One is the loneliest number
Health care and the tattered banner of Republican moderation
One is the loneliest number
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
When Republican Senator Olympia Snowe voted yesterday with the Democrats in favor of health care reform - thus defying her Republican brethren, who are united in their determination to do absolutely squat - she basically upheld a venerable Maine tradition.
Way back in 1950, another independent-minded Republican woman from Maine, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, defied her cowed Republican brethren by publicly assailing a Senate colleague, right-wing demagogue Joe McCarthy. (Virtually alone in her party, she warned, "Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism - the right to hold unpopular beliefs, the right of independent thought.") And 14 years later, in the '64 Republican presidential primaries, Smith defied the party's ascendent conservatives, who were united behind Barry Goldwater, by flying the moderate banner and running for president herself.
But the difference between then and now, of course, is that Smith had plenty of company; in those days, the Republican party was teeming with moderates, especially in the Northeast. Not so anymore. The GOP is now in hock to its conservative wing, where the agenda basically decrees that uninsured Americans should be left to fend for themselves, and that the profit-maximizing insurance companies should remain free - under the tenent of free enterprise - to cancel sick people's coverage and freeze out those who have pre-existing health problems.
As Olympia Snowe wrote six months ago in a newspaper guest column, "being a Republican moderate sometimes feels like being a cast member of Survivor - you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you're no longer welcome in the tribe."
In a sense, the big news today is not that Snowe voted yes on reform in the Senate Finance Committee, nor that she might endorse the finished reform measure a few weeks hence. In a sense, she's not the story; her nay-saying Republican colleagues are the story. What's really worth noting is that only one Republican senator seems willing to swim with the tide of history and vote for progress.
As she put it yesterday in committtee, "When history calls, history calls. I happen to think that the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress taking every opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to solve the monumental issues of our time."
If Snowe had served in an earlier era - if, for instance, she had uttered those words in 1964 (when the Senate tackled one of the monumental issues of its time, the Civil Rights Act); or in 1965 (when the Senate answered the call of history and enacted government health care for elderly people, otherwise known as Medicare) - she would have had plenty of company on her side of the aisle.
Care to guess how many Senate Republicans voted yes in 1964 to ensure equal rights for black people in public accomodations? Twenty-seven.
Care to guess how many Senate Republicans voted yes in 1965 to ensure that black people would have equal access to the voting booth? Thirty.
Care to guess how many Senate Republicans voted yes in 1965 to entrust the government with the health of seniors (otherwise known as socialism)? Thirteen.
And the potential '09 tally of GOP Senate supporters for health care reform? One.
That list certainly puts Snowe in perspective. And given the polarized temper of our times, it will be interesting to see whether the Republicans will try to punish her. Snowe has a 70 percent approval rating in independent-minded Maine, so it's not likely that conservatives can gin up a serious primary challenger for her next re-election race, which is three years off anyway.
But if Snowe persists in supporting health care reform, they could retaliate by refusing to seat her as the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee. That job will open up when Kay Bailey Hutchinson resigns in a few weeks to run for governor of Texas. Snowe is next in line, in terms of seniority, but a fellow Republican reportedly warned yesterday, "A vote for health care would be something that would weigh on our minds."
Some Americans, in posted comments hither and yon, have lately bemoaned the notion that Margaret Chase Smith's heir seems to have so much power in the health care debate, and, after all, who elected her to run the country? But this leverage stems from the Senate math, from the fact that she is a lonely caucus of one; if the GOP had not suffered what Snowe calls "the shrinking of our ideological confines," she would not be the sole Senate Republican now willing to legislate health reform for the greater good.
In an April '09 appeal for party diversity, and perhaps hoping to defend her own independent spirit, Snowe quoted a passage from Ronald Reagan: "Let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans, and tolerate the disagreement." Good luck with that one, senator.
Comments (73)
per usual a great article Dick. Kudos to Sen.Snowe for having a brain and more courage than all her "NO" repugnican couterparts combined.- Definition of a Liberal Blogger writing for a College Newspaper = A person who spends a large majority of time writing about Republicans, Conservative Talk Show hosts and Fox News when Democrats control all the Power, own everything and alone control what does and doesnt get done in Washington.— Frito1
Comment removed.- Mr. Polman the more you run out this nonsense that has all been disputed, 'The GOP is now in hock to its conservative wing, where the agenda basically decrees that uninsured Americans should be left to fend for themselves, and that the profit-maximizing insurance companies should remain free - under the tenent of free enterprise - to cancel sick people's coverage and freeze out those who have pre-existing health problems.', the more you marginalize yourself. Now we are comparing this healthcare 'reform' to equal voting rights, etc. for minorities? Also, I wonder how many dems voted for those same measures in 1964 and 1965?— NEPhilly
- Comment removed.
- I am trying to recall how the Democrats responded when George Bush proposed cutting Medicare waste and using the saved dollars to go towards other programs...Something about George Bush "wanting to kill old people" as I recall. Now that the Democrats want to do the same thing there appears to be a different refrain...— Frito1
- No government option in the Bacuas bill yet still : 1) CBO states there are no "savings", 2) private insurance will go up 111%, 3) the deficit will explode to nearly 20% of GDP, 4) 30 million will still be uninsured. Who in their sane mind would vote for such a bill?— CD75
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
DP your a blatant liar. 27 Senate Republicans voted for the Civil Right Act, but that was 82% of Senate Republicans. The tolerant Democrats had only 69% of their number vote for the bill. In the House it was 80% to 61% in favor of Republicans. Please retract your lie.— jmc- If I recall my history, without R votes in '64 and '65, the civil rights bills wouldn't have passed. And how can you ignore how the Dixiecrats voted in '64 and '65. Another crimped view of history to "prove" that us Rs are evil and benighted.— pj katauskas
- Comment removed.
- We will see whether 'health care reform' will be good or bad for the country overall. Mr. Polman's articles are always full of these little left leaning 'nuggets of wisdom' including this, "the sole Senate Republican now willing to legislate health reform for the greater good.". Like all the other GOP senators couldn't have legitmate concerns about the cost and execution of this plan by our inept federal govt., that a vote against the plan is a vote against the 'greater good'. It is that kind of nonsense (led by the White House) that throws cold water on any kind of bipartisanship that could make this bill better by including good conservative ideas, imho. Sheesh.— NEPhilly
- It looks as if I made the same misinterpretation as Xi did. I retract my accusation with apologies to DP.— jmc
- Comment removed.
- The legislators who were "Dixiecrats" in '64 and '65 are the progenitors of the current Republicans thanks to Nixon's southern strategy. The disingenuous attempt by Republicans to call Democrats racist based on this history makes no sense.— mxlplk
- It would be nice if Polman, in citing the Baucus bill as "health care reform", it would be great if he actually provided some analysis on what they voted. First, the bill provides subsidies for those whose incomes are 400% of the federal poverty level ($103,000 for a family of five). Second, subsidies are not available for anyone getting insurance through their employer. BUT, since the fine for not providing health insurance to employees is only $400 per worker, what employer is going to pay $10,000 to insure people when they can just pay $400 per worker? Further, the "fine" for not buying health insurance is only $750 per adult. So, $5,000 to buy insurance, or $750 fine per adult? Tough decision. Then, since you cannot be denied based on pre-existing conditions, smart people will purchase insurance ONLY when they need it. "Let's see, I might a knee operation, so I think I'll buy some insurance today and then after the surgery drop it again. Gee, my child may have a broken arm, so I'll quick buy some insurance and after the arm heels drop it again. Oh, and since I can purchase it right at the hospital when I get to the ER, buying it will not be a problem. I could even get it at the DMV when I get my car registered next week." Yes, some analysis on exactly what Snowe et al voted to approve would be appreciated. Besides, Snowe also said she would not vote for a bill with a public option, so she is not a guaranteed vote.— tom - wilmington, de
- ***Lawmakers use a 10-year accounting window to assess new programs. Starting the Medicare cuts and some of the taxes in the early years -- and pushing the bulk of new spending into the latter years -- helps keep the cost of the health care overhaul within Obama's $900 billion limit. Bush used the same kind of maneuver to push the Medicare benefit through Congress. "It means that the full cost of the program is underestimated in the 10-year window that you are looking at," said Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare for former President George H.W. Bush. "It's not like we've never seen this before, but people need to understand what's going on."*** http://cbs13.com/health/health.bill.2013.2.1240007.html?detectflash=false— NEPhilly
- Dick, stop calling these people conservative. They're radicals, without a single conservative bone in their bodies.— SteveMG
- Yes XI, the GOP is full of those who just do not want to see. We need to move forward with both parties helping to modify the delivery system for healthcare in the USA. Hopefully the GOP will grow and become more thn the party of NO.— ModerateMarge
- Obama hates America and freedom.— jrl27
- mxlplk, Dixiecrats were racist, card-carrying Democrats. Calling them "progenitors" doesn't change that. And progenitors of whom, Robert Byrd, e.g.?— pj katauskas
- Excellent news...now the health care of the other 95.5% of the world's population is covered by the US taxpayers.— Joe Funk
- ***"People must be free to take unpopular positions, disagree with conventional wisdom, know they are safe to peacefully challenge accepted practice and authority," she (Sectry. Clinton) said in a speech at Moscow State University.*** Well said Mrs. Clinton:) Unless you are in the United States and work for Fox News or conservative radio or are against healthcare reform or against big govt. or against so-called appeasement of our enemies, then you are not allowed to voice unpopular positions:)— NEPhilly
- What you all seem to forget, or conveniently do not mention, is that the Dixiecrats abd other conservative Democrats of the mid-60s are the republicans of today. So the amount of republicans voting for civil rights and medicare in the 60s do not represent today's gop, rather they were more of a liberal intellgient-thinking group. Just as the "party of Lincoln" in no ways is the gop of today. That party wanted a strong central government with the power to tax while the Dems, especially in the South, demanded more states' rights. Even Barry Goldwater, once on the Tonight Show, spoke of how the two parties have switched sides. Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dirksen, Rockefeller, and even Goldwater, would not be welcome in the gop today.— mike l
- PJ: Every racist legislator from a southern state TODAY is a Republican.They think the same as the so-called Dixiecrats in '64 and '65. Republicans know this but disingenuously use the old Dixiecrats to attempt to deflect their own racism. And Byrd was a Klansman 60 years ago.— mxlplk
- thankfully Sen Snowe is honest enought to admit that there is a problem with medical delivery. now - if the gop is so against the democrats plan please show us the plan along with the costs and savings. We most certainly don't trust the party of insurance companies and bigwigs to look after ALL of us. We as a country sure don't need reforms to help the insurance companies make more money without streamlining their processes !!!— ModerateMarge
- POLMAN, YOU ARE A DISGRACE. YOU ARE MISLEADING. YOU ARE A FRAUD. As to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 82% of the Republican Senators voted for it. Only 69% of the Democrat Senators voted for it. Sham on you for your misleading innuendo and partisan attacks. Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%) Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)— CD75
- NE Philly, who has not allowed you to voice your opinions? You do so frequently on these boards. Are you perhaps thinking that those who disagree with you are somehow preventing you from venting? If anything, this particular board is a free-for-all. Any opinion -- no matter how insulting, loud, abrasive or just whacky -- is allowed. The only people who are barred are those who use offensive language. Conservatives rant and rave about Keith Olbermann. Liberals rant and rave about Limbaugh/Coulter/O'Reilly. I doubt if anyone believes that any of those people have no right to opine. Personally, I think hate-filled rants are destructive to the country as a whole, but I'd rather see listenership or readership dry up than see some kind of ban on offensive people/opinions. That's a very slippery slope. I don't have to turn on Limbaugh (and I don't); I don't have to read Coulter (and I don't). And I'm sorry they are popular. But I passionately believe in their right to express themselves.— NigeltheMastiff
- nigel, obviously no one can stop me from voicing my opinions, lol:) I was talking more about the White House trying to ostracize Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Tea Partiers and Healthcare townhallers, etc. It seems if you disagree with this President on any issue you become a nazi or radical, etc., not just an American with a different opinion. You get reported to a website or get your tax situation looked into or get the MSM camped out on your front lawn, etc. That is what I'm talking about. Now the insurance industry will feel the 'wrath of obama' for daring to disagree with him, you wait and see.— NEPhilly
- NE Philly, same thing happened with W. Ted Kennedy put on the do-not-fly-list, along with others. Quakers' phones tapped in Florida for protesting, Cheney saying that people who disagreed with the war were unpatriotic. Unfortunately, that's politics. Not that I'm defending those tactics. They are wrong. But it's just one more result of the stridency of our national conversation these days.— NigeltheMastiff
- ***White House communications director Anita Dunn said Sunday on CNN's Reliable Sources that Fox News "often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party ... Take their talking points and put them on the air. Take their opposition research and put them on the air, and that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is." *** David Westphal (executive in residence at the Annenberg School of Communication and Journalism) : What's new here is the way the White House is directly confronting Fox News. As David Gergen has said, why have this come directly from the West Wing itself? It adds a bit of an interesting twist that it's the cerebral, let's-work-together Obama who is authorizing the showdown.*** I don't remember GWB taking on MSNBC et al like this during his presidency. If he did someone post the link:) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/10/13/DI2009101301745.html— NEPhilly
- It's the same thing as being labeled 'soft on terrorism' if you didn't blindly endorse the Iraq war. People who were trying to prevent the deaths of American soldiers were told we didn't support the military. If you didn't support Bush you were unamerican. Of course it's not ok for either side to say things like this but both sides do it. Unfortunately, people won't blame their own side no matter what happens. Makes little sense to those of us in the middle. We watch verbal shells being lobbed over our heads by both sides and wonder how anything is ever going to be actually accomplished in this country. So, if you wonder why things continue to get worse it might take a glance in the mirror once in a while to find someone to blame.— James TL
- Another thing about Fox News; ***As for Dunn's complaint about Fox News' coverage of the Obama campaign, a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative. On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories—a spread of 59 points.*** Now what channel is a 'real' news channel and which isn't? http://www.usnews.com/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2009/10/14/fox-news-less-biased-than-cnn-msnbc-in-white-house-coverage-.html— NEPhilly
- PHIL: Fox is partisan, and they can say anything they want, BUT just don't call it news when it's opinion. And don't call it news if it's half a story, like the Price Waterhouse report that ONLY covers where it will cost more, and ignoring where it will cost less. Price was only hired to find out where it would cost more. News done that way is deliberately slanted to create false news. Granted, the MSNBC political shows are Lib slanted, but not to the false news point.........Obama doesn't care what Fox's opinion is, just don't call it 100% news, 100% factual, when stuff is deliberately left out; and yes, I've seen it MANY times. I'm not talking about Hannity, O'Reilly, and Beck either.— Talvenada
- Hilarity all around - today's GOP folks: “The Republican National Committee (RNC) had a rough day yesterday as it tried to launch the new GOP.com. Visitors noticed telling gaps on the site (such as an empty “Future Leaders” section), significant distortions (like naming baseball legend and registered independent Jackie Robinson a “great Republican“), the accidental disclosure of RNC passwords and files, and constant outages. But one of the most widely mocked parts of the site was Chairman Michael Steele’s blog called “What Up?” After facing a day of ridicule, the RNC has quietly switched the name of the blog to “Change the Game.” It also ditched the floating Steele figure that would start walking and talking onto your screen. Robinson, however, is still listed as a Republican, and there are still no GOP accomplishments listed after 2004. Despite yesterday’s missteps, Steele said that he was happy about yesterday’s roll-out — especially when the site crashed and no one could access it. “This thing has exploded off the blocks,” Steele insisted. “It’s a good thing when you get another email from [RNC New Media Director Todd Herman] saying, ‘It’s down again.’” Hot Air’s Allahpundit disagreed, however, noting the universal ridicule the site engendered yesterday: “Way to score an own goal, pal, completely needlessly and amateurishly.”— Nicky Nicks
- NEPhilly: posts like the one you read are why you need to go to source material. The pew report found that Fox and MSNBC were mirror images of each other. The summary was: []MSNBC stood out for having less negative coverage of Obama than the press generally (14% of stories vs. 29% in the press overall) and for having more negative stories about McCain (73% of its coverage vs. 57% in the press overall). []On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall) and less positive (25% of stories vs. 36% generally). For McCain, the news channel was somewhat more positive (22% vs. 14% in the press overall) and substantially less negative (40% vs. 57% in the press overall). Yet even here, his negative stories outweighed positive ones by almost 2 to 1.[]CNN fell distinctly in the middle of the three cable channels when it came to tone. In general, the tone of its coverage was closer than any other cable news channel to the press overall, though also somewhat more negative than the media overall. []The distinct tone of MSNBC--more positive toward Democrats and more negative toward Republicans--was not reflected in the coverage of its broadcast sibling, NBC News. Even though it has correspondents appear on their cable shows and even anchor some MSNBC programs, the broadcast channel showed no such ideological tilt. Indeed, NBC's coverage of Palin was the most positive of any TV organization studied, including Fox News. []At night, the newscasts of the three traditional broadcast networks stood out for being more neutral -- and also less negative -- than most other news outlets. The morning shows of the networks, by contrast, more closely resembled the media generally in tone. That might surprise some who imagined those morning programs were somehow easier on political figures. Overall, 44% of the morning show stories were clearly negative, compared with 34% on the nightly news and 42% in the press overall.— still_independent
- NEPhilly: the full PEW study is at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1011/color-of-news-coverage— still_independent
- NEPhilly: and that data was to provide further info from another PEW study. There basic point was that "They do offer a strong suggestion that winning in politics begets winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls and internal tactical maneuvering to alter those positions. Obama's coverage was negative in tone when he was dropping in the polls, and became positive when he began to rise, and it was just so for McCain as well. Nor are these numbers different than those we have seen before. Obama's numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago as he began rising in the polls, and McCain's numbers are almost identical to those recorded eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore." .... http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1001/campaign-media— still_independent
- Today's entry by comrade dick goes into the hall of shame for journalistic integrity. Dick goes on a smearfest against republicans, but the only democrat who supports the bill is Bacaus. He is the only one. All the dems hate it. The AFL-CIO is even against it. Pelosi is against it. Yet, Dick just keeps on smearing republicans with distortion. How this guy has a job is beyond me.— Comrade Noodlehead
- COM HEAD: He couldn't possibly have a job, because he's not a Conse 'Pub. ONLY Conse 'Pubs work and pay taxes, no?— Talvenada
- The only reason this healthcare bill wasn't passed before the August recess is because of the bipartisan support against it. And there is still no guarantee this will get passed at all considering all the Democrats that are against it.
- Good article on why this healthcare bill will not get passed....... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/14/why_the_democrats_health_care_overhaul_may_die_98712.html
- SWEDE: Health care passes and The Dems will be in po-wer for 30 years, and Conse 'Pubs cannot allow that. It's called country first!— Talvenada
- Talvenada- not with rising unemployment. Both parties do this. They get in charge then spend their time thinking their Sh*t don't stink.
- This healthcare bill will not get passed in my opinion. politics aside for a moment the problem is that the Democrats need the well conected government protected insurance company support but it's falling apart as the penalty for not buying insurance has been reduced to the point that it's better to wait to get sick then sign up for the insurance as they cannot be denied. This is a death blow to the whole plan. I doubt this will get passed.
- still, so much writing I must have hit a soft spot:) Going to the source material still seems to bear out the point that Fox was far less partisan than MSNBC and though CNN was in the middle it still was left leaning. The NBC stuff is besides the point(though interesting that msnbc's bias didn't bleed in) and I would like see the numbers for ABC and CBS. As for the winner getting better coverage, it may be true but when Saturday Night Live is making jokes about how easy the press has been on your campaign there is something there. Do you think the White House is justified in calling Fox News a wing of the GOP? Is it presidential to get down in the muck like that? I think it is almost laughable that this White House, which has received such favorable news coverage across the board, can't take a little criticism or scrutiny. They sure have thin skin:) The President should pretend Fox is one of our country's enemies & maybe the President would treat them a little better:)— NEPhilly
- A big part of the dialogue driving the debate on health care reform is the premise that the uninsured are the main cause of higher health insurance costs for all Americans. While this undoubtedly plays a factor, it’s not the main reason for higher insurance premiums. Other factors are clearly at play and have more direct correlations, as this data indicates. STATES WITH HIGHEST NUMBER OF UNINSURED 1. Texas 2. New Mexico 3. Mississippi 4. Louisiana 5. Nevada 6. Oklahoma 7. California 8. Wyoming 9. Florida 10. Georgia STATES WITH HIGHEST AVG. PREMIUMS PER FAMILY POLICY 1. Massachusetts 2. New York 3. New Jersey 4. Rhode Island 5. Connecticut 6. Louisiana 7. North Carolina 8. New Hampshire 9. Maine 10. South Dakota If the correlation between the number of uninsured and high premiums was a strong one, both lists should consist mostly of the same states. But as you can see, only Louisiana showed up on both lists. So what’s driving up health care costs in all these other states?— Fisher
- The Republicans of the '60's were true statesmen --- voting with Johnson on a historic bill when the racist Dixiecrats were fighting tooth & nail against it. They very easily could have let it die --- just to stymie Johnson. It was Nixon & his Southern Strategy that gave the Dixiecrats a home. Johnson spoke often about his awareness that he was risking losing Southern Democratic votes for a generation or two & that has certainly come to pass. Looking at the map now, it appears like he basically traded the hard line Southerners for the moderate Northerners.— yobill626
- Yobil626- the unfunded obligation for Prescription drug, medicare, medicaed, and social security is over 100 trillion dollars. It has bankrupt the nation. Check out www.defeatthedebt.com
- "Off Capitol Hill, MoveOn.org began airing TV ads on cable blasting the Finance Committee bill, and organized labor is running a full-page newspaper ad this week criticizing the measure for failing to include a public option or require employers to provide their workers with health care. The unions also oppose a tax on high-end health care plans that Finance Committee Democrats used to pay for the bill. And on the House side, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer raised the prospect that the bill might slip past Christmas and into 2010 – which could be politically disastrous for President Barack Obama, who has tried to pass health reform this year to put some distance between the vote and the midterm elections" From the Politico- This does not look good. There is a big difference between a bill that gets voted out of committee and actually becoming legistlation.
- There's some misunderstanding in the electorate as to who has a " cadillac" healthcare plan. Teachers and labor unions encompass a large portion of what would be labled a "cadillac" plan. This is going to a big problem in the passage of this bill.
- There's some misunderstanding in the electorate as to who has a " cadillac" healthcare plan. Teachers and labor unions encompass a large portion of what would be labled a "cadillac" plan. This is going to a big problem in the passage of this bill.
- The devil is always in the details. Once again Obama is counting on the dimwitedness of the American elecorate. "The bill imposes tax hikes and benefit cuts right away, including $121 billion of Medicare reductions between 2011 and 2015. But new spending really doesn't start until five years out (2015) and isn't fully operational until 2017. The bill uses 10 years worth of tax hikes and benefit cuts to fund a few years worth of benefits."
- Mike, We need reform of the healthcare delivery in this nation. There can be no getting around that fact. As far as the poor financial condition of this country the chickens are coming home to roost from the George W. Bush era. Did you know that he was the first president who started a war then cut taxes (thus putting the cost of the war TOTALLY on the nations credit card) !!!!! He was EXTREMELY reckless. No matter whether our Presidents policys work or not at least this nation will get some value from the spending !!!— ModerateMarge
- smike, of course you are right on this one & it will cost far more than we are lead to believe as usual: ***Lawmakers use a 10-year accounting window to assess new programs. Starting the Medicare cuts and some of the taxes in the early years -- and pushing the bulk of new spending into the latter years -- helps keep the cost of the health care overhaul within Obama's $900 billion limit. Bush used the same kind of maneuver to push the Medicare benefit through Congress. "It means that the full cost of the program is underestimated in the 10-year window that you are looking at," said Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare for former President George H.W. Bush. "It's not like we've never seen this before, but people need to understand what's going on."*** http://cbs13.com/health/health.bill.2013.2.1240007.html?detectflash=false— NEPhilly
- ***Issa insists that’s not the case and that he’s not out to embarrass Dodd, Conrad or any other Democrats. “I’m not interested in who took what, so to speak. I’m interested in how this worked, what [Countrywide] expected to gain” and what reform Congress may need to prevent future programs that target powerful officials, Issa said in an interview with POLITICO. Issa said he respects the Senate Ethics Committee’s finding but believes the fundamental problem raised by the scandal remains. “Do we as Americans really want to continue saying there’s no ethical or legal violation if we get hundreds and thousands of dollars in discounts, even though we can’t accept a can of Coke from a lobbyist?” he asked.*** Good question. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28300.html— NEPhilly
- I would love to know mxlplk's test for who is a "racist legislator from a southern state." Or are they "racists" BECAUSE they are from a southern state.— pj katauskas
- PJ, I can speak with some authority about Southern politicians, since I live in Rome, GA and grew up here. (I also spent 30 years in the Philly region, moving back in 2004). There are plenty of racist politicians still here. Not all, but more than there should be. And when they're with people they think of as safe to speak freely around, they do use coded racist language. For example, Saxby Chambliss told a group of Republicans here that they should work very hard so that Obama wouldn't be elected -- because he'd be able to appoint Supreme Court justices, and "you know what happened in 1964 when the court was more liberal." I'm not kidding. One person present gasped out loud at that one.— NigeltheMastiff
- Actually, I think I got the year wrong. 1964 was the Civil Rights Act, I believe. When was Brown vs. Board of Education? 1954? That was the year he mentioned.— NigeltheMastiff
- Back in the 90s when universal health insurance was proposed by Clinton, Bill Kristol warned the republicans against cooperating because he asserted that the adoption of healthcare would "insure a democratic majority for a generation." This pitch worked, and Clinton's plan was defeated. Note that they didn't make any phony pitch about "cost" back then, it was strictly strategic politics. And the republicans are back to the same old stuff, only now they falsely claim a cost issue. What I don't understand is that if there's a government program that the public so wants and needs that its enactment would guarantee a majority to the sponsoring party for a generation, doesn't a democratic government have a moral and political obligation to adopt this program? Please give me a conservative argument to the contrary; there must be one but it escapes me.— liberal
- Tom--re your 1:06 post, you are absolutely right, but why did you deny this back weeks ago when I pointed it out? Why else than because it has now become a republican talking point. You people are too tricky to deal with, you shift arguments all over the place just for strategic political gain, without regard for the truth.— liberal
- These phony arguments about cost are getting more and more crazy--they must come from some republican version of the Moscow Line because they make no other kind of sense. There is no "unfunded liability" for Medicare--it is funded on an annual basis and can be modified or repealed at any time by the government if it costs too much. What if George W Bush had been required to show the "unfunded liability" of his foreign policy or the Iraq war in particular? Nice political point, but sheer nonsense from an accounting point of view.— liberal
- NEPhilly: I think you missed PEW's point. There point wasn't that FOX was "balanced", there point was that MSNBC was far more positive (and less negative) than anyone else towards Obama, and that Fox was far more positive towards McCain than anyone else (outside of conservative talk radio). Remember a "positive" article can be one where you simply state that candidate X is gaining in the polls and why. A "negative" article can just be one that states candidate Y is dropping in the polls and why.... In general, they assert that there is more positive press coverage for the winner - because they are winning.— still_independent
- lib, when you say "What I don't understand is that if there's a government program that the public so wants and needs.." that is the problem with this legislation. The majority of the people do not want it, if they did our spendthrift, do nothing but harm congress would have passed this 'pig in lipstick' legislation back in August without anyone reading it, instead of in late December without anyone reading it:) Also, you would admit the congress is using acctg. tricks to line it up with the Presidents lines in the sand & it is one govt. health program that will be funded by the waste and fraud in another govt. health program. When the GOP proposed to just slow the growth of Medicare the dems jumped all over them for cheap political points, so it serves them right:) It spends $800 Bil in 5 years using 10 years worth of revenue to save money on healthcare? Come again? Doesn't insure everyone and just because the President is a likeable fellow, I don't trust the govt. to run it efficiently & I don't trust the congress to write the bill behind closed doors without shenanigans going on. Other than that, I'm fine with it:)— NEPhilly
- still, I didn't miss it & don't get me wrong I believe Fox News opinion columnists are conservative, but their straight newscasts, such as Shepard Smith, Bret Baier and Greta are not. And Chris Wallace is a fine journalist so lets not lump them all with O'Reilly (who is pretty fair) and Hannity (less so) and Beck (anacharist:). I would like to see them compare ABC, NBC and CBS against each other, now that would be interesting. One question, do you think Obama got treated poorly or fairly or nicely by the media during his election and in the months after? My argument is, he was treated more than fairly ('I have tingles'.., etc.) when SNL is busting the MSM's chops over it during a skit. I think it has led to 'thin skin' at the White House, what do you think?— NEPhilly
- "1964 to ensure equal rights for black People" //Voting record for the Civil Rights Act 1964 - House of Representatives: Democrats for: 152, Democrats against: 96, Republicans for: 138, Republicans against: 34 || Senate: Democrats for: 46,Democrats against: 21, Republicans for: 27, Republicans against: 6 || House Democrats 61% for and 80% of Republicans for. Senate Democrats 68.7% for and 81.8% of Republicans for. In other wards the Republican party in a greater forces than the Democratic party voted for equal rights. 1965 voting rights act Senate: 77–19, Democrats: 47–17 (73%-27%), Republicans: 30–2 (94%-6%),House: 333–85, Democrats: 221–61 (78%-22%), Republicans: 112–24 (82%-18%) NO CONTEST, liberals are really liberal! Social Security Act of 1965 House: Democrats: Yea 237 (83%) Nay 48, Republicans Yea 70 (51) Nay 68, House Democrats Yea 57 (89%) Nay 7, Republicans Yea 13 (43%) Nay 17:=: Clearly Republicans voted against big govt, but voted in stronger numbers for rights. Polman likely no one at INKY checks your work. The reality remains; only one Republican thought the bill out of 9 other Republicans did. However, all 13 Democrats believed in looting our pockets so they did not have to labor at all.— Fisher
- ***Corzine's Health Care Spin: In his tight New Jersey gubernatorial race, John Corzine is running one attack ad that is particularly dishonest, and destructive. “Christie would cut health coverage,” the ad announces. “Including mammograms.” Corzine refers to his opponent's opposition to foolish state laws that force New Jersey insurance companies to cover 45 different treatments -- from mammograms and prosthetic limbs to autism support and contraceptives. Getting rid of those requirements would lower the cost of insurance, which means more people could afford it. It would also give people choice. It would stop forcing everyone who buys health insurance to get a plan that covers mammograms, and other things they might not want. In today’s WSJ Merrill Matthews discusses the results of NJ’s mandates and community rating system: There were repeated warnings that such legislation would drive up health insurance premiums. But New Jersey legislators ignored those warnings. Today, New Jersey residents have relatively few health insurance options, and coverage is significantly more expensive than in most other states. Just across the state line in Pennsylvania, for instance, a family can buy a comparable insurance policy for a quarter to half the price. I just wish Christie had a few other good ideas. Insurance mandates ripped off people in New Jersey. Now Congress wants to do something similar to all Americans.*** http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/10/15/corzines-health-care-spin/— NEPhilly
- Nigelthemastiff- This business of accusing Republicans as racists is straight out of Michael Moore/Rahm Emanual index card talking points for an electorate that is knows no better . To wit with the fact that the Repulicans appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme court or that Condi Rice was Secretary of State. Enough already with your race baiting. Please site the source of this quote as a proofsource for what you said Saxby Chambliss said.
- NE--your 2:05 post shows a concept of insurance that is inadequate for most people's needs. If health insurers were completely free to design their policies, with no state or federal mandated coverage, then they would seek to shrink the insurance pool so that nobody who actually needed insurance could get it. This is also the problem with simply opening competition across state lines. This would allow everybody to get affordable coverage, except for those people who most need health insurance. All of us will be in that category eventually as a result of aging no matter what good care we take of ourselves. Universal coverage will remove the need or perceived need for state-law mandated coverage, and insurance companies can compete on the service they provide, not on how many bad risks they can exclude.— liberal
- lib, see you on the next blog:)— NEPhilly
- swede--the republicans are using the rhetorical technique of the "straw man" to deal with charges of racism among republicans. They say that liberals are asserting that any criticism of Obama is racist, while the actual liberal criticism is that republicans are ignoring evidence of racism within their ranks. Since this is obviously true (since the Southern Strategy racists have been somewhat welcomed in the republican party and for that matter there are probably racists in every party including the democrats) why not simply say, no indeed liberals, we republicans decry racism in every party and we distance ourselves from anybody who makes racist statements. That would take care of it, wouldn't it? Why bring up the straw man?— liberal
- SMike, I heard it from two different people at different times. Each attended this event. I'm not race baiting. If you deny that racism still exists in this country, you're burying your head in the sand. I know how evil it was in the 50s and 60s here because I grew up among it. You always do this -- completely misconstrue what I'm saying. It's not just Republicans who are racist here, but I can't help it if almost all politicians in Georgia are Republicans. They are the ones people vote in. And Saxby Chambliss did say this. I don't use talking points. And I'm not dimwitted (one of your favorite expressions). The fact that you use that term to describe all liberals tells me how illogical your thinking is. Just because someone disagrees with you, that person is stupid? What does that say about your own intellectual capacity?— NigeltheMastiff
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: