Woohoo! Go, Scott Brown.

[Lemur]

Is this irony deficiency a nation wide phenomenon?

You're talking about the nation that created The Onion, The Colbert Report and South Park, so no, I don't think there's a nationwide irony problem. There are just some thick people out there.

[Strike For The South]

I don't see this so much as a referendum on Obamas health care as much as I see it as Coakleys bumbiling campiagn coming to bite her in the backside.

She did all the wrong things and handed this thing to Brown.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The process was bad. The bill is loaded with problems because it was rushed. As a result, it contains a lot of problems and pork that was put in there to appease particular senators (like the special status for Nebraska). I would welcome the healthcare reform, but it needs to be done right. For example, this humongous healthcare bill needs to be broken up into dozens of mini-bills each of which would target a specific aspect of the healthcare reform. That way the reform will be overall more thought out, will have more support among the people, and possibly even some bipartisan backing.

As a liberal, I nonetheless fully agree with you (at least on the 'crap-load of problems' part), but Subotan was right that this takes time to develop. Without a doubt this is a common human tendency, but it is all too well-observed in Republican/conservative apologists. Namely, I am speaking about that 'perfect proof/solution' requirement. That perfect proof for evolution, that perfect proof for 'climate change', that perfect health-care bill... - the list goes on...

Simply because the parts are wrong/missing, it does not mean it should be trashed - something most evident in science, particularly the theory of evolution. On the contrary, everything seems like rubbish in the beginning, but usually it improves. US has a great deal of experience in this, and its entire Constitution was founded upon this belief, hence the amendments (I simply at loss of words why so many Republicans deny or oppose the 'living Constitution' principle on historical grounds too).

So what is it that the Republicans want? Are they truly that idealistic? No. And neither are the Dems - it is all (or mostly) partisanship. But can the conservative Orgahs not see through this? Now, if you do not beleive the nation even needs the healthcare bill, then that is another matter, and I leave those who believe in this hypothesis alone, as their argument is rather well-formulated, even if I disagree with it.

So in which category do the conservative Orgahs fall in, I ask you.

[rvg]

So in which category do the conservative Orgahs fall in, I ask you.

Since I'm not a conservative I can't answer that question.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Since I'm not a conservative I can't answer that question.

Sorry, let me rephrase that:

All who oppose the healthcare bill - which category do you fall in?

You are libertarian, right rvg?

[rvg]

You are libertarian, right rvg?

I'm a centrist, actually. Which means that I usually end up voting Democratic when the republicans are in power and vice versa when the Democrats are in power. I am also convinced that no party should be allowed to control both the Congress and the presidency at once.

Having said that, my opposition to the healthcare bill is mostly due to the fact that it is poorly written and loaded with pork. Personally, I think the states should decide on their own how to tackle health care, but if there has to be a federal bill, it should be efficient, concise and clear. The bill in its current reading is nothing short of a nightmare.

[Subotan]

You're talking about the nation that created The Onion, The Colbert Report and South Park, so no, I don't think there's a nationwide irony problem. There are just some thick people out there.

Well, there's humor, and then there's humour.

I don't see this so much as a referendum on Obamas health care as much as I see it as Coakleys bumbiling campiagn coming to bite her in the backside.

She did all the wrong things and handed this thing to Brown.

It's certainly difficult to see this as some kind of nationwide rejection of "Obama-care". Didn't she take Christmas off?

As a liberal, I nonetheless fully agree with you (at least on the 'crap-load of problems' part), but Subotan was right that this takes time to develop.

I always get a fuzzy feeling inside when people on an internet forum say I'm right

Namely, I am speaking about that 'perfect proof/solution' requirement. That perfect proof for evolution, that perfect proof for 'climate change', that perfect health-care bill... - the list goes on...

This is slightly OT, but an interesting aspect of that phenomenon is that regardless of how much evidence is provided for those issues (Or any issues even), for many Republicans it never reaches their consistently increasingly high standard of "proof" (For Republicans, I just want to clarify that I mean the loudest ones, e.g. Glenn Beck, Limbaugh et al)

Personally, I think the states should decide on their own how to tackle health care

I doubt that's feasible. There would be many discrepancies between states, and increase the strain on State's finances, without increasing the accountability of state legislatures.

[rvg]

There would be many discrepancies between states, and increase the strain on State's finances, without increasing the accountability of state legislatures.

As opposed to straining the Federal finances without increasing the accountability of federal legislatures? Look, if the people in any given state want universal healthcare, let them have it. The statewide healthcare bill can be tailored towards the specific needs and intricacies of the state, and if it falls flat, at least that mistake has not been implemented elsewhere. There's NOTHING preventing any given state from following the example of Massachusetts, and if the Massachusetts universal healtchcare plan is good, then other states will eventually adopt something similar. There's no reason whatsoever so shuv this plan down the proverbial throat of the entire nation at once.

[Aemilius Paulus]

As opposed to straining the Federal finances without increasing the accountability of federal legislatures? Look, if the people in any given state want universal healthcare, let them have it. The statewide healthcare bill can be tailored towards the specific needs and intricacies of the state, and if it falls flat, at least that mistake has not been implemented elsewhere. There's NOTHING preventing any given state from following the example of Massachusetts, and if the Massachusetts universal healtchcare plan is good, then other states will eventually adopt something similar. There's no reason whatsoever so shuv this plan down the proverbial throat of the entire nation at once.

Please, states have a bad record on initiative for major reforms/groundbreaking laws. namely the ones which entail very high costs, as opposed to issues such as banning/permitting gay marriage, abortion, etc... And states lack the accountability of the Federal Gov't (I know, rvg, you are likely trying hard not to fall off your chair in laughter right now).


Not to mention, such a degree of autonomy bothers me, but of course, my outlooks on the issue of state's rights are far out of tune with the general American public, so this is hardly surprising. Still, that makes me queasy. And the US Gov't cannot default on their loans, or carpet people with IOUs as California is doing. Not feasibly, at least. Sure, there is foreign and private domestic debt, but how much do people keep track of what goes on in their state legislature vs. the Congress?

[Gregoshi]

You're talking about the nation that created The Onion, The Colbert Report and South Park, so no, I don't think there's a nationwide irony problem...

Don't forget Ferrous Bueller's Day Off.

[Husar]

And why wouldn't he be under that mistaken impression, is it not the core of modern liberal-left politics that the word "progressive" means the unrelenting attempt to hammer out the rough edges of human nature via legislation and compulsion in order to achieve a more harmonious society.......... regardless of the fact that what it really amounts to is the attempt to pervert that natural inclinations of individual human nature (both the good and the bad) under the foolish assumption that there is a 'correct' way to order society?

But aren't the right-wing USAians basically trying to do the same thing with bans on gay marriage, jailing young couples because one of the two is a few months older etc.?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am a man of spiteful, resentful character.

Here then, is a picture of the young Scot Brown. Please somebody tell me he, uhm, has a tendency to toe-tap around 'issues':

[rvg]

Looks like Obama has gotten the message and responded appropriately. Bravo, Barry-o, a very classy and presidential response that is worthy of respect.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8470187.stm

[Lemur]

Here then, is a picture of the young Scot Brown.

I don't know about toe-tapping, but this picture definitely reminds me of something ...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Obama is an experience Chicago-school politician. He knows how to play the game fairly well and (though the right-wing radio frothers will not admit it) with a modicum of class as well.

I loathe his POLICIES, but he is neither stupid nor impolite.


For AP:

US conservatives come in many stripes.

The fiscal responsibility subset hates the latest health care effort because it will NOT reduce costs. No government essay into insurance/health care here in the USA has ever done so. Moreover, the quality improvement generated by government involvement is rarely, if ever, of the same magnitude as the increased costs. They grumbled over the wall street and bank bailouts, but tolerated them in the name of financial stability. They hated the auto bailout thinking the monies will be wasted on companies doomed to fail anyway.

The anti-big government subset hates the latest health care effort because it puts more and more federal government control in place over healthcare. They view this as unwarranted government interference in private life. They also hated the Bush bailouts of Wall Street and the Banks AND the Obama bailout of the car industry.

The state's rights subset hates the latest health care effort because it doesn't adhere to the implicit limitations set forth the the Constitution and re-iterated in the 10th ammendment thereto. They view this as yet another effort/means by which to neuter the several states in favor of a one-government for all system. They hated the bank bailouts and auto bailouts as well.

The right to life subset hates the latest health care effort because it will end up using government money to fund abortions -- regardless of the codicil that seeks to prevent same. This subset rarely cares about any other issue, view abortion as both a crime and an inherent evil. Obama doesn't expect a lot of votes from this crowd anyway, so they have limited influence.

The libertarian subset hates the latest health care effort because it will end up increasing the federal government's role, increase taxation, and take away from their individual choice. This reflects a good bit of the "rugged individualism" mindset.


These subsets are not, of course, mutually exclusive. Moreover, all of them are aided and abetted in the case of the Brown race by the GOP subset. That subset views the enhancement of GOP power as the ultimate goal in and of its own.

[Vladimir]

Don't forget Ferrous Bueller's Day Off.

[CountArach]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125030/He...c-Divided.aspx
Americans' support for U.S. healthcare legislation has crept up incrementally since early November. Now, slightly more Americans want their member of Congress to vote in favor of such legislation rather than against it, 49% vs. 46% -- a first since October.
I would love to see the maths you did to get -3% to constitute a "great majority".

Interestingly, Healthcare reform is popular if you don't mention the present Bill. The current legislation commits the problem of assuming that the answer to Healthcare reform lies between the two extremes - single payer and free market. This means that, in turn, neither side of politics is pleased and thus the present Bill becomes unpopular. This is particularly true of Progressives, who are causing the poll numbers of this Bill to be deflated compared to overall healthcare reform (Which is what the poll you quoted shows).

[Major Robert Dump]

While watching FOX News the past two days I have been reminded why I loathe political journalism. They have used the word "revolution" probably a hundred times while referring to Brown. They have already elected him president. Jim Kramer flat out said the 100+ bump the stock market got yesterday was due to the polls showing Brown ahead, yet tonight altogether failed to mention whether or not Brown had anything to do with the 190 point loss today which is, I believe, the biggest one this quarter. I mean, the guy said it was "fact" that people like Brown cause a stock rally. OMG WTF GTFO TV NOW SWITCHED TO OFF POSITION

[Devastatin Dave]

I'm pretty liberal and have been a party-line Democrat for many years now. However, I can't even find myself mourning this result too much. First, the sheer irony of the health care bill being defeated as a result of Ted Kennedy's seat going to a Republican is high entertainment value in and of itself. Second, there is something fundamentally wrong with a party that is incapable of passing legislation with 59 Senate seats and a large majority in the House.

Just as the Founding Fathers designed our government. Liberty comes from the inability for governments to intrude in your life. The fact that it takes extreme compromise, debate, and all out fighting keeps the government at bay while the citizenry can have freedom. Europeans use to understand that, those Europeans became Americans!!!

[Beskar]

Victory, for the Ferengi!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Crazed Rabbit]

Good grief, at least tribesy put effort into his trolling.

These lefty mini-mes and their attempts at snarkiness are just sad.

CR

[Beskar]

Yet you share many beliefs with the Ferengi. So it is pretty accurate.

[Subotan]

Interestingly, Healthcare reform is popular if you don't mention the present Bill. The current legislation commits the problem of assuming that the answer to Healthcare reform lies between the two extremes - single payer and free market. This means that, in turn, neither side of politics is pleased and thus the present Bill becomes unpopular

That is interesting. I wonder how many Americans would support a full blown NHS then. Ofc, it might be ebcause the poll numbers are vague, as "Do you support defeating terrorists?" is always going to get more support than "Do you support the war in Afghanistan?"

OMG WTF GTFO TV NOW SWITCHED TO OFF POSITION

It's also interesting to note how FOX News has kidnapped the words "freedom", "liberty" and "American", and uses them as if FOX News is the dictionary definition of all of these things.

EDIT: Also, this. Maybe ever slightly NSFW.

[al Roumi]

'I'm Scott Brown. I drive a truck'

Steve Bell is very funny.

[Subotan]

Steve Bell is very funny.

Yep, I know

EDIT: Also, this. Maybe ever slightly NSFW.

[al Roumi]

Yep, I know

well you know, great minds think alike etc etc

[Subotan]

Still, it; nice to know there's another Guardian reader on the .Org, We sandal wearers have got to stick together.

[Lemur]

This seems like an intelligent, coherent analysis. As such I expect it to be ignored.

Obviously, Republicans should oppose Obama and the Democrats on substance, sharply if there are (real) sharp disagreements, which is the case on many policies. But the rejectionist strategy they're following (oppose Dems at every turn, regardless of policy difference) is, I continue to believe, a real mistake.

What's the cost to Republicans? First, on policy, they lose the ability to negotiate on behalf of their important constituency groups; as we've seen, this can have the effect of actually driving some of these groups (the doctors, for example) right out of the party. Second, embracing the crazy yields, well, the crazy in charge of your party. Republicans stand to gain in the 2010 cycle because the economy is lousy, because Democrats have a lot of exposure after two terrific cycles, and because the party of the president almost always does badly in midterms. If, however, Republicans nominate candidates who have embraced the crazy, they will be far more vulnerable to counterattacks than if they nominate good, solid candidates (and not every Democratic candidate will emulate Martha Coakley and not get around to attacking crazy things that their opponents say until the last 48 hours).

However, no one is going to listen to advice like that. Republicans are invested in a particular interpretation of 1994, and yesterday's election is only going to reinforce that interpretation, whether it's correct or not.

[Subotan]

That's really good. I wondered why the both shrill shrieks of total Democrat annihilation and the gloating cries of Republican conquest had left me unfazed. That blog explains why.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Obviously, Republicans should oppose Obama and the Democrats on substance, sharply if there are (real) sharp disagreements, which is the case on many policies. But the rejectionist strategy they're following (oppose Dems at every turn, regardless of policy difference) is, I continue to believe, a real mistake.

However, no one is going to listen to advice like that. Republicans are invested in a particular interpretation of 1994, and yesterday's election is only going to reinforce that interpretation, whether it's correct or not.

That is the reason of my resentfulness. I can't get over the fact that the Republicans should've been rewarded for their obstruction and sabotage. They have taken it to a level that is unheard of in the democratic world, where political mitigation is considered a virtue, the oil that keeps the political machinery functioning.

Obama's administration, agree with him or not, is by any reasonable standards a moderate, centre-right administration. Not a foreign Marxist occupational force that needs to be resisted at all cost.

I should hope there is a price to be paid for the GOP itself, and not just for the functioning of democracy in America.