Purity versus diversity
The Republican collision between ideologues and pragmatists
Purity versus diversity
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
On paper, the 23rd congressional district in upstate New York, way up near the Canadian border, is solid Republican territory - so solid, in fact, that this particular hunting and fishing region hasn't elected a Democratic congressman since the era immediately preceding the invention of the telephone. That would be circa 1869.
So one might reasonably assume that on Nov. 3, in a special election to fill the recently vacated House seat, that the Republican party's official nominee will win handily and life will go on as normal. Dede Scozzafava is a member of the state legislature with roots in the district, a seasoned pol endorsed by Republicans as disparate as moderate Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich - therefore, case closed.
But no. Never underestimate the contemporary Republican propensity for circular firing squads.
The GOP's conservative wing, incensed that Scozzafava harbors tolerant views about abortion and gay marriage, appears determined to bring her down in the name of ideological purity. Big-name conservatives - Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Dick Armey, Michele Bachmann, and many more - have defected to a rookie third-party candidate, an accountant named Doug Hoffman, who is running on New York's Conservative Party line. With eight days left on the campaign calendar, every poll reports that this fundamental Republican fissure is splitting the non-Democratic vote and making it highly likely that the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens, will capture the seat that he normally would never win.
Yeah, this is just one House seat, and the outcome of this race won't change the House power balance one way or the other. But this intramural GOP skirmish - between the purists and the pragmatists, between the grassroots and the party establishment, between the conservative ideologues and those in the party who embrace the notion of "big tent" diversity - is a harbinger of more to come.
We'll see it next summer in the Florida Senate Republican primary, which will pit moderate Charlie Crist (the current governor) against arch-conservative hero Mario Rubio; and we'll surely see it in the next presidential race, particularly if grassroots conservatives flock to a Palin candidacy while pragmatists opt for somebody who can actually win.
It's the old conundrum about going with your heart or voting with your head, and this is what we're seeing right now in upstate New York. The New York Republican establishment, and the GOP campaign committees in Washington, have this wild and crazy notion that a party can return to power only if it diversifies, only if it broadens the ideological spectrum and makes room for politicians who think differently on the issues. After all, that's how the Democrats returned to power on Capitol Hill - by recruiting anti-abortion, pro-gun, fiscally conservative candidates who fit their states and districts.
Hence, the New York GOP's choice of Scozzafava - for a congressional district that gave 52 percent of its '08 presidential vote to Barack Obama. Her formula for winning seemed commonsensical: pull in loyal Republicans, swing voters, conservative Democrats, and labor union folks (she has a good relationship with unions in the district).
But the Republican right favors purity over victory. Mary Matalin, the Republican strategist/talking head, says that Scozzafava's positions are "freedom-squashing." Anti-abortion leader Marjorie Dannenfelser calls the GOP nominee "a radical ultraleftist." (If Scozzafava is indeed a radical ultraleftist, how come the National Rifle Association has seen fit to endorse her?) Palin writes on her Facebook page that Scozzafava represents "politics as usual." The Club for Growth, a purist group that relishes attacking moderate Republicans, is peppering the district with TV ads that urge conservative voters to defect to Hoffman (who is running third in the polls).
The infighting is so bad that it has degenerated into comedic farce. A reporter for the right-wing Weekly Standard magazine has been dogging Scozzafava on the campaign trail, demanding that she explain her reluctance to embrace all manner of conservative orthodoxy - and things got so heated last week that a Scozzafava aide called the cops, claiming that the reporter was harassing the candidate. (A stupid move by the Scozzafava campaign.) Minutes later, the reporter was sitting in his car working on his laptop, when a cop rolled up, asked for his ID, and said (as the reporter later recalled), "You scared the candidate a little bit." The conservative press promptly jumped on this incident to demand last Thursday that Scozzafava quit the race (Redstate.com wrote: "She has become a liar, filing a false police report because a journalist dared ask a question she did not like").
But the bottom line is that the right-wing revolt is likely to cost the GOP an easy House seat and throw it to the Democrat. Newt Gingrich seems to understand the problem; as he wrote the other day, in a warning to conservatives, "if you seek to be a perfect minority, you'll remain a minority...There are times when you have to put together a coalition that has disagreement within it." And as ex-Bush speechwriter David Frum noted the other day, the right's intolerance for big-tent Republicanism "is not a formula for a national party. It's a formula for a more coherent, better mobilized, but perpetually minority party."
How did this House seat become vacant, anyway? Because President Obama tapped the long-serving Republican, John McHugh, to serve as Secretary of the Army. The Obama political team is undoubtedly pleased with the GOP's current intramurals - just as Republican moderates decidely are not.
And down in Florida, where ideology and pragmatism are already in collision, where Senate GOP hopeful Charlie Crist is already under severe attack from the right, state Republican chairman (and Crist booster) Jim Greer reportedly pleads, "Lord, save me from the purists."
Fat chance.
Comments (78)
Democrats have Blue Dogs, Republicans have RINO's. This is just one local anecdote that will be forgotten by Thanksgiving.— SteveMG- I can never understand why third party candidates, who have to know they have no shot at winning, continue to stay in a race and just muck it up. This is an example, Daggett in New Jersey is another, Ross Perot in 1992, etc. Why waste the money, manpower, etc. Is it just to stroke their own egos? If Hoffman truly has no shot, he should bow out of the race. What good is a protest vote if it just puts into office a candidate with whom that voter truly disagrees. The people who vote for these candidates, knowing their vote is just being wasted, are just as bad.— tom - wilmington, de
- Meanwhile, what you won't read here, is that for fiscal 2010 the Democrat controlled House, which gained control rightly chastising Republicans for out of control spending, are preparing bills to increase discretionary spending by 12.6% over 2009 record levels. This while Chuck Schumer yesteday on Meet The Press said Democrats are getting a grip on the deficit and balancing the budget. Funny.— tom - wilmington, de
Why do people who have zero tolerance of diverse viewpoints admonish Republicans for challenging one of their own? Bottom line is, we don't like liberalism, we find it quite abhorrent. This isn't exactly a secret. I don't get what's so difficult to understand about that.— jmc- "Never underestimate the contemporary Republican propensity for circular firing squads." Translation: Polman still stubbornly clings to the left's fondest wishful thinking, namely, that BOTH parties, and eventually everyone everywhere, will accept the left's position on the issues, especially on the social questions. His willful ideological blindness (to call a spade a spade) clearly prevents him from seeing numerous instances of Democrtaic Party circular firing squads.— George Tomezsko
- Remember when George Bush was criticized for playing golf while troops were dying in Iraq? Well, CBS reporter Mark Knoller reported the other day that Obama has now tied Bush for rounds of golf played while in office at 24. It took Obama 9 months to hit this figure; it took W 2 years and 10 months. Shouldn't someone tell Obama this looks bad while a decision is still pending on Afghanistan?— tom - wilmington, de
- Hey, Dick, I've got a question that will test your consistency on this notion that GOP must become a "big tent:" if the GOP should broaden itself to include those who aupport legal abortion, should the Dems broaden themselves to include those who oppose it?— George Tomezsko
- To Tom: The freedom to vote for whom we please is intended to give all a voice. When I vote for whom I please, it says that I agree more with this candidate over the others, and isn't that the point of voting? How would my wishes be heard if I only voted for who I thought would win, even if I don't agree with them? If more of us thought like that and less like you, we would finally have a chance to (GASP!)have more candidates who are less far left or far right, and probably more centered. And what's the harm with more choices? Most Americans are not at either end of the spectrum, but more toward the middle.
- Great article, as usual. What the neocons like Palin, Armey and the usual suspects above, is that their brand of politics will ALWAYS keep them a minority. Unitl they are able to appeal to a wider audience.
Comment removed.- Dick, your political instincts are horrible, as usual. If you actually knew how conservatives and Republicans think, instead of your fantasy world, then your writing would be so much better. You're a smart guy, but trapped in a liberal bubble.— chrissmith
- OBAMA IS CONVISCATING ARE RIGHTS! WE WILL ALL BE IN REEJUCATION CAMPS FOR PEPTUITY! I AM AN IDIOT!!!— the stupid does burn
- chrissmith : I suppose Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan have/had no clue as to how conservatives think either. Both espoused the need for a pragmatic view of the party and inclusiveness - call it "big tent" or whatever you choose.— still_independent
Hey "the stupid does burn" LOL! The Repugs will think ur serious 2. F-U-N-N-Y!- I forgot, there are no far left wing extremists in the democratic party. Everyone in the democratic party is all in step with the far left fringe. It is all peace and joy. (The moderate and mainstream Blue Dogs do not really exist). Hey Dick, ever wonder why comrade Obama cannot get his agenda passed (hmm, it is not because of the republicans - he has substantial opposition in his own party). You gotta love how Polman wants to paint the republicans as a party controlled by the far right, when his beloved dems are at the mercy of the extremist left and why they will tank in 2010.— CD75
- CD75 -- you are totally hilarious. Obama can't get his agenda passed? Jeez! The Congress is set to pass a health reform bill that is MORE liberal than Obama had said was necessary with public support and here's CD75 saying that they are "the far left fringe" and Obama can't get his agenda passed. That's fine by me. CD75, George, and all the rest can keep ignoring the fact that the GOP is at war with itself and the Democrats will just keep right on getting the people's business done and winning elections.— anonymous
- Tomeszko--are you from PA? If not, that might explain your ignorance of the fact that our democratic senator, Bob Casey, opposes abortion. There are many democratic officeholders, and innumerable democratic voters who also oppose abortion. The right's idea that there is a rigid philosophy that they (erroneously) call "liberalism" residing in the democratic party does not square with the facts.— liberal
- CD75 : you have completely missed Poleman's point. Yes, there are left-wing extremist in the Democratic party. But there aren't ONLY left-wing extremists in the party. The fact that there are opposing factions in that party show that there are multiple factions in the party. The concern for Republicans that actually want to become a majority party again is that the party is trending the other way. The Dems picked up a lot of seats with pro-defense, pro-second ammendment, anti-choice (yes, I chose that appelation on purpose) candidates in traditionally conservative or moderate districts.— still_independent
- ***Once left for dead, it now appears likely that the health legislation Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will introduce sometime this week will include a government run health insurance program. One of the biggest reasons leftists support a government run plan is because they believe government run programs, like Medicare, have lower administrative costs than private plans. First of all, as the Washington Post’s Robert Samuelson notes today, that is simply not true: on a per person basis Medicare actually has higher administrative costs than the private sector. More importantly, the private sector does a much better job rooting out fraud and waste than the government does.*** http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/26/medicare%e2%80%99s-low-administrative-costs-cost-you-60-billion-a-year/— NEPhilly
- ***...this 60 Minutes story from last night detailing how government run Medicare loses $60 billion in taxpayer in fraud every year: In the story, Steve Kroft asks convicted Medicare fraudster “Tony” about the extent of the government’s anti-fraud efforts: “Didn’t anybody in Medicare check to see if any of these charges were valid?” Kroft asked Tony. “Sometimes they’ll do it. But by the time they did it, it was too late,” Tony said. “We’ve already made $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 on it. And then we will never send ‘em nothing back. And then at 30 days they’ll send an inspector to your office. And by that time…it’s all closed down.” They would pay first and send an auditor later.*** Same Heritage story.— NEPhilly
- Harry Reid just announced that the Senate healthcare bill will contain a public option with a state opt out provision. However, the citizens of that state will still be paying the taxes to support the public option. This is such a mess.— tom - wilmington, de
- Last one:) ***“Look, I’m sure that you’re aware of these problems. But it doesn’t seem like you’re doing a very good job. I don’t mean you personally, but I mean, the government. This is still like a huge problem, and getting worse, right?” Kroft asked. “Well, it really does come down to the size and scope of the Medicare program, and the resources that are dedicated to oversight and anti fraud work. One of our biggest challenges has been that we have a program that pays out over a billion claims a year, over $430 billion, and our oversight budget has been extremely limited,” Brandt (Kim Brandt, Medicare’s director of program integrity) said. About that there is little dispute: Medicare has just three field inspectors in all of South Florida to check up on thousands of questionable medical equipment companies. “Clearly more auditing needs to be done and it needs to be done in real time,” Attorney General Eric Holder said. In other words, Medicare needs to spend much much more on administrative costs if they are going to stop losing $60 billion in taxpayer money every year. And that is before President Obama signs legislation that will put 100 million more Americans into a government run plan.*** Exactly.— NEPhilly
- Gallup poll, October 21, 2009. Should the healthcare plan include a public option, 50% yes and 46% no. Should Congress tackle healthcare in one bill this year or do so gradually over several years, 58% gradually, 38% one bill this year. Do you believe healthcare reform will increase or lower your costs, 49% cost get worse, 22% get better. How about care, will it improve or get worse, 39% worse, 17% better, 40% no change. And people think the public wants this to pass?— tom - wilmington, de
- tom: interesting data about the polling regarding the public option. If the word "choice" is included in the question, the results are remarkedly different (and perhaps this is a reason to discount polling data altogether). The NBC/WSJ (dem and rep pollsters) asked the two questions, each to 1/2 the respondents. Q1: "Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies? ". Under 50% supported it. Q2: "In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance – extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important? " About 70% supported it (extremely or quite important). http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ-NBC_Poll090922.pdf on page 16— still_independent
- Comment removed.
- ***The fear of being forced to change insurance coverage can be seen in results from a pair of survey questions. The first question finds that 46% favor the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan. Thirty-seven percent (37%) are opposed. The second question asked about the creation of a public option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Given that possibility, support for the public option falls to 29%, and opposition rises to 58%***http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/october_2009/fear_of_losing_private_health_insurance_trumps_public_option— NEPhilly
- STILL: Fox should do a poll that says: do you the public option as described by Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity? 10-0% no is a lock! Then, CD75 can bloviate all over the blog.— Talvenada
- ***If the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats passes, 57% of voters nationwide believe it will raise the cost of health care, and 53% believe the quality of care will get worse. That’s part of the reason that just 45% support the plan. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% are opposed to it. Those numbers include 23% who Strongly Favor the plan and 40% who are Strongly Opposed. Just 18% say passage of the congressional plan will reduce costs, while only 23% believe it will lead to better care.*** http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform— NEPhilly
- Democratic Party activ-ists have pointed out that Scott Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.— Talvenada
- tom - wilmington, de: @12:20 PM the question really is how much "brush" has Obama cleared in those 9 months? i think Bush holds the world record for clearing brush ... at one point, i gotta believe that Texas had to import foreign brush so W. could get his monthly fix for his "brush addiction." but seriously, we all agree that George W. Bush was "all hat and no cattle." - jimy_max— jimy_max
- A previous poster questioned why 3rd party candidates "muck it up". Well, I, for one, usually can't vote for the top two because they leave too much to be desired. Once I started checking out and (and voting for) independents, I finally realized how many wasted votes I casted for Democrats and Republicans. The two "major" parties have "mucked it up" for all of us.— Mark Glaeser
- Are the usual right wing posters really as clueless as they seem? They seem to be happy with their 20% share. I guess they think that the 20% figure will be going back up into the 40s as soon as their most urgent wish is granted (i.e., the President (and the country) fail miserably). This makes me think of their favorite question for folks who disagreed with Bush - How come you folks hate America so much???? [BTW, don't hold your breath waiting for the 40%].— johngilb
- johngilb: the sad fact for the Obama haters is that the way these right wingnuts are hijacking the GOP, the 20% is not a floor but a ceiling for the Republicans. how do you think Obama was elected ... with a lot of help from the moderate conservatives who don't buy the hysteria, the drama media queens of the Right, the conspiracy theories or contempt for Barack Obama. we are lucky that there is more sanity in the GOP at large than the insanity of their ever decreasing fringe base. peace out, jimy_max— jimy_max
- CONSE 'PUBS: O— Talvenada
- CONSE 'PUBS: One of your own publications says Ru-sh, Beck and Palin are your lea-ders. The Weekly Standard!!— Talvenada
- ***The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 29% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12 (see trends)....Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove. The President’s total approval has been very stable, staying between 47% and 49% every day for two full weeks. Looking back a bit further, his ratings have stayed between 45% and 52% every day for nearly four months.**** http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll— NEPhilly
- Here is Pawlenty. ***Pawlenty has mostly confined his criticism of the president to domestic issues. But the potential 2012 presidential candidate told the news organization that Obama “is projecting potential weakness, and enemies may see that and their res pect may be reduced as a result of that, or worse.” He went on to call Obama a “movement liberal,” whose policy prescriptions include the “federalization of policy, spending way beyond anything we’ve seen in terms of deficit or debt levels [and] spending the country into bankruptcy.” “What’s behind it is a philosophy that government knows best, a nanny state mentality on domestic issues that will ultimately be corrosive to the other pil lars of our country – to markets, private enterprise, individual responsibility, freedom and liberty,” Pawlenty said.*** http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28735.html#— NEPhilly
- LJL...obviously you missed the point about the post by still_independent in how polling depends on the wording in the question. I believe those polls you cited used the word "choice", which always garners more approval. However, the Gallup poll numbers were nearly within the margin of error, hardly a ringing endorsement. In a way I hope a public option gets in, that way, after the moderates and independents and conservative Democrats see how it will ruin their healthcare, raise taxes and balloon the deficit even more than Obama now plans, the Dems will get booted out in droves and the Republicans can just repeal the bill.— tom - wilmington, de
- johnglib...what are you talking about - 20%. If you are referring to the country being conservative or liberal, 40% Conservative, 37% moderate, 22% liberal. That is the latest from Gallup. So while the president, Nancy and Harry continue to push their liberal agenda, the country continues to move in the opposite direction, and the president's approval ratings continue to fall.— tom - wilmington, de
- RASMUSSEN! FASCIST! CONVISCATE! PEPTUITY! LIAR!— the stupid does burn
- OBAMA IS A COWARD FOR NOT SENDING PEOPLE OTHER THAN ME TO FIGHT IN AFGHANISTAN!!! TRAITOR COMMI LIBERAL! HE IS CONVISCATING MARRIAGE FOR THE GAYS! I AM DUMBER THAN THE DAY IS LONG!!!— the stupid does burn
- george, the Democractic partgy does allow people who oppose abortion inot it. See Bob Casey, Heath Shuler to name just two prominent Senators.Can you name any prominent gop pro-choice senators? Stop with your nonsense. Love how you cons always say that Dems blindly follow. If so, can you explain why we do not yet have health care reform, Gitmo is still open, and troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan? If you could pullyour head out, you'd have to admit that the Dems are the parties of thinkers while the repubs ahve been reduced to the no-nothings. Not one piece of serious legislation have they offered. Nothing but cut taxes, give insurance companies more profits, forget that repubs got us into this economic mess, and send more troops to get killed as soon as possible. That's the gop way.— mike l
- Hey George, the Democrats already include anti-choice candidates in their tent. I hope the Republicans follow your advice, because you are quickly becoming irrelevant and we're laughing over here on the far left. You keep playing right into our hands.— HandNik
- mike..I believe both Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are pro choice.— tom - wilmington, de
- mike..Heath Shuler is not a Senator. Nice try though.— tom - wilmington, de
- Wow, after reading these posts the one thing I noticed is no liberal seems to want to talk about their record. Obama's record. Just a bunch of Republican bashing. If this is the leadership of the Democrats when they have super majorities then I would say the are pretty much bereft of ideas and bankrupt of solutions.
- I'd be happy to defend Obama's record. Of course, he has been president for a very short time, so it's hard to evaluate his policies definitively. Nevertheless, the economy has rebounded--I can now be somewhat optimistic about retirement and so can all you republicans with big holdings in the stock market. I'm not expecting you to say thanks, barack, but at least cut the nonsense about how the stimulus has done nothing. On foreign policy, Obama has reversed the negativism of the Bush people. The long-range is cloudy as it always is, but at least there is a sense of intelligence rather than ideology at work. And at least we are past the point where macho slogans are considered policy.— liberal
- ***CNN’s performance was worst in the 8 p.m. hour. Bill O’Reilly on Fox News continued his long dominance with the biggest numbers of any host, 881,000 viewers. Mr. Olbermann, with his first-run program, was second with 295,000. Close behind was the first edition of Ms. Grace’s show with 269,000. Campbell Brown on CNN trailed with only 162,000.*** http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/cnn-drops-to-last-place-among-cable-news-networks/— NEPhilly
- ***At 7 p.m. CNN’s host, Lou Dobbs was fourth, barely beaten by Jane Velez Mitchell on HLN, 166,000 to 162,000. The big winner was Shepard Smith on Fox with 465,000 viewers. Second was Chris Matthews and “Hardball” on MSNBC, with 179,000 viewers.***— NEPhilly
- ***The only CNN show from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. that did not finish last was Larry King, which was third, ahead of the new Joy Behar show on HLN. But Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News had a huge lead with 659,000 viewers in that age group. Second was Rachel Maddow on MSNBC with 242,000. Mr. King averaged 224,000 and Ms. Behar 181,000.***— NEPhilly
- tom/NEPhilly/swedesboromike: can you guys explain the sudden obsession here amongst conservatives on polling data? During the first three years or so or Iraq, when it was a complete and unmitigated disaster, I was continually told that GW Bush was "resolute in the face of public opinion" (I'd say in the face of reality, but that's neither here nor there), and he was doing "what's right, not popular", and all sorts of other similar bs. Then during the election, you guys kept saying that McCain was principled, not "governed by polls" (which was more bs), and that Democrats, and Obama in particular, "held their finger to the wind" and made decisions "based upon the latest polls". Now fast forward to 2009. Your main argument against offering a public option is not merit based, but that .... wait for it... some polls show the country evenly split. Could you guys pick a position and stick with it please? Either our elected officials should do what they feel is in the best interests of their constituents, and if need be pay the price at the next election (there's your term limits, NEPhilly) as was intended when our nation was founded as a representative democracy, or they should just run polls and vote the way a majority polls - in which case we should just have a direct democracy where everyone votes on everything. I'm fine with polling data if focused narrowly on the political aspects of pending legislation, but to use it as an argument for or against legislation is ridiculous, and actually subverts the basic premise upon which our government was based upon.— still_independent
- and I'm saying that being very ambivalent about the public option myself.— still_independent
- lib, I think the markets/economy would have rebounded without the $180 Bil the gov. has spent as stimulus and without the $600 Bil they have not spent yet. I am happy about the market. We will see how 'intelligent' the President's new foreign policy efforts of treating our enemies better than Fox News and the Chamber of Commerce will work out. I worry as Gov. Pawlenty does, ***...But the potential 2012 presidential candidate told the news organization that Obama “is projecting potential weakness, and enemies may see that and their res pect may be reduced as a result of that, or worse.” He went on to call Obama a “movement liberal,” whose policy prescriptions include the “federalization of policy, spending way beyond anything we’ve seen in terms of deficit or debt levels [and] spending the country into bankruptcy.” “What’s behind it is a philosophy that government knows best, a nanny state mentality on domestic issues that will ultimately be corrosive to the other pil lars of our country – to markets, private enterprise, individual responsibility, freedom and liberty,” Pawlenty said.*** http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28735.html#— NEPhilly
- NEPhilly: winning prime time among cable news networks is like claiming to be the smartest poster on this blog. It may be technically true, but you have to keep it in perspective :)— still_independent
- still, GWB did do what he thought was 'right' in the face of bad poll numbers many times (surge, immigration, social security, etc). McCain was governed by polls and during the campaign switched some positions accordingly, not a good idea in my opinion. I was posting the poll numbers because several of your fellow less educated liberal posters were saying, incorrectly, that the public option was wanted by a majority of Americans and I just used the poll to counter that argument. How many politicians (on either side of the aisle) would sacrifice their seat for their own ideology and beliefs? That is my idea of a 'principled politician' and not many fit the bill. If they were not worried about themselves (not their constituents) and their jobs the dems in congress would have passed this healthcare bill long ago, imho.— NEPhilly
- still, right you are:) Just trying to keep it real in the face of the Fox bashing:)— NEPhilly
- still, my posting of polling data is usually beckoned by someone stating that the public option is favored by the majority of people, and how the majority of people view healthcare reform as a major priority. For the first few months since Obama was inaugurated, it was mentioned ad nauseum on this site how popular Obama was, how the nation loved his policies and how he could remake America. Now, with his popularity tanking, his policies viewed unfavorably by more than 50% of the nation, and nothing having been fixed by his actions, those same people barely mention polls, so I do it for them. Frankly, I do not believe politicians should govern based on polling data, especially where military action is concerned. Clinton governed by polls, Bush did not, and Obama seems to be stuck somewhere in the middle. I believe his indifference to a decision on Afghanistan troops is more the result of bad polling of that war and the politics of his healthcare ambitions than on his "review" of the strategy (which he announced this past March) and the election fraud (we had Richard Holbrooke over there...were they really surprised by the fraud?).— tom - wilmington, de
- liberal, kindly explain how the economy has rebounded. Where is the data to back this up? Are you saying having a jobless recovery is indicative of a rebounding economy? Do you believe that bunk on "saved jobs"? What exactly, except for extending unemployment and assisting with COBRA, has the stimulus stimulated? It was supposed to create 600,000 jobs over the summer (it didn't happen). It was supposed to prevent unemployment from exceeding 8% (it didn't happen). It promised to create or save 3.5 million jobs, but we are still bleeding 500,000 jobs per month. The stimulus did not stabilize banks or the auto industry, that money came from TARP. So exactly what has the stimulus accomplished? As for internationally, please point to one success. All I see is backtracking (missile shield in Poland), dithering (troop increase in Afghanistan), Iran is still producing uranium, North Korea has tested missiles six times since January, Russia has offered no help with Iran despite the reset of relations, Europe leaders have been snubbed (Sarkozy and Brown), Israel has little confidence in Obama, a trade war is starting with China, trade pacts with Colombia and South Korea are left unsigned, we are backing a Hugo Chavez puppet in Honduras, China is exerting influence among trade partners in Asia and we sit by and do nothing, so where are the foreign policy successes?— tom - wilmington, de
- tom, one thing the stimulus bill did was change the rules of the Tarp legislation retroactively. A lot of people don't know that. ***American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ("ARRA"). ARRA includes new executive compensation restrictions that apply to institutions that have received or will receive financial assistance under the Troubled Assets Relief Program ("TARP").***— NEPhilly
- As if the Democrats don't have their own set of tests. The democrat purity requirement for abortion is far more absolute than the Republican. name ONE prominant democrat who is publicly pushing to restrict abortion. Casey's father was the last. Casey speaks the words, but he has never actually done anything to support the anti-abortion people and his true colors became clear campaigning for Obama. And let us not forget, Obama pushed to allow hospitals to kill babies born alive during late term abortion by not treating them.— Dutch-wayne
- Successes of the Obama administration include 26 fundraisers and 24 rounds of golf.— tom - wilmington, de
- ***Again, the issue is not whether government acts, but whether it acts with an awareness of the limits of its knowledge. Sometimes we seem to have a government with no sense of those limits, no sense that perhaps government officials don’t know how to restructure General Motors, pick the most promising battery technology, re-engineer the health care system from the top, or fine-tune the complex system of executive pay. Furthermore, when extending federal authority, the Obama folks never seem to ask how Republicans will use this power when they regain the White House. The Democrats trust themselves to set private-sector salaries and use extralegal means to go after malefactors, but would they trust a future Dick Cheney? I hope they know what they’re doing. Because when a future Cheney comes into office, I’m pretty sure he’ll be coming after columnists’ salaries first.**** http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/opinion/27brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion— NEPhilly
- Dutch-wayne : no he didn't. The hospitals could already not treat the babies. the bill you are referring to would have REQUIRED hospitals to treat them even when the doctors (and that's multiple) found that there was a 0% chance of survival. I admit I have some problem with this, especially on the pallative care side, but the bill you are referring to did not do what you state. Under the law at the time in Illinois, if the fetus was deemed viable, then the hospital was already required to enact treatment. ... and to turn it around, name one prominant republican who is "publicly pushing" to fight restrictions on abortion.— still_independent
- NEPhilly, thanks. Also bearing watch is Barney Frank trying to get authority to take over companies whose failure "may" damage the economy, wiping out shareholders in the process. Of course, there is hope that a lot of this stuff can be repealed after the 2010 elections.— tom - wilmington, de
- tom, Barney Frank needs to be sent home before he can do any more damage to the country, imho.— NEPhilly
- tom: I hadn't heard that (Barney Franks stuff). Any decent links available for background?— still_independent
- tom: re your first post on independents. I'm a case study. I'm currently leaning towards Daggett - at the expense of Christie.— still_independent
- still..check out today's WSJ. The story is in there. Also, there is a link to another story on the Drudge site.— tom - wilmington, de
- still, you might as well vote for Corzine as that will be the end result of a vote for Daggett, imho.— NEPhilly
- ***A senior administration official said on Sunday that after extensive consultations with Treasury Department officials, Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, would introduce legislation as early as this week. The measure would make it easier for the government to seize control of troubled financial institutions, throw out management, wipe out the shareholders and change the terms of existing loans held by the institution.*** http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/business/economy/26big.html— NEPhilly
- ***A senior administration official said on Sunday that after extensive consultations with Treasury Department officials, Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, would introduce legislation as early as this week. The measure would make it easier for the government to seize control of troubled financial institutions, throw out management, wipe out the shareholders and change the terms of existing loans held by the institution.*** http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/business/economy/26big.html— NEPhilly
- NEP and Tom, as scary as Barney Frank is ( as is our inability to get rid of him as voters in the Mid-Atlantic states) the issue he is working on is something that needs to be addressed. The 'too big to fail' size of some companies and industries has to be faced. There was too little regulation over financials to begin with. There is already movement to repackage risk in new, just as risky offerings and if they go down, the taxpayers will be picking up the pieces once again. It's just a shame that Frank is the poster boy for this. (He's mcuh better as the poster boy for term limits)— JimR
- jim, I agree with you on the regulation, I just don't think Barney will do a good job. I would bet his biggest campaign contributors are the very companies he is trying to regulate. It was the same with the housing meltdown/Fannie. Also, why can't we just break up these 'too big too fail' companies? That probably isn't very 'republican' of me, but sometimes common sense must trump ideology, don't you think?— NEPhilly
- NEP, say "Amen!" The housing debacle and the financial problems we had/have are too much the result of no one guarding the national treasury ( or worse yet, Willie Sutton guarding the treasury) To me it indicates a talent vacuum when Frank is the guy leading the charge.— JimR
- NEPhilly : no, I vote for Daggett is like not voting at all. Corzine's vote total won't go up, Christie's will go down. It's only half as bad.— still_independent
- still, it's your vote:) jim, I think Frank is a smart guy, just misguided:) On to the next blog...— NEPhilly
- I'm a PA resident, but if I lived in NJ I would gladly vote for Daggett. I don't believe that there is any such thing as a wasted vote - a vote for Daggett tells the D and R parties that you don't like their candidates. I've voted for 3rd party candidates in the past (including Perot) and will gladly do so again in the future.— johngilb
- Dear liberal and MikeI: Your boy Bob Casey is NOT pro-life: he voted with the pro-aborts two-thirds of the time. Funny how you lefties always ignore facts to score propaganda points. Now, to settle HandNik's hash: the proper term is pro-life; your phrase "anti-choice" is a propaganda term that, like all leftist prop-terms, has NO (repeat NO) meaning, but was devised to bias the national debate over legal abortion in favor of the left's side. As for your hope that the Republicans follow my advice, they are indeed, because its a winning voice. This may come as a shock to you, but I don't see very many individuals who are wild with joy over legal abortion, or any lines of voters eager to redefine marriage. The only party quickly becoming irrelevant is yours (check the congressional approval figures). And while you may be laughing over there on the far left, it's the laughter of fools: all you have to offer is an agenda based upon a failed ideology from the nineteenth century. The Sixties are over and the day of the social engineer is done.— George Tomezsko
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: