to pass education bill and medicare prescription bill. Obama wont even talk to republicans. And Bayh as a moderate. That's a joke. He voted party line on every vote that came up. He's just bailing to save his ego. P-diddy, Snowe did not vote for bill, she merely voted to advance it out of conference. Also still waiting to hear your reasons why and how democrats take care of blacks.— Phil Checchia
- Comment removed.
- Still Independent. Here is the article on Dr. Giegengack from Phila Magazine. Please read it. The science isnt settled. http://www.phillymag.com/articles/science_al_gore_is_a_greenhouse_gasbag/— tr88
- Comment removed.
- Swedesboro: If you consider a single potential Republican vote (Snowe) for a healthcare bill "bipartisan", then yes I guess it was.— p-diddy
- TEX: CD said...The democcratic party is run by extremists, commies and marxists. ............. He said BOTH!! Nice cherry-picking to have-a-conse-pub's back.— Talvenada
- philharmonic55, read what CD75 said. He didn't "lump them all together" at all. He said rather that moderates are being chased out. That's hardly "lumping" lol.— texas.troubadour
- Mike - I don;t think you know what you are talking about. When GOPers suddenly change their vote because the president agrees with their legislation those legislatures are playing games not looking out for the country. Care to explain the changes in pay as you go budgetary rules et al ????— FormerGOPer
- If Sen Bayh is burned out by all means he should go home ! The Senate will also be a better place without McCain who seems destined to go down to defeat. Turnover will make the place run better and have constant fresh ideas.— FormerGOPer
- Piddy- So the healthcare bill was de-railed with bipartison oppostion. You see there is bipartisanship in DC. It is currently in stark oppostion to Obama's policies.
- Kudos to CIA and Pakistani intelligence forces for capturing Taliban commander Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar during joint operations in Southern Afghanistan. Currently the Obama admin. is having Baradar interrogated by both the CIA and the Pakistani's. I am kinda wondering if we will hearing any outrage from the left as the Pakistani's are know for their brutal interrogation techniques. I am guessing we will hear ' crickets "
- If Evan Bayh doesn't want to be in the Senate, he should go home. It's pretty ridiculous to say that the extremes of both parties have caused the center to crumble. Unless you consider Max Baucus and Ben Nelson to be socialists, conservatives and "moderate" Democrats are the ones who held up health care reform. Rahm Emmanuel, who is in charge of the White House legislative efforts, is anything but part of the progressive wing of the party, in fact he went so far as to call progressives "reta*ds". Progressives made concession after concession. So-called moderate Democrats and Republicans killed it.— p-diddy
- I've been watching the Westminster Dog Show so I can see the various Mastiffs, the breed that has stolen my heart. I just got to see the Neapolitan, the Dog de Bordeaux, the English and Bull Mastiffs and the Tibetan Mastiff. Of course, they never win, but at least I get to see them. I hope to own another Mastiff one of these days. They are really fabulous. I highly recommend them. No living creature will ever love you that much. The Doberman won the working group. Oh well. I know I'm off-topic, but thanks for indulging me.— NigeltheMastiff
- Still Independent- some of lindzen's research is sited in this publication....... http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf
- Still Independent- you said " please find me the "look how hot it's gotten in the past fifteen years" article."............... are you serious? try using your google feature.
- Still Independent- Phil Jones of the CRU at East Anglia acknowledged "there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995."...... I believe those comments certainly cast doubt that the science is settled. Comments like those of Phil Jones might get the denier lable from Al Gore. I noticed you didn't comment on the other link .....http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf....... I am curious though. Do you not concede that some serious doubt has been leveled against the rhetoric that this is settled science?
- SMike, as you know, I'm always advocating for civility on this site. There's nothing gained by insulting others. I don't care whose side they're on.— NigeltheMastiff
- swedesboromike: "So you are going to hang you hat on a statistically insignifcant figure to support global warming? If the sample is to small then the sample is to small." - not at all. YOU touted the fact that "East Anglia professor Phil Jones now says for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming" and equated it to no warming. YOU didn't understand what statistically significant meant. YOU thought it meant "a lot". I never cited the past fifteen years as an affirmation of global warming. ... " To tout clataclysmic events based on a statistically insignificant trend from a too small of a sample is most irresponsible and reprehensible. " - I agree. And they aren't. please find me the "look how hot it's gotten in the past fifteen years" article. They are "touting" the past 150 years, a much larger data set, from which statistical significance can be determined. ... This is is classic swedesboromike style (and no, that's not a good thing). You make an assertion. someone refutes it. You then claim that they were asserting something else. All I ever did was show you (well, everyone else) that your assertion that there's been no warming the past fifteen years was incorrect. And tried to explain to you what statictically significant means, and how it differs from simply "significant".— still_independent
- Still Independent- Dr. Geigengack is the Professor of Geo-Enviromental Studies at the Univ. of Pennsy. He refutes man made global warming and makes a very clear case.
- ModerateMike: Bloomberg: Goldman Sachs’s Tax Rate Drops to 1%, or $14 Million, for 2008, by Christine Harper: "Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which got $10 billion and debt guarantees from the U.S. government in October, expects to pay $14 million in taxes worldwide for 2008 compared with $6 billion in 2007. The company’s effective income tax rate dropped to 1% from 34.1%, New York-based Goldman Sachs said today in a statement. The firm reported a $2.3 billion profit for the year after paying $10.9 billion in employee compensation and benefits."Bloomberg: Goldman Sachs’s Tax Rate Drops to 1%, or $14 Million, for 2008, by Christine Harper: Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which got $10 billion and debt guarantees from the U.S. government in October, expects to pay $14 million in taxes worldwide for 2008 compared with $6 billion in 2007. The company’s effective income tax rate dropped to 1% from 34.1%, New York-based Goldman Sachs said today in a statement. The firm reported a $2.3 billion profit for the year after paying $10.9 billion in employee compensation and benefits."— p-diddy
- ModerateMike: Goldman Sachs are big time supporters of both parties, particularly the party they believe will end up in office.— p-diddy
- Another radical aspect of our country: People praising ethnic/religious profiling, and a government that is doing exactly that, while pretending not to. To have an Arabic name in this country is to be treated with suspicion by your fellow citizens, and as a second class citizen by your own government.— p-diddy
- swedesboromike: "I have posted this article from the Univ. of Penn Professor numerous times. Yet you keep denying it. We'll try this again. " ...... ummmm, maybe we need to try it yet again. I hate to break this to you, but you still haven't given me anything written by Bob Giegengack (the Penn geologist). This article was written by someone named John Marchese. What are Dr. Guegengack's credentials? Has he ever published anything on global warming? I have no idea. Apparently you don't, either. A casual interview with someone? And I am still compelled to ask how this has anything to do with "data manipulation". It never comes up at all. All that comes across is this article is that the "Univ. of Penn Professor " thinks Al Gore is a bloviated windbag (I agree) and that he feels that there are more pressing environmental concerns (I also agree). I'm not sure how people dying from smoking is an environmental concern, but it is a major concern. So in summation, this article doesn't mention "data manipulation", which is what you've been repeatedly challenged on, offers no data or links to data, and wasn't written by who you said wrote it. Other than that, it's great. Tell you what. If you come across something he actually wrote, feel free to poste it. Unlike you, I'LL actually read it.— still_independent
- Pdiddy: Goldman Sachs are big time supporters of Obama. Former Goldman Sachs CEO Jon Corzine was Govenor of NJ. Not that any of that matters but the mantra your trying to convey that these people are evil Republicans is quite stretch. I don't know if what you say about Goldman's tax bill is correct. I would like to see a proof source. And I do believe the firm has made a huge profit in 2009 and awarded large bonuses. Not that there is anything wrong with that but what concerns me is how inter-connected Goldman Sach is with the Obama administration.— ModerateMike
- ModerateMike: You know what wealth distribution is? Goldman Sachs paying a paltry $14 million in federal taxes on $2 billion in profits in 2008 - that's 1%. Then getting billions of dollars on zero percent interest from the federal government because they couldn't make it on their own.— p-diddy
- I think the vote to invade Iraq was radical. Imprisoning people without allowing them trials, or even charging them, is most definitely radical. I think forking over billions of dollars to an industry that played a big part in wrecking the economy was radical. I have qualms with some of Obama's policies, but to call him a "socialist" is ridiculous. Obama never advocated for public health insurance. You could just as easily label small-government Republicans as anti-state anarchists. I think people are shocked by the stimulus package, but everyone knew an enormous stimulus package was coming, even before the election. I didn't hear Republicans arguing against a stimulus package prior to the election. The same people who are complaining about the national debt are the same people who are arguing for tax cuts.— p-diddy
- MikeI: the health care bill was about wealth redistribution. People who pay no federal taxes would pay nothing yet get a service in return. The burden of the cost rested on those who possesed insurance to pay for those who don't. That is wealth redistribution. The bill was made more insidious by not burdening union members with the tax- thus government chosing winners and loosers.— ModerateMike
- What philharmonic55 said. I was a Republican until last year. Both parties are for big government but Republicans offer big mean government.— kathy in blue bell
- Moderate mike, why don't you read? Obama has cut taxes-on the middle class that needs it. He is not redistributing wealth. Show me where he has done that? I am tired off all these Obama beaters who do not know what they are talking about.— mike l
- For all his blather, how much did Bayh go out of his way to work to get both sides together? I don't remember him ever speaking on the Senate floor ripping both sides. Even when he gave his reason for leaving, the 7 senators who voted against their own deficit commission bill, he didn't mention that they were all gop hypocrites. Let's put most of the blame where it belongs, on the repubs. There are some die-hard far lefties, but overall, the Dems have compromised too much to get some repub support.— mike l
- Wendy, Wendy, posts like yours are the reason I seldom come here anymore. Seems like you are seething with anger.— mgm65
- Nigel- You are often the voice of reason and moderation here. Does Wendy, Wendy's remarks below advance the conversation?
- Wendy, Wendy- You are not adding anything to the conversation. Still Independent asked for a link to Dr Lindzen and Dr. Geigengack. The link was pasted but nothing else. I guess we now know what an intellect you are? LOL
- still_independent, just finding out what the rest of us know? That swedesboromike is an intellectual hack and a cut-n-paste fraud, like most on the right who post here ... it's a wing-nut super waste-site.— WendyWendy
- I was a democrat and a moderate and voted for Obama. I thought the change was needed. But now I regret my vote. I didn't realize Obama was such an ideologue and would pursue weath redistribution policies. I guess I bought into the media hype that he was going to cut taxes and be a fiscal hawk. The loss of Evan Bayh seals the deal for me. I am not leaving the democratic party the party is leaving me as it lurches ever leftward.— ModerateMike
- philharmonic55- You said "I was a Repub for 25 years but was driven away by the rightist movements in the W years; "............. Very curious on this one. Was it the war or the lack of fiscal responsibility? For the record we expanded the war and have taken the deficits and multiplied them by 4. Was it the Prescription drug plan? For the record that cost the Us Taxpayers 1 trillion dollars. Estimated cost of the next entitlement- 1 trillion dollars - Are you OK with that?..... Was it the billions that Bush sent to third world countries to fight Aids? Not trying to be snarky here but if you like liberalism than other than national defense Bush should have gotton a 100% rating by the Institute of Liberalism.
- Nigel- This a very false narrative that you are pursuing that anyone wants Obama to fail. The true narrative is that we want his left wing policies to fail. It's the classic " in other words" argument that the left constantly creates. Pundit says one thing, then the left wing machine interprets into their own narrative, then spends the rest of their time bashing the opposition for something they never said in the first place. MSNBC has a patent on this tactic. I hope Obama suceeds in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope his surge works. I hope is policy with Iran works.
- Still Independent- So you are going to hang you hat on a statistically insignifcant figure to support global warming? If the sample is to small then the sample is to small. To tout clataclysmic events based on a statistically insignificant trend from a too small of a sample is most irresponsible and reprehensible. I cannot believe your comeback and the levels you will stoop to cling to this global warming hysteria. Anyway, Here is some info on Dr. Richard Lindzen from MIT on global warming. ...............,,,,,,,............http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf
- Still Independent- I have posted this article from the Univ. of Penn Professor numerous times. Yet you keep denying it. We'll try this again. http://www.phillymag.com/articles/science_al_gore_is_a_greenhouse_gasbag/
- still - thanks. That would be fine. Leave tort reform up to the states. Each state could do what they think is best for them just like Taxas and California have done. Not what the one size fits all the federal government would do. That way if a state figures they have done the wrong thing it would be easier for them to change it. Anything the federal government implements it's next to impossible to to put an end to. Such as the Dept's of Ed, Commerce, Agriculture...— Mike Welbourn
- NEPhil, I think both sides are equally to blame in this mess. Don't forget how some of the Republicans were gleeful over Obama's missteps, calling the health care issue his Waterloo and cheering for him to fail. The Democrats were stupid and wrong to hold these sessions behind closed doors. It's really up to us as voters to throw all these politicians out -- but I fear we won't. And now all the moderate voices, which we so desperately need, are bailing. As I've said before, I truly believe we are at much greater risk of destruction from within than we are from the threat of terrorists. We will all pull together to overcome the latter, but we seem unable to save us from ourselves.— NigeltheMastiff
- Thank you Mrs. Polman:)— NEPhilly
- congratulations, dick. your take in politics is among the best around.— John Q. Public
- Mike Welbourn : federal tort reform might have some constitutional issues, although I guess you can institute nearly anything under the auspices of interstate commerce. Here's a report for Congress by the CRS on the constitutionality of federal tort reform in general, not medical specifically.... http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/95797_07072008.pdf— still_independent
- If the Federal government got back to the principles of the Constitution. Most of the complaints about the far left or right would be gone from the national debate. Things like abortion, gay marriage, medical marijuana, single pay health care and many others would be in the hands of the states as they should be. Maybe we could get back to the founding fathers intent of citizen politicians in congress that just meet a couple of month a year.— Mike Welbourn
- still, it was 2 dem proposals and 2 gop proposals. That is moving to the middle & would have been bi-partisan. It is the President and dems in congress who were saying 'my way or the highway'. Even if the Pres. just pushed through 'no dropping of clients' and 'no denying of coverage' using the Senate dem's 60 votes he/they would have suffered less political damage. It is the overreaching big govt. approach, the behind closed doors negotiations & the back office deals that Americans disliked so much, imho.— NEPhilly
- "In a political system that demands compromise and accomodation to bring about change, the center is considered vital to the moderate, bipartisan policymaking generally preferred by the American public." Anyone else upset these guys are making enormous salaries and NOT operating in the best interest of the country but are engaged in a gangland style shootout that increasingly seems like it's a fight to the death? When will they stop bickering and start policymaking again???— Grazman
- I agree it shouldn't be poll driven. It should be Constitutionally driven. Interstate competition and tort reform would pass that test and possibly the insurance companies not being allow to deny coverage. That is about all the federal government is allowed to do. As for anything else there is nothing stopping the states from doing what they think is best for their citizens. Some have. Such as Maine, Tennessee, Oregon, and Massachusetts.— Mike Welbourn
- philharmonic55, I agree 300 percent. I've been saying the same thing for some time on this blog. Wish I could comment further, but I'm on the road this week serving on a peer review committee for another college. Off to a meeting. I'd really like to discuss this subject more, however. Maybe I'll have some time tonight.— NigeltheMastiff
- philharmonic55, I agree 300 percent. I've been saying the same thing for some time on this blog. Wish I could comment further, but I'm on the road this week serving on a peer review committee for another college. Off to a meeting. I'd really like to discuss this subject more, however. Maybe I'll have some time tonight.— NigeltheMastiff
- swedesboromike: also fom the last blog - "Still no comments from Still Independent on Univ. of Penn Proffesor Dr. Giegengack or Dr. Lindzen from MIT. ".... What the !@#$ am I supposed to comment on? You gave me two names. OK. I concede that they are the names of two climate warming skeptics. Seriously, what am i supposed to respond to? You found a list of names on Wikipedia of climate skeptics and posted two. Good for you. Did you offer up anything that they authored? NO. Any article by them? NO. Even a brief synopsis of their work related to warming? NOPE. How am I supposed to respond to two names? Listing the names of two scientists that disagree with AGW is what you call posting evidence of data manipulation (which, to the best of my knowledge, neither has alleged)? Should I simply post the names of hundreds of scientists on the other side? What would that prove? I honestly don't get your point. Now if you had posted something authored be either of the two gentlemen, then we could discuss it. the fact that you think that posting the names of two skeptics accomplished anything goes a long way to explaining how you think you've offered anything. I can't wait 'till tax season is over. Tom apparently posseses the "Rosetta Stone" necessary to translate your postings.— still_independent
- swedesboromike: it's clear from the last blog that you have no clue what statistical significance means. It has far more to do with sample size than amount of change. Since you love wikipedia, "In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance... The use of the word significance in statistics is different from the standard one, which suggests that something is important or meaningful. For example, a study that included tens of thousands of participants might be able to say with very great confidence that people of one state are more intelligent than people of another state by 1/20 of an IQ point. This result would be statistically significant, but the difference is small enough to be utterly unimportant.". So to summarize, there could be a huge gain in temperatures, but do to the sample size it could be statistically insignificant. There could be a very small gain in temperatures, but it could be very statistically significant. The websites you like to cite LOVE the fact that you don't understand the difference.— still_independent
- Mike Welbourn : I agree very few people want a single payer system. I'd disagree that the majority don't want universal coverage (albeit no one wants to pay for it). And, depending upon the wording of the polling question, a majority were in favor of adding a goverment run plan. Granted, having Palin running around blathering about death panels confused the issue. I do agree that what NEPhilly wrote was far closer to the middle than the bill was, my only point was that both sides must give some ground to enable compromise... As an aside, we have a representative democracy for a reason. I do not understand conservative's current obsession with polls driving policy. I can remember that GWB was "resolute", showing great "courage" in pursuing Iraq in spite of strong public opinion to the contrary.— still_independent
- A real loss for the country and Democrats. But he has only one life to live and sometimes this country is just not worth it. Hopefully he will find his way back.— PaulDeon
- A real loss for the country and Democrats. But he has only one life to live and sometimes this country is just not worth it. Hopefully he will find his way back.— PaulDeon
- still - It would have also have been what most of the public would have wanted including the middle (like you?). The people who would not have liked it would have mostly been the far left who just want single payer or universal. I would say that is moving to the middle at least more so than what they were trying to do.— Mike Welbourn
- NEPhilly : I actually agree with all your incremental proposals. But I hope you realize that what your saying is "All Obama had to do is what the Republicans wanted, and only what they wanted, and everything would have been fine". How is that moving to the middle? Don't get me wrong, I was opposed to the healthcare bill as it was, but even you, in your eminently reasonable way, are still basically saying "Do it our way".— still_independent
- I wish there were a truly central , moderate politican who had the money and the ideals to step up and say enough is enough that is not a like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or Ross Perot , that could drawl enough suppport away from both sides of the aisle to actually win the presidency. It is said how DC deals in lies and scare tactics rather than truth, maybe we should pass a law that says " if you are a politican and break the law, no matter what your OUT! But that will never happen because the offenders are writing the laws.— hejira33312
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- The president needs to decide whether he will move to the middle like Bill Clinton did after his disastrous try for govt. run healthcare or will he stay far to the left and try to govern. The reason that 59 Senators, 250 something house members and the presidency have been thwarted by 1 Senate election in Mass. is because the American are by a big majority against what the president is selling. Make no mistake (and national dems are), it is not because the president sold it badly (because he is a great salesman), it is because it was soundly rejected by the bluest of blue states and people across this country and rightly so, imho:) He could have passed 'insurance companies can't deny people and can't drop people' last March. Tack on a little interstate competition and tort reform and it looks a lot like a bipartisan bill. But they overreached and tried to have their way and here we are. A sad decline for a president who had the hopes of the people for a new way in Washington at his back and dithered it away by trying the 'same old, same old' big govt., big brother, behind closed doors, back office deals nonsense that has been rejected by the American people over and over again:) 2010 should be interesting.— NEPhilly
- I don't often agree with you, perhaps, never, but this time you struck a nerver. If we continue moving away from center, we, as a country, will never be unified for anything. What happens if we are attacked by an enemy? Will we continue to fight over how to respond? This is a dangerous congress that needs a leader. Neither Reid nor Pelosi is qualified and I am not sure about Obama. Somebody needs to step forward and stop this insanity.— frankfj
- CD75, you make the author's point beautifully without knowing it. By lumping all Demos as far-leftists, you also marked yourself as an all-or-nothing far-rightist. It is precisely this thinking, that things are either all-left or all-right (no, I didn't mean alright), that plagues our politics today. Stop using generalizations to characterize people!!! FYI, I was a Repub for 25 years but was driven away by the rightist movements in the W years; the party's views (except for a few points) no longer represent mine. I am now a Democrat with conservative leanings. Think "Blue Dogs". BTW, I'd like to know what form of reality you live in where things are ALWAYS All ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, with no compromise. I have yet to encounter this in 50+ years.
- Your post today was very interesting. I am consistently impressed by your historical understanding of politics, and that is one of the reasons I read your blog every day. You tend to look beyond the "spin of the day" and add some perspective that is based on your long-standing work in the field. The fact that you could find your notes from 2003 is impressive.— Nalaka
- This is GREAT for John McCain!!!— Abbey_Robe
- Happy Anniversary. Mr. Polman. The dems & the president have a self-inflicted wound surrounding healthcare. They took the debate behind closed doors w/the lobbyists(no CSPAN allowed) , tried to pass it with their own 60 votes (no, the GOP couldn't stop it) & have paid the price with the loss of Teddy's seat and their filibuster proof majority. The dems seem to be, to use the President's quote, 'doubling down on failure' & will pay a further political price in November. I said a year ago that the dems would overreach and that is exactly what they have done. I wonder if the President would go a little smaller if he had to do it over again? Priceless:)— NEPhilly
- I wish CD75 would give us the names of some of these Marxists and communists, and how he knows them to be so. Assertions without evidence are meaningless. Waiting . . . .— Chris Landee
- Fascinated- not getting the joke here. I assume you disagree with the premise that Democrats consistently elect moderates? I know it's easy to fall under the spell of Rush or Hannity and their tales of ultra liberalism, leftists, Communists in the White House, For Shame! But truthfully, you and they have no idea what a real "leftist" Democratic party would be capable of or what their policies would look like. I don't have to strain too hard to see what extreme right-wing Republican government looks like. Clinton, Obama, even Pelosi are hardly Dennis Kucinich or even Paul Wellstone. I guess the truth is, you guys are so right-wing, anything to the left of Goldwater is Larry Flynt.— pagoda
- @HandNik "Except that the Democrats consistently elect moderates..." Now that is funny. You should do stand up comedy.— Fascinated
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Except that the Democrats consistently elect moderates, while the right wing tows to the financial, religious, and intolerant vocal minority.— HandNik
- Comment removed.
- Dick, as usual you miss the point. The democcratic party is run by extremists, commies and marxists. The democratic party is chasing out all moderates, including Bayah. It has become a party led by radicals.— CD75
- Sure looks like the republicans are becoming an insignificant regional Party, and fast Dick. Nice to get that kind of insight from a pro. Now, about that republican "purity test" you were obsessing about a few weeks ago.Anything on democrats? A few words perhaps?— tr88
- Happy Anniversary. Keep up the great work!— AHiredGun
1
Popular Posts
About this blog
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: