About Last Night

Why do you assume that those who see value in some ideas on one side of the isle and some ideas on the other side of the isle as having "no core values?" It's pretty self-important to consider those who don't completely hue to your personal political beliefs as having "no core values." Counterproductive and silly as well.

koabd

So what are the core values of the "moderates" and "centrists"? From here it looks like acquiring power and privilege, and little else. What do you see them to be?

Jay:

So what are the core values of the "moderates" and "centrists"?

Well...listen to what they say about themselves:

The Third Way is a term that has been used to describe a political position which attempts to transcend right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a synthesis of some right-wing and left-wing economic policies.[1] Third Way approaches are commonly viewed from within the first- and second-way perspectives as representing a centrist compromise between capitalism and social democracy, or between market liberalism and social democracy. However, proponents of third way philosophies point out that this would merely be 'half-way' between right-wing and left-wing on the Enlightenment-era one-dimensional political spectrum in contrast to a third way which is a 20th century synthesis of these older polar viewpoints, transcending while including both of its predecessors as components in a Hegelian synthesis, rather than simply a compromise between the first two ways.[2] This claim is embodied in the alternative description of the Third Way as the Radical center.
.
In the United States, Third Way adherents reject fiscal conservatism, and advocate some replacement of welfare with workfare, and sometimes have a stronger preference for market solutions to traditional problems (as in pollution markets), while rejecting pure laissez-faire economics and other libertarian positions. The Third Way style of governing was firmly adopted and partly redefined during the Administration of President Bill Clinton.[32]

Centrists believe in "market-based solutions" and "public-private partnerships", which, in practice, mean the state getting in bed with giant industries, which has meant electoral success in lethargic, consumer-voter US democratic culture.
.
They really are the Third Way.

stuart:
.
You simply describe 90% of the liberals on this site. With a few exceptions, each and everyone of you ascribe to what you have said about your so-called fairytale and evil "centrists".
.
The only difference in your own case and what you have said in the past is your favorable opinion of the 2nd Admendment. And, that is purely in the form as not to be that big of an issue for most liberals to get all upset about. Meaning the other liberal issues are far and above and should be part of the agenda for change.
.
You can call yourself something, but your statements always seem to prove otherwise.
.
In the past, stuart has laid claim to being in favor of a neo-socialist/capitalist economic system. He is perfectly ok with government involvement with the private sector, either through complete takeover or partial takeover. Case in point, health care insurance.
.
Social values: Believes in an individuals right to do anything of benefit, but the motive behind this slide into libertarianism, is simply to allow for their social behaviors of gay marriage, public nudity, pot smoking and other liberal values are protected. It is not truly that Government should be kept out of the individuals lives or limit the size of Government. He is happy with big government programs and involvement so long as it does not infringe upon his individual liberal ideals and values.
.
He believes in a liberal court with activist judges who will enact legislation from the bench, if it solely serves the purpose of bolstering his liberal agenda. "the Constitution is a living document" which should be changed at a whim if it benefits his liberal ideals. He does not want a judicial system that will judge on the laws as they are written
.
You simply should look in the mirror and compare. Your core values are the same as any so-called "centrist" that you attempt to push yourself away from.

So values have to be extreme to be valid? What nonsense is this?

Rustydog:
.
(sigh)
.
No, no, no.
.
If you will read the Great Orang Satan's (Kos of DailyKos) piece he did for CATO (link to CATO piece by Markos), you'll see this:

The modern libertarian (and conservative) view has been that government is an evil, perhaps necessary, but still a grave threat to personal liberties requiring the utmost vigilance against its instincts for perpetual expansion. The larger government grows, the more it infringes on our personal space, inevitably placing limits on our freedoms. And given government's police powers, that threat is grave indeed. There's a reason libertarians view the Second Amendment as an absolute right—its abolition would limit one of the most effective ages-old tools against governmental tyranny.
.
Hence, there was (and is) a natural tension between liberals who see government as a benign force for good, and those who can point to plenty of history showing otherwise. And as long as government remained the greatest threat to our personal liberties, this tension was fated to remain. Republicans, out-of-power for much of the 20th century, and livid at the Democrats' expansion of government, spoke of shrinking government and limiting its power. Libertarians, while not exactly perfect allies of the GOP, were likely to get more of what they sought by making common cause with conservatives than liberals.
.
But that began to change as the power of corporations grew. As the pseudonymous user “hekebolos” wrote in a Daily Kos diary:

Up until even very recently, it was still definitely possible to construe government as [the] largest threat to individual liberty. It wasn't very long ago that “what was good for GM was good for the USA.” Government regulation of corporations was seen as interfering with the prosperity of the average American. You see, the libertarian/conservative idea behind the primacy of the free market was that there would always be an intersection between what was good for business and what was good for the consumer. But that correlation was far greater in years past than it is today.
.
The fundamental reason that “libertarian” has become “libertarian democrat” is that corporations are becoming more powerful than governments. This fundamental fact has created a union between those with libertarian tendencies and those who believed all along that government can be a force for good.

As hekebolos further noted, defense contractors now have greater say in what weapons systems get built (via their lobbyists, blackmailing elected officials by claiming that jobs will be lost in their states and districts if weapons system X gets axed). The energy industry dominates the executive branch and has reaped record windfall profits. Our public debt is now held increasingly by private hedge funds. Corporations foul our air and water. They plunder our treasury.

This list, I'm sure, could be added to. Oil and oil services companies can even dictate when and how the most powerful nation on earth decides to go to war. A cabal of major corporate industry is, in fact, more powerful than the government of the most powerful nation on earth–and government is the only thing that can stop them from recklessly exploiting the people and destroying their freedom.

That, in essence, is why I am a Democrat, and why my original blog post on libertarian Democrats struck a chord with so many. We cherish freedom, and will embrace any who would protect it. But that necessarily includes, in this day and age, the government.

Centrists want to use a partnership between giant corporate power and the state to manage change --so that they are the ones who always do the managing.
.
(That's why the same giant banks still run the economy, because centrists really believe in the power of that partnership, and don't want to change partners and perhaps upset that relationship.)
.
We liberals don't see giant corporate and financial interests as partners, we see them as threats to be contained by setting the state against them.
.
See how that works? The state checks corporate power, the private sector checks state dominance, and individuals and entrepreneurs aren't so under the thumb of either, because we can ally with either in different ways at different times of necessity.
.
We are not Third Way, New Democrat centrists, Rustydog.
.
We're neo-liberals.

Derek:

...centrist, an ideology that doesn't even exist.

It does. The press corps largely keeps things simple and "left-right" for us idiots, but this political ideology is real, and represented in congress by a political caucus named "New Democrats" and in lobbying by an organization named "The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)".
.
Go to wikipedia, and search for "Third Way" or "Radical Center", and you'll see what they believe in, and why it makes sense for them to oppose us some of the time, and the rightists some of the time.
.
If you'd like, just read my reply to Elvis Elvisberg on this subject here:
...START REPRINT...
Elvis (link):

If only centrism were an ideology, Stuart! Then it would have a consistent set of principles with which one could agree or disagree.

But it really is an ideology http://tinyurl.com/5ac7rb , and these really are its principles:

Third Way (centrism)
.
The Third Way is a term that has been used to describe a political position which attempts to transcend left-wing and right-wing politics by advocating a mix of some left-wing and right-wing policies.[1] Third Way approaches are commonly viewed as representing a centrist compromise between capitalism and socialism, or between market liberalism and democratic socialism. However, proponents of third way philosophies often claim that the third way represents a synthesis of these competing viewpoints, distinct from and superior to both of its sources, rather than simply a compromise or mixture.[2] This claim is embodied in the alternative description of the Third Way as the Radical center.

The cooperation you are witnessing between the Democratic Congressional leadership and "stakeholders", i.e. proposed industry beneficiaries of state largess. is truly a principled, Third Way position!
.
These are its believers:

In the United States, Third Way adherents reject fiscal conservatism, and advocate some replacement of welfare with workfare, and sometimes have a stronger preference for market solutions to traditional problems (as in pollution markets), while rejecting pure laissez-faire economics and other libertarian positions. The Third Way style of governing was firmly adopted and partly redefined during the Administration of President Bill Clinton.[32]
.
After Tony Blair came to power in the UK, Clinton, Blair and other leading Third Way adherents organized conferences to promote the Third Way philosophy in 1997 at Chequers in England.[33][34] The Democratic Leadership Council are adherents of Third Way politics.[35]
.
In 2004, several veteran U.S. Democrats founded a new Washington, DC organization entitled Third Way, which bills itself as a "strategy center for progressives."[36]
.
Current President Barack Obama has been described as a Third Way politician by Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria.[37] United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is considered by some to be third way politician as well.

They really, honestly subscribe to this political philosophy, Elvis.
.
They aren't "centrists", they are centrists --really and truly Third Way advocates.
.
These people took over the Democratic Party in the 1990s, and they are still in power today http://tinyurl.com/q3v9p:

The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation [3] that, upon its formation, argued the United States Democratic Party should shift away from the leftward turn it took in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The DLC hails President Bill Clinton as proof of the viability of third way politicians and as a DLC success story.
.
The DLC's affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC's philosophy often call themselves New Democrats. Note that this term is also used by other groups, who have similar views on where the party should go in the future like NDN[1] and Third Way[2].
.
The DLC's current chairman is former Representative Harold Ford of Tennessee, and its vice chair is Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware. Its CEO is Bruce Reed.
.
It is the opinion of the DLC that economic populism is not politically viable, citing the defeated Presidential campaigns of Senator George McGovern in 1972 and Vice-President Walter Mondale in 1984.
.
The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the "loony left" [9]. Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."[7]
.
When the Democratic party won majority status in the Senate in 1986, it was done with centrist and DLC affiliated candidates Barbara Mikulski (a participant in the DLC's National Service Tour), Harry Reid (who recently said Democrats have to “swallow their pride” and move toward the middle), Conservative Democrat Richard Shelby, DLCer Bob Graham, DLCer Kent Conrad, and DLCer Tom Daschle. Bill Clinton ran his 1992 and 1996 campaigns as a New Democrat[10][11]
.
...New Democrats made significant gains in both the 2006 midterms and the 2008 elections.[12] In May of 2009, President Obama declared to the House New Democrat Coalition, "I am a New Democrat."[13]

You must understand, Elvis, that these people have found success fundraising in the Beltway by demonizing us when the rightists were in power, and now are doing the same to movement conservatives' popular base --unthinkable until just last year, really.
.
Ultimately, though, they don't share a party with Republicans, they rule a party mostly composed at the grass roots by us: liberals, whom they fear and despise.
.
To a great degree (as I argue here: http://politicallagoon.blogspot.com/2008/09/joe-klein-is-not-your-friend.html), liberals have, mostly through habit, adopted the rightist frame of the "liberal media", by which movement conservatism successfully attacked the ruling centrist Democratic Party (and executed the bloodless coup of a sitting President), but this is a grave mistake of perception on our part.
.
If you can see, Elvis, that:

"centrism" means seeing what John Kyl thinks, then seeing what Max Baucus thinks, then trying to meet in the middle.

, then you're seeing the principles of centrism in legislative action!
.
If you can see that:

the centrist approach to Iraq was... the authorization of force resolution.

then you're seeing "distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe" in action.
.
If you can see that:

...those crazy leftists who warned that invading Iraq was a terrible dangerous catastrophe in the making were completely irrelevant to the debate! Great work, Democrats and MSM!

, then can't you also see that these "Democrats" from whom we can expect such great work are also literally members of or huge sympathizers with the DLC/New Democrats? ...and that the MSM who run in terror away from the rightist attack label "liberal media" also share a peculiar philosophy that involves constantly splitting things down the middle to the detriment of empirical truth?
.
If you can see that:

Public opinion, and the opinion of informed policymakers, has nothing to do with "centrism."

, then isn't it time for you to stop using scare quotes around the term "centrist", and really look clearly at the situation?
.
If it walks like a centrist, and quacks like a centrist, and tells you over and over again that it believes in centrism, don't you think that it's a bit crazy on our part not to call them what they really are, Elvis?
.
Centrism really is a painfully poor ideology of governance, and these really are centrists --not "centrists".
.
Thanks for reading and considering this, Elvis.
.
...END REPRINT...
.
Thanks for reading and considering this, Derek.

Stuart, I tend to view moderation as an adjective, more than a noun. I know some people think of it as the latter but there is very little evidence supporting it. In many respects it is like conservatism, another empty ideology. Liberalism, on the other hand, is a real body of thought, one that has been evolving for hundreds of years. I can find a liberal ethics or even a liberal epistemology. The same is true about socialism. The only way moderation makes any sense to me, in the American context, is if you are talking about a moderate liberal, someone who balances between a conservative liberal or libertarian and a social liberal. America is a product of liberal thought. Many refer to the US constitution as the first liberal constitution or even empirical constitution. I don't understand anyone who tries to treat liberalism as something different from American conservatism or centrisim, as if they are distinct and separate things. Those who equate liberalism with socialism or fascism I understand even less.
.
I hope that explains where I am coming from.

Yup.

Well, wait a minute, Karen-- you're the one who brought up the "nationwide popularity of the public option." Then, when it was established that Arkansas loves it too, you fell back to, "well, the public option isn't the alpha and omega of everything in reality."
-
That is true, in policy terms, but since when did politicians act rationally? Why did Olympia Snowe demand that the stimulus bill be cut by an arbitrary amount of money? Simply because she likes to close her eyes and imagine herself a "centrist," and likes to have people on TV call her a "moderate."
-
If the media narrative is all about the public option being "too controversial," regardless of the polls, you can bet your last dollar that Lincoln will vote solely and purely on the presence of a public option.

Alas, was supposed to go below. Stupid long thread and lack of reply option on later posts…

P.S. When the High Sheriffs blink their eyes and wonder why they can see their shadows at 7AM these days, could you point out to them that we've gone back to standard time and that the timestamps on our comments are still in Daylight Saving Time?.
.
Thank you, Karen.

"I'm thinking about people like Blanche Lincoln, who is running for re-election in a state that John McCain carried last year by something like 20 percentage points. I doubt that the national popularity of the public option will figure much in her decision."
.
KT-Does this not directly contridict your previous post then, because if Lincoln needs to be more attune to her home state this is what her state thought of the public option on Sept 14th.
.

One day after releasing a Research 2000 survey of Indiana residents -- in a study designed to get the attention of Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh -- the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America is going public with the results from Arkansas, home state of Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln.
.
The findings are equally persuasive. From the PCCC:
.
PUBLIC OPTION: Arkansas voters favor a public option 56% to 37%. Independents favor it 57% to 32%. Democrats 83% to 12%.
2010 GENERAL ELECTION: If Lincoln joined Republicans in filibustering a public option, 35% of Independents would be less likely to vote for her, 10% more likely. (Over 3 to 1). Among Democrats, 49% to 7% (7 to 1). Lincoln is only 2% ahead of Republican Gilbert Baker (41% to 39%), a net drop of 5% since last month's Research 2000 poll.
.
2010 PRIMARY: 57% of Democrats say they are not sure if Lincoln should be the Democratic nominee again, or want someone new. If Lincoln joined Republicans in filibustering a public option, 48% of Democrats would be even less likely to support her in a primary.
.
The survey was compiled via interviews with 600 residents of Arkansas, which is a significant enough number to give the findings some weight. But the larger narrative is equally important. In state after state -- including ones deemed to be political "toss-ups" -- the public option polls extremely well. In Indiana, for instance, voters favored the plan for government-run insurance by a margin of 52% to 42%, and it jumped to 59% to 33% among Independents.
.
In short, the public may very well be ahead of their elected representatives on this topic. They're certainly ahead of the media. Just last night, on MSNBC'S Hardball, the round-table discussion focused squarely on how tough it would be for these conservative Democrats to vote against the will of their constituents and SUPPORT a public option.
.
"It's not a matter of scaring people," analyst Michelle Bernard said of ads warning that Lincoln and others would lose their seats if they back a public plan. "It's a matter of saying listen to your constituents."
.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/yet-another-public-option_n_339709.html

Karen: Thank you to replying to our comments.
.
re: PO and Blanche Lincoln. This poll by the Atlantic (link) shows that Senator Lincoln's numbers go up if she supports the PO, and down if she supports a filibuster. There appears to be strong support for the PO in AK, McCain's 20-pt margin notwithstanding (and probably attributable to more...regional...feelings about Obama.)
.
Re: "You're on your own." This phrase has a "throw 'em under the bus" ring to it, which I don't think reflects the situation on the ground...
.
IMHO (and to overwork a football metaphor): If you're 1st and goal at the 8, Obama may be able help you get into the end zone. But, if you're 3rd and 22 on your own 45, well, then you're on your own...

gunny: jinx!

KT:

I doubt that the national popularity of the public option will figure much in her decision.

Just so you are aware, the national popularity of the public option isn't what's being discussed in liberal quarters with respect to Blanche Lincoln (link):

Yet Another Public Option Poll Puts A Wavering Dem On The Spot
.
Sam Stein
.
First Posted: 10-30-09 08:47 AM | Updated: 10-30-09 09:39 AM
.
Yet another public opinion poll in a state with a conservative Democratic senator shows that the public option not only is widely popular among voters, but could become a potent issue in the upcoming congressional elections.

One day after releasing a Research 2000 survey of Indiana residents -- in a study designed to get the attention of Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh -- the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America is going public with the results from Arkansas, home state of Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

The findings are equally persuasive. From the PCCC:

PUBLIC OPTION: Arkansas voters favor a public option 56% to 37%. Independents favor it 57% to 32%. Democrats 83% to 12%.
.
2010 GENERAL ELECTION: If Lincoln joined Republicans in filibustering a public option, 35% of Independents would be less likely to vote for her, 10% more likely. (Over 3 to 1). Among Democrats, 49% to 7% (7 to 1). Lincoln is only 2% ahead of Republican Gilbert Baker (41% to 39%), a net drop of 5% since last month's Research 2000 poll.
.
2010 PRIMARY: 57% of Democrats say they are not sure if Lincoln should be the Democratic nominee again, or want someone new. If Lincoln joined Republicans in filibustering a public option, 48% of Democrats would be even less likely to support her in a primary.

In short, the public may very well be ahead of their elected representatives on this topic. They're certainly ahead of the media. Just last night, on MSNBC'S Hardball, the round-table discussion focused squarely on how tough it would be for these conservative Democrats to vote against the will of their constituents and SUPPORT a public option.
.
"It's not a matter of scaring people," analyst Michelle Bernard said of ads warning that Lincoln and others would lose their seats if they back a public plan. "It's a matter of saying listen to your constituents."
.
"Blanche Lincoln, I think, is a wonderful person," added host Chris Matthews. "She faces a very conservative... you talking about people, they voted for McCain overwhelmingly down there and probably would do it again."
.
"Look she's up for re-election, she's got a touch race ahead of her and she's one of the most vulnerable Democrats," concluded Time Magazine's Jay Newton Small.

You and your colleagues at Time might want to look at available polling data regarding Arkansas, KT, before you make assumptions about what local opinion is in DLC Dems' districts.
.
If this isn't a Village CW assumption on your part, would you please mind sharing the polling data that contradicts Sam Stein's citation of the PCCC survey, KT?
.
Thanks in advance for helping us understand the disconnect between what the Village believes about what's smart for Lincoln and other centrist, DLC, New Democrat Dems, and what the liberal blogosphere believes, KT.

Gunny:
.
Hey Quickdraw McGraw!
.
Man, I haven't had my coffee yet.
.
I got beat to the punch!
.
Lesson:
.
Coffee first, post last.

I think this is the first ever triple jinx I have seen because Sy2d linked to the same poll further down the thread. Awesome

Kbang, Gunny, and Stuart have it right, KT. It seems like the story here is about why Blue Dogs are so anxious to vote against their constituents. And I think we all know what the answer is.

KT-

No, the national popularity of the public option makes little difference to Lincoln. But the statewide popularity of it does. The real story here is whether the money she gets (and can expect to get, Daschle-style) is worth voting against her constituents' interest.
.
WRT yesterday's results, I can't see any national significance in the governors' races. There may be some (but I don't think there is) in the Democrats winning the federal races. The idea that any of these races represent some kind of vote on Obama is hard to credit.

KT-
.
Or we can put it this way, having just looked at the enrollment document for 2010, with a ten percent increase in employee contribution, higher copays (MUCH higher for anything inpatient), and bigger deductibles, what matters to people is that they can get affordable health care.
.
It is very difficult to see how that will happen without the introduction of competition. And it is very hard to see how there can be competition in the absence of a robust public option.
.
Regulatory reform of insurance company practices would help, but that means not just legislation, but also enforcement. The recent record on the latter is quite poor wrt everything from meat packing to the stock market.
.
The latest Village line, cited by you, that it doesn't matter because only 6 million people will be affected has a "Let them eat cake" sound to it. First, six million is a big number! Second, it assumes that there are no other effects from this. Third, if the effects were trivial, the insurance companies would not be spending money to prevent people who cannot afford or are not eligible for their policies from being covered.
.

Guys: While the PO has assumed an outsized importance to the left and the right in this debate, I am not convinced it is a major factor in the minds of most people as they are trying to decide whether to support this plan overall -- especially given the fact (CBO estimate=total enrollment of 6 million) that it would only be available to a very small percentage of the population. What is likely to figure far more heavily in places like Arkansas are questions of affordability--will you be able to afford the coverage that the govt would now require you to have?--and whether this plan really does much to bring health care costs under control.
.
First of all aren't the left and the right most people in this country or is that now independents? Second, most people have already decided they support the public option there are polls to prove it. The only ones not convinced are you, the media and our congress apparently. So I'm not sure what is going to take.

I guess we aren't discussing Blanche Lincoln rendering herself unelectable because she insists on being woefully out of touch with her constituents any more.

I am confused by this statement:

The CBO analysis suggests that the majority of people eligible for the public option (4/5s) would choose a private one (also available on the exchanges) instead.

Is there a new public option bill that is proposed to be available for people that already have private insurance? It makes little sense to me that people currently without private insurance because they can't afford it would select private insurance over that provided through a public option unless the prices for each were competitive.

Please explain.

"All I'm really saying here is that the debate over health care does not begin and end with the public option, as many commenters here seem to suggest (and seem to believe)."
.
Is there a better example of Beltway media thought than that sentence?
.
"You little people turning a policy plank into a fetish. Even if poll after poll shows that is what the majority wants. Silly little ones WE will decide what is important for you"
.
Again, any contempt any of us feels for the media is DWARFED by the contempt they have for their consumers.

KT, I just want to be super clear that I view the PO as a goal line stand, not as the best solution. As your post on the cost of healthcare the other day made abundantly clear, we haven't really had a debate about the best possible solutions. As for the CBO report, my understanding was that the PO component was with negotiated rates not medicare + 5, but I could be wrong about that.

Thanks for responding, KT. This thread may be long dead (like the healthcare debate that could have been), but I was under the impression that PO rates at medicare + 5 did the most to keep costs down, but that that didn't make it into the final house bill. Again, I could be dreaming hear.

I'm a Democrat
.
Sure you are.
.
You're entitled to your views. If you want to vote for a Republican governor in New Jersey because you don't like Obama' s foreign policy positions, knock yourself out.
.
Just don't expect us to believe that you are or have recently been anything other than a reliable GOP voter.

Thanks for the comment mjkoch. Don't mind the little liberals on this site, who are focused on their own selfish soclialist ideals.
.
You resonate the focus groups I watched last night and listened to their responses. Americans want to know that their leader is strong and will defend us from our sworn enemies.
.
Obama has clearly demonstrated that he does not have our best interests at heart. He does not have our military men and women's lives as the most important part of his foreign policy agenda.
.
Obama clearly is for Obama and the far left of the Democrat Party. Hopefully he will now take a rest from being in front of the camera 24/7, and stop campaigning and go to work on the important problems facing America, not his pie in the sky neo-socialist new America.

I'm a Democrat
.
If you're going to pretend to be an American -- much less an American Democrat -- you might want to learn how we spell "behavior" in this country.
.
Also, you might not want to claim how Obama has "alienated our allies" in Europe when his popularity on the matter of foreign affairs is in the high 70s there.
.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/worldview/090908/transatlantic-trends-barack-obama-approval

Abu Ghraib, honestly, who cares? More of that self generated indignation.

Liberalism in America only comprises 20%, while more moderate and conservative mindsets make up the difference.
.
Unfortunately for the GOP, they keep undermining their own argument by insulting anyone who is more liberal than Rush Limbaugh. If conservatism amounts to a checklist of positions on various issues, and if you don't hit all of them then you are a liberal, then the real message the GOP is sending is that most Americans are liberals and should vote for the opposition.
.
Did it ever occur to you that many of Scozzafava's voters might support her views? That if a voter saw herself as pro-gun, but also pro-labor, she might want to vote Republican? That the strain of Republicanism in rural New York is very, very different from the strain in the rural South?
.
Hoffman's message was: "Go away. Anyone who is pro-choice, pro-union, or pro-gay equality has no place in the party."
.
I get that "social conservatives" wouldn't like Scozzafava, but the time to get involved was before the GOP picked her.

"Congratulations are in order for the winners. Despite the loss in NY23, the people have spoken. What they have said is...."

This statement makes no sense -- so the people only speak when a Republican wins? Wow.

So the people have spoken?
.
You mean when the tea party folks put their Taxpayer Bill of Rights initiatives on the state ballots in Maine and Washington, and they were both roundly defeated?
.
Or when Palin, Pawlenty, Beck and company tried to make NY-23 a referendum on Obama and the result was the district went Democratic for the first time since the Civil War?
.
The people have spoken, Rusty. They don't like you.

Oh poor little liberal kevin. In two of the more bluer states, Maine and Washington, the liberals have killed the tax payer bill of rights to limit government spending.
.
The liberals are simply afraid that their welfare cost of living will be adjusted to inflation, rather than the simple Democrat give away.
.
Passing this type of legislation in any blue state would be very difficult, especially when the Democrats love to oil the machine with tax payer dollars in order to get voted back into office.

The same voters in Maine who rejected gay marriage also rejected the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.
.
Are they conservative or liberal, Rusty?

Would like to see the numbers underlying this:

Tonight's big lesson

There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

1. If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.

2. If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.

3. If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.

Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.

The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/4/800316/-Tonights-big-lesson

"One other lesson from last night. No Howard Dean running things for the Democrats.

Kaine failed to even make his home state close."

.
.....and Obama, Emmanuel, Soros, SEIU, ACORN. MoveOn.Orgy...
.
How do you spell relief? R-E-J-E-C-T-I-O-N

In your little dream world, square1. Let's just say you are correct. The fact is that in NY23, Hoffman was a complete unknown until AFTER he gained national attention, and was endorsed by those you cite.
.
Truth be known, it was a surprisingly close race for someone that wasn't even on the radar 2 weeks before the election. TWO WEEKS. That in politics is just a blink of the eye.
.
No, I want the Democrats controlled and represented by their far left liberal base to believe that the Republican Party is down and out. In most all situations when you are down, you only have one direction to go buddy boy. UP, UP and AWAY
.
In my own sleepy little district I have never seen people so energized to stop the liberal onslaught of Obama's policies.
.
People want their leadership and representatives to be accountable to them, non-corrupt, throw out the special interest groups and lobbyist and start representing their interests for a change. A kind of change we can really believe in!!

I think you are missing the point Karen,. It not the content of the public option that matters;it's become the litmus test of getting Democrats to stand up and act like Democrats.
.
The public option itself is pretty lame -- even it its most robust form, it couldn't make any dent in controlling actual costs of care. But after seeing the Democrats just roll over and give up on true reform, many in the electorate think they should at least be able to vote for the neutered version that is now on the table.

How is that the lesson of NJ? Corzine's numbers were in the tank before Obama was ever sworn in. If anything, Obama's FAILURE to "make the hard choices" and hold the banksters accountable was fatal to the re-election of the former Goldman CEO.

I think you're a little off on this one allth, I believe NY23 was more a rejection of centrism than conservatism. And remember this will be done all over again in a year.
The fact that a conservative came out of nowhere a couple of weeks ago and made it close speaks volumes to me. B.O put a lot of time and effort into Corzine's campaign(time and effort that could have been more wisely spent elsewhere, like, say,Afganistan) yet in a terminally blue and corrupt state like NJ, the republican cruised to victory. I dare say that could be interpreted as a rejection of Chicago thuggery. It's early yet, but if I were a liberal I would be very concerned about the coming midterms. All of us wingnuts will be voting. Will the lefty's? I suspect they will all be sitting on the couch whining because survivor and dancing with the stars is being preempted by election coverage.

Say what? Rejection of Centrism/ It was a low turn out, I'd say it was a rejection of both candidates. These politicians fail to inspire.