The Partisan Wisdom of the Polls, Health Reform Division

If, God help you, you will be at a social occasion this weekend in which the politics of health care reform comes up, consult this National Journal poll of cross-party political insiders for all the reasons why your side is going to come out great and their side is screwed, as well as, of course, vice versa.

And if you are above this partisan battle, God bless you, mock both of their calcified certitudes that they rule, the other side drools--with almost surprising unsurprisingness, 77 percent of Dems polled say their side will be more energized at the polls this year by health care reform, and 97 percent of Republicans polled say their side will be.

Some Dem talking points:

"We won. And we delivered on a Democratic promise decades in the making."

"Better to run on something accomplished rather than nothing."

"The Democratic base is coming out of a fog. Republicans will be embarrassed by 'tea party' overreach!"

"Americans are finally getting a real glimpse of the disingenuous rhetoric of the Republican Party and the radical, racist, and sometimes violent tactics of the tea party they court."

Some GOP talking points:

"Anger is a better motivator in an election cycle."

"Obama managed to divide and deflate Democrats while uniting and enflaming Republicans in the health care debate. As a result, Democrats will face severe losses in the fall."

"In all my years of being around politics, I have never seen our base -- and a whole lot of people who haven't been in our base -- so angry and motivated by Obamacare's taxes, debt, and control provisions."

"The Democratic base wanted a single-payer public option. And what they got was something that won't even take effect until 2014. Meanwhile, Republicans have been near unanimous in their opposition to Obamacare: Remember those health care town halls last summer."

"You will have to put our folks in a cage to keep them from voting; they are so energized and committed to voting out the Democrats."

It hurts me to know that I can't figure out a way for them both to lose in November.

Comments

[dmh]

"It hurts me to know that I can't figure out a way for them both to lose in November."

Vote strategically in the primary--See that no incumbent is on the ticket in November.

[Cookie Kwan]

While I appreciate the "no incumbent" strategy, that's not going to be good enough. There's no point in replacing Democrats with more Democrats willing to throw themselves on the sword for the sake of the Obama/Pelosi agenda.

[Right Wing Realist]

But, but, but... both parties are the same! It says so right here in my libertarian handbook.

[Apologetic California]

It hurts me and the rest of the country that you're not rooting for the Democrats to lose, and lose big. This is the most anti-libertarian moment in America. A fanatical law-and-order war party with an insanely libtarded fiscal policies.

[Tristan Band]

And vote for the Republicans would be any different, how? Eight years of their bullshit is enough. I'd rather suffer through this than go through the Bush years again.

[R C Dean]

Spoken like a crypto-Dem partisan.

[Pro Libertate]

G G G G G G
R R R R R R 
I I I I I I
D D D D D D
L L L L L L
O O O O O O
C C C C C C
K K K K K K

I'm girding my loins for the gridlock vote.

[In Time Of War]

I think what we may be forgetting is we have absolutely no way of knowing what the bush replacement might have done this year. It could actually be worse.

[JSinAZ]

To be charitable, it was really spoken like someone who has not lived through very many electoral cycles, and has no memory of how very awful long-term Democrat legislative majorities really are, in particular when coupled with a sycophantic press which enables every shred of bad behavior and duplicitous connivance in order to thieve as much as can be had from the citizenry while telling them that they do not deserve what they have, the crusts of the bread they have been permitted to retain.

At least, that's what I think he sounds like.

[Steve Nash Equilibrium]

How could Bush be worse? Everything shitty that Bush did, Obama is continuing to do, and on top of that he has given added the Stealfromus...I mean Simulus and this abomination of health care reform.

[Curtis]

These uniforms are lame, man.

[PapayaSF]

Exactly. Unless you think waterboarding three Al Qaeda terrorists is equivalent in liberty-reduction to Obamacare, Republicans are clearly superior to Democrats in 2010.

[Cookie Kwan]

+10

[5,000 dead American soldiers]

Fuck you very much.

[The next 5,000 dead soldiers]

I dunno man. This black dude seems to be doing the same shit and sending us to the same places.

[JohnD]

Hey 5,00 ...you fucking idiot, Everyone of those heroes were volunteers and joined to serve their country. Don't you dare persume you speak for them... asshole.

[Brian]

Hey JohnD...you fucking idiot, did you ever think that maybe 5,000 was a vet? I didn't think so. I won't dare presume to speak for other vets so I'll speak for myself. After all, I volunteered to serve my country and was sent to Iraq. What the fuck did Iraq have to do with serving my country? Every fucking excuse used by you fucking republican fucktards has been used and FAILED. I did not protect my countrymen and your liberties and freedom by serving in Iraq.

Howsabout Afghanistan? Just exactly how are we protecting your fucking liberties by making sure the Taliban doesn't re-take the government? You're aware that many Afghans sympathize with the Taliban and want them back yes? No? Take your head out of your ass and turn of Fox News dipshit.

It's exactly brainless fucking twats like you that I will never again vote Republican, let alone Democrat.

For all of their posturing and handwringing over Ocare and as bad as it is, the price tag is NO WHERE NEAR WHAT YOU FUCKERS HAVE SPENT BLOWING UP THIRD WORLD SHITHOLES THAT ARE NO THREAT TO THE US.

COCKSUCKER

[realist]

Afghanistan wasn't a threat to us? They hijacked 4 planes and flew them into 3 buildings, you moron! What the heck are you doing in the military anyway?

[Fatty Bolger]

For all of their posturing and handwringing over Ocare and as bad as it is, the price tag is NO WHERE NEAR WHAT YOU FUCKERS HAVE SPENT BLOWING UP THIRD WORLD SHITHOLES THAT ARE NO THREAT TO THE US.

Wish that was true.

[Chris]

I see continuing the Republitard's insistence on the drug war and their continuance to do whatever they can to keep homosexuals from have any sense of freedom and equality in our country as worse than having to pay for ObamaCare, and I hate ObamaCare.

ObamaCare sucks, but replacing them with republinuts is no better. Both are the enemies of freedom, they just go about it differently.

The biggest difference is that at least Demotards don't lie about taxing Americans for pet projects, whereas Republinuts would have us believe they are for fiscal responsibility, which, clearly, they aren't (unless it's a D proposing spending).

Both are losers and need to be replaced.

[Sudden]

Sorry, but Dems support the War on Drugs just as much as 'pubs.

As for teh gayz vs. teh obamacare: Gay couples (a relatively small portion of the population, not that that makes it ok, but just that it makes the scope limited) not being able to enter into a contract recognized by the State sucks. At least they can still sodomize at will. But the fact that every human being residing in this country will be forced to buy gov't mandated health insurance, while simultaneously outlawing my preferred form of health insurance (high deductible w HSA), I think is worse because it affects a more broad population and in a way that is nearly as significant as the rights of survivorship conveyed through marriage recognition.

[Cookie Kwan]

ObamaCare sucks, but replacing them with republinuts is no better.

FTR, many Democrats also oppose gay marriage. While I support gay marriage (I actually couldn't care less as I have no horse in the race), I'm not about to give up ALL my freedoms for that one issue.

If you cannot appreciate the need and importance of checks and balances, then you're apathetic and deserve socialism anyway.

And Democrats did lie about fiscal responsiblity. Remember, they touted for years while Bush was in office that they were the party of fiscal responsibility. Please do not apply integrity where there is none.

[Sudden]

And technically, the Dems are lying to us about fiscal responsibility. Remember that whopper that Obama keeps telling about "teh healthcarez will reduze teh defishit". Yeah, that sounds like another bullshit promise of fiscal responsibility*.

*(it should be noted that he will have successfully "reduced" the deficit some by his reelection in 2012 because he'll have two years of Obamacare tax receipts and 0 years of Obamacare benefit payments owed, therby assisting his reelection cuz he's a fucking con man just like everyother empty suit in DC).

[John Thacker]

I see continuing the Republitard's insistence on the drug war and their continuance to do whatever they can to keep homosexuals from have any sense of freedom and equality in our country as worse than having to pay for ObamaCare, and I hate ObamaCare.

Obama and Biden have exactly the same stated positions on the War on Drugs and on gay marriage as McCain and Palin. Supporting them because of that is like supporting Bush on spending because in his secret heart he'd like to be for smaller government.

[TrickyVic]

""Exactly. Unless you think waterboarding three Al Qaeda terrorists is equivalent in liberty-reduction to Obamacare, Republicans are clearly superior to Democrats in 2010""

Who says that waterboarding won't happen under Obama? If you answer, it must be someone you think is honest.

[PapayaSF]

Granted, I was just taking him at his word on that, which is probably silly of me....

[TrickyVic]

Politicians are professional liars.

One of the biggest scams right now is republicans getting people to believe they are against a health care mandate. It was orignially a republican idea. The lastest is that they want to repeal and replace.

I've been saying for the past couple of weeks that the republicans are just pissed that the dems brought in a more universal health instead of them. That's why they want to do away with the current law, so they can replace it with their own version.

[Cookie Kwan]

One of the biggest scams right now is republicans getting people to believe they are against a health care mandate. It was orignially a republican idea. The lastest is that they want to repeal and replace.

Well, one can argue that there has to be some sort of a mandate, otherwise people would just be buying healthcare insurance when they got sick and the whole system would collapse. I believe that their proposal gave tax credits to those who bought their insurance privately, they also endorsed taking insurance out of the employment sector -- something I for one support.

There has been a lot of talk about this today, that this is the Republicans idea come to fruition and I find it laughable to be so naive as to think that the Democrats are soooo altruisitic that they just took one for the team.

It's been no secret that both sides have their own idea of how healthcare reform should work. It's been no secret that the R's support healthcare reform, it's about which reform gives individuals more freedom, more money in their pockets and rewards hard work.

After all, a totally free market system would dictate that a person without insurance who gets diagnosed with cancer, simply die and let's be realistic, the Repubicans would fail if that ran on that platform.

Thoughts?

[PapayaSF]

I could moderate my libertarian tendencies and support some version of an individual mandate, but not the idiotic one in Obamacare. It should be for low-cost/high-deductible/HSA policies, which instead the Democrats are making illegal. So they are making insurance more expensive and forcing everyone to buy it. Brilliant!

[rctl]

Papaya, have they actually said they will make having a HSA illegal?

[PapayaSF]

No, but they also haven't said that Obamacare is merely a transitional step before the government takes over all of healthcare, even though that's clearly the plan. However, there are numerous new taxes and regulations that make HSAs less attractive, and apparently the Secretary of HHS is empowered to decide what the "allowable" minimum coverage for insurance plans will be. Since Democrats have been unfriendly to HSAs in the past, I expect them to do all they can to kill them.

[rctl]

What taxes and regualtions?

[Cookie Kwan]

What taxes and regualtions?

rctl, I'm guessing that it's in the healthcare bill somewhere, but since nobody's read it, it has yet to be pointed out.

I will tell you this, I work at a hospital who dropped HSA's from our plans this year, citing that the government was not going to honor/allow them moving forward. Everyone with a roll-over HSA in 2010 has to spend it by the end of this year and then it will no longer be offered by our hospital.

So far this year, I have not had one patient submit a HSA account to our hospital, a change from the last few years.

I did find this, not sure what came of it though:

http://blogs.wsj.com/wallet/20.....b/article/

[rctl]

"Everyone with a roll-over HSA in 2010 has to spend it by the end of this year and then it will no longer be offered by our hospital." Cookie are you sure you are speaking of a HSA and not a FSA (requires using all funds in same year)? Funds in a HSA never expire and can be rolled over into a retirement plan.

[Cookie Kwan]

Cookie are you sure you are speaking of a HSA and not a FSA (requires using all funds in same year)?

Yikes, just checked my old emails and it was the FSA that's being phased out. My apologies.

[rctl]

accepted:-)

[Cookie Kwan]

I agree Papaya, and the ones who can't afford such a plan -- Medicaid should be expanded for those people.

This new law, that limits everyones out of pocket expenses to just under 7k a year for premium, commercial insurance is UNSUSTAINABLE! And the administration KNOWS IT. This is just a gateway for universal healthcare, so that EVERYONE is forced into the exemplary Medicaid system. So now, everybody will have crappy insurance.

Crappy insurance should be available for people who can't afford it. You know why? Because it's FREE, that's why. The whole mentality of, "Well, if you buy a Mercedes, then everyone in America should have a Mercedes and for the ones who can't afford it, then you need to buy them one."

It's SOOOOOO anti-growth and anti-productivity, it's unfathomable.

You know what's going to happen?? Atlas will shrug. You just watch. My husband and I are planning on making one penny less than what is allowed for subsidies as a couple/family and we can do it too because my husband is a freelancer. He'll just accept less work. And if a VAT tax is imposed, we'll start the most kick-ass garden and drive our cars into the ground.

[Fatty Bolger]

Um... Republicans could have passed universal health care any time they wanted from 1995 to 2006, and could have done it with minimal help from Democrats during 2001 - 2006. Maybe you've also forgotten the battles over Hillarycare in the 90's? Seriously, this has to be the lamest argument I have seen on this subject.

[Fatty Bolger]

This was @TrickyVic

[Cookie Kwan]

Exactly Fatty. Excellent point.

[Brandybuck]

The Dems are in the White House for three more years, so a Republican win in November means gridlock and a halt to expansionist government.

Always vote for a mixed government.

[Pro Libertate]

G
  R
      I
        D
          L
            O
              C
                K

[Cookie Kwan]

Gridlock is as close to utopia as we can hope to get in this country.

[Chris]

And that's fucking sad. True, but sad.

[Sudden]

The thing I have trouble with is would I rather have Obama with a 'Pub congress or prospective 'Pub nominee 2012 (Romney? Palin? (insert other potential choice here)?) and a Democrat controlled Congress...

[Pro Libertate]

The beauty is that we can adjust the mix every two years.

[I]

say amen to that. No other reason needed.

[Robert]

That kind of voting strategy is really silly. As if your chance of affecting the outcome of a single election weren't small emough, because you can't control how everyone else votes, how do you know that in the totality of elections on the ballot at one time, that you'll wind up voting the right way to divide/mix the result?

On avg., half the people voting for mixed gov't will be voting for the Democrat, and half for the Republican, for a give office, net 0.

And even if you could get together and get all "mixed gov't" voters to vote as a bloc, how do you know how the other voters, who are not voting for mixed gov't, will vote? How do you know your voting bloc won't wind up un-mixing a result which would otherwise have been mixed?

Vote for who you think's better, period.

[John Thacker]

It matters not just if the Republicans win, but how and why they win. The Republicans behaved better from 1994-1998 partially because of why they won.

If Republicans win and the message is clearly that they won because of the American people disliking Obamacare, then that will lead to a victory for liberty.

Just as Republicans winning expanded seats in 2002 and 2004 based on that spending record was a bad thing for liberty.

Of course, if the Republicans refuse to run against Obamacare, then, sure, they'll deserve to lose. But Democrats winning because they pass it would be awful.

[Better than HCR]

But Democrats winning because they pass it would be awfully good news. It would also make it the most interesting day ever to read H&R posts

[Doc Merlin]

Dude, as bad as bush was,... Obama is everything bad about bush x10.
In the case of the deficits, its literally x10 in the case of other things, its only metaphorically x10.

[JohnD]

Tristan is obviously a freaking moron.

[Cookie Kwan]

Whatever it takes to bring down Queen Pelosi. She's gotta go.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Everyone knows what happens to the party in power in midterms, and anger is a better motivator, so yeah my money is on the Democrats taking massive losses.

In a perfect world, the whole of DC would slide into the swamp. (Sorry, non-politico residents.)

[Hacha Cha]

who the hell is running the Libertarian Party theses days? my state LP and the national one are doing a HORRIBLE job of tapping into the Ron Paul and Tea Party movements. this seems like a time where if the LP ran good candidates and was able to promote some key campaigns they could become even more prominent and start gaining some decent political power.

[Clich? Bandit]

Have you donated time and money to them? Have you courted TPers yourself? We here in CO are doing all we can. The several loose groups braodly referred to as TPs vehemently oppose looking at 3rd or independant candidates. They want to fix the Rs. Just like the RP Rev did in '08 here in CO...ohh wait. Thats right, Dick Wadhams (Douche extreme RPCO Chair) shut them down at the state convention. the LP warned them, they didnt lesten. We have ballot access and all the Tea Partiers and Ron Paulers (I am not disparaging their efforts merely their short sightedness) got was snubed and they ended up staying home or voting for McCain. It is happening again this year. We will have candidates (ours shower and wear suits) that are feasable but the Tea Party wont look at them. Wouldnt even send their questionaire to our guys...WTF? Anyway, I have been involved in the LP for years and we have been making progress but it is slow. People who think replacing the Dems with the Repubs and vice versa are the problem. Not the LP.

Put up or Shut up

[Pro Libertate]

Yes, the LP seems remarkably quiet for the single hugest opportunity ever to make inroads.

[LibertyBill]

Root seems to be making progress

[qwerty]

The LP had a great opportunity in 2008. Both the Dems and the GOP nominated the most statist, big-government candidates in living memory, the economy was in turmoil, most people were tired of the wars, and the LP nominated Barr, a mainstream candidate with Congressional experience.

The stars were aligned for the LP in 2008, and they got their usual crappy percentage of 1%. I don't see them ever becoming a factor.

[C-Dog]

My friend is running as the LP candidate for Congress in my district. When I've gone with him and communicated with his fellow LP'rs and they don't seem to be interested in the Tea Party and Ron Paul movements. They seem more interested in disassociating themselves from Sarah Palin and are quite scared of the Tea Partiers.

[Pro Libertate]

Hundreds of thousands of people disaffected with government, and the LP runs away because many of them need some education. That's about what I've come to expect. The LP may never get a better opportunity than right now.

[PapayaSF]

Hear, hear!

[Doc Merlin]

Sigh, seriously, the closest we Libertarians have come to power is Rob Paul's movement, but the LP is terrified of doing anything about it.

[I]

see libertarianism as a philosophy not a party. I think this is why the LP struggles.

[Middle America?]

If, God help you, you will be at a social occasion this weekend in which the politics of health care reform comes up

Jesus, Brian, give us a little credit. We got chili cook-offs, pre-season Little League, proms to plan and old-fashioned witch-burnin's to occupy our minds. God will smite those DC socialists. Of this we have the utmost faith. Now who wants a hot dog?

[Cookie Kwan]

this seems like a time where if the LP ran good candidates and was able to promote some key campaigns they could become even more prominent and start gaining some decent political power.

My fear is that all that would do is create another election spoiler (think Ross Perot), solidifying the Democrats control and ensuring their re-election.

[cynical]

The LP should work out a power sharing arrangement with the GOP; wherein they each run their primaries, then in several LP-leaning districts, run the LP candidate as both LP and R (or, if that isn't legit, just the R), and in more R-leaning districts, do the same for the R candidate. Cynical? Unprincipled? Sure, but maybe a good idea for both groups.

[Chris]

Aligning with Republicans is not he answer.

That's the way to become even more irrelevant and marginalized politically.

[JohnD]

And the Libratarian Party isn't already marginalized and irrelevant?

[LibertyBill]

This has been tried

Fusionism

[TrickyVic]

""power sharing arrangement with the GOP""

Why should the LP trust the GOP to honor any arrangements?

[cynical]

Because betraying an explicit alliance is a good way to have your ass handed to you by your common enemy? And if they lost some close election due to an LP vote split, it would be something to point to explain why the GOP leadership is worthless and needs to be shitcanned. Granted, they are worthless, so who can say what will happen?

[Cookie Kwan]

The problem with your theory, "cynical", is that it's a short sighted martyr strategy that will ultimately backfire.

If the Democrats continue to reign power, which they would with an LP vote split, they will continue to create a larger welfare state, ensuring their continued re-elections. Nobody's going to vote to eliminate their paychecks when those paychecks and/or subsidies when those benefits are coming from the government of wealth redistribution.

The sad reality of it is, many people on the dole want to "screw the man" and think they deserve other people's wealth.

What we need right now is gridlock and then when things aren't getting done, THEN "we" propose and promote a Libertarian candidate. We must stop the bleeding first though.

[cynical]

Don't misunderstand me. My point was that if they worked together, they would be formally avoiding the negative consequences of a vote split, which are just as you say. I was trusting the leadership of both parties were to high to risk the fallout from selling one another out.

[cynical]

"were to high"

I don't even know what I meant to write there, but it's funnier that way. Maybe "were too aware of what was at stake"?

[TrickyVic]

""Because betraying an explicit alliance is a good way to have your ass handed to you by your common enemy?""

And you think that's enough to put trust in a political party?

[The]

Tea Party wants no part of a spoiler that, is why the LP is not gaining ground with them however, some libertarian ideas are in IMO. One mind at a time.

[Tulpa]

It hurts me to know that I can't figure out a way for them both to lose in November.

Are you kidding? The GOP losing more seats means a completely unchecked Democratic federal government.

[John]

But lots of people who are just are not cool would benefit. And Doherty can't have that. The whole point of being a libertarian is to figure out a way to convince the right class of people to be on his side. If you can't do that, better to live with socialism.

[tarran]

No John, it means that we don't want to rip free of the Democratic reaming of our rectum, only to present it for the Republicans to ram their members in.

The U.S. is in terrible economic shape. The Democrats may be taking us over the edge of the cliff, but it was the Republicans who got us there.

And don't forget, when the Republicans were last in power, we had a Republican president trying to nationalize the capital markets.

Anybody who cares about freedom should stop wasting their votes on Republicans and Democrats come November.

[Chris]

Reason!

[Almanian]

Drink!

[Brian Doherty]

Since I know John is sitting on piles of textual evidence of this belief on my part (as opposed to, say, dislike for statism and government growth under whatever designer label), I can only hang my head in shame and slink away.

[Tulpa]

Doherty, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!

[Off Topic]

KFC diner told 'you can't have bacon in your burger here - we're now halal'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....z0jJw9jnEp

[Mo]

I'm sure you would go out of your way to share that link if the quote was, 'you can't have bacon in your burger here - we're now kosher'.

[Meh]

Maybe he wouldn't, but YOU would.

[Rich]

"Better to run on something accomplished rather than nothing."

Not.

[PapayaSF]

It's pure Yes, Minister logic, isn't it? "We must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this."

[R C Dean]

It hurts me to know that I can't figure out a way for them both to lose in November.

Well, this is a two-party system, so one side has to lose.

So, which side do want to lose? Put another way, which side would you prefer not to have a majority in the house?

"Neither" is not an option.

[Jeff]

Speaking truth reason to power Reason.

[Brian Doherty]

R.C.--You are kind of just restating my sentence here. I'm well aware neither is not an option. And since I would obviously prefer that neither party have a majority in the House, well, it hurts.
That said, in some magic fantasy world where it really was up to me, I guess I'd have to clench every part of my body and pray for gridlock. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt that they both can't lose.

[stubby]

Brian, I hear you. I really do. But you know what they say about letting the perfect be the enemy of the not-quite-as-fucked-up.

If the Dems aren't spanked, and very fucking hard, in November, what the hell will they do in the next two years? The mind boggles - they have no fucking brakes. Think of the most egregious, the most liberty-crushing, the most economically nonsensical bullshit an energized Obama-fellating Democrat can come up with. Then try to tell yourself "Oh, they wouldn't..." Only, you know they would. Of course they would. Look at the monstrosity they just raped us with. If they don't at least lose the House in November, they're going to think we secretly liked it.

And besides - if Nancy Pelosi retains the speakership, I don't...I just don't know what the fuck I'll do. I'm start to twitch every time I hear her name or, God forbid, glimpse that grinning skull she uses as a face. People think I'm having a seizure.

I want to see her trying to weep as she realizes she can't pleasure herself with the gavel anymore, kay? Please?

[Right Wing Realist]

Just come out and say it, "I'll be voting Democrat or staying home this November, because I want to be considered cool by my cosmopolitan social group". See, wasn't that easier?

[katie]

We are looking for ways to beat the system. If everyone who opposes Obama Care took action that would hurt the success of the program we could bring the USA to her knees,

[Barack Obama]

I am doing a great job of that on my own, thank you very much.

[BeesInTheBrain]

It hurts me to know that I can't figure out a way for them both to lose in November.

Well, this is a two-party system, so one side has to lose.

So, which side do want to lose? Put another way, which side would you prefer not to have a majority in the house?

"Neither" is not an option.
Personally I think the best move is to organize a "Fock the Vote" movement.

Tag Line
"I'm not apathetic I just don't trust any of you bastards. Fock The Vote 2010"

Run ads with {insert irrelavent celebrity here} standing around flipping a coin saying "Does it really matter who you vote for. Both parties will screw you in the end. Flip a coin, then cast your vote and Fock The Vote". Then come election day everyone could gather at their local polling place holding "Fock The Vote" signs. Then for those for whom the need to vote is too great, stickers could be made that have a quarter on them that say "I Vote Heads, Fock the Vote 2010".

[Holy fuck]

Who will play the Fockers in the movie? Ben Stiller?

[Both Lose? Easily Arranged.]

Just keep on coddling our foreign enemies and bashing your own country. In the end, our foreign enemies will invade and kill all the politicians.

Of course, they'll also kill you, but I'm sure you won't mind that if it means you get your revenge on Ds and Rs and everyone else for not being perfect the way you Ls are.

[TrickyVic]

"""Just keep on coddling our foreign enemies and bashing your own country."""

Coddling them with drone strikes.

[NotAnEconomist]

To me the main problem is gerrymandering. I have a better chance of of winning the lottery five times in a row them Nancy Pelosi losing her seat. If the Republicans win back the Senate or House the same goofballs (politest term I could think of) who were in charge before will be in charge again. We need new blood in the leadership of both parties. Not the same failed leadership of before.

[Tulpa]

Pelosi's district isn't gerrymandered. Her safe seat is just a product of San Fran being big enough to have its own district.

[PapayaSF]

It doesn't encompass all of SF and it's still shaped a bit oddly (like a backwards "C"), but it's not as bad as it was. It used to jump across the Golden Gate Bridge and take in parts of Marin county.

[Groovus Maximus]

And unfortunately for us as a nation, San Fran has the electorate to vote her in.

If they want to elect her, fine.

Just seems a few more liberties will be traveling then resting awaiting the Roto-Rooter tech.

[crenata]

We all recognize the problem of the repuke/3rd party split. As for me, holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils is not an option. I refuse to contribute to this mess. I've been voting for over thirty years, and I have never once voted R or D for Pres or Congress. My conscience is clear. I, for one, do not get the government I deserve.

Either way the whole thing sucks.

[TrickyVic]

For those who desire gridlock. If, by chance the republicans take both houses of Congress, would you vote for Obama's second term?

[Cookie Kwan]

For those who desire gridlock. If, by chance the republicans take both houses of Congress, would you vote for Obama's second term?

I would hold my nose and do it, yes.

[PapayaSF]

Even if his opponent was a proven budget-cutter and small-government type like Mitch Daniels? I guess I don't hold gridlock in such esteem.

[stubby]

Another reason to punish the Dems: Henry Fucking Waxman plans to haul ATT, Deere, Caterpillar and any other company projecting losses and writedowns as a result of Obamacare into a hearing on April 21. The reason? These companies' judgment "appears to conflict with independent analyses, which show that the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs."

So, because the companies read the bill, ran the numbers, and followed public disclosure rules, the Democrats will administer - or try to administer - a public whipping.

Hey - SM? Or anyone else on these here threads still supporting this -- any comments? Any possible defense of this behavior?

I'm sure that if a Republican Congress rammed through unpopular legislation, and public companies judged it to be financially disasterous for their shareholders, and said Republican Congress attempted to silence said public companies - um, that would be just fine, right?

[I'M ALL 4]

- a public whipping.;-)

[Cookie Kwan]

From that WSJ opinion piece:

In other words, shoot the messenger. Black-letter financial accounting rules require that corporations immediately restate their earnings to reflect the present value of their long-term health liabilities, including a higher tax burden.

Is he implying that these CEOs and corporations who are now releasing these real figures to the people are now going to be under the intimidation of IRS audits?

Isn't this a form of extortion?

This is seriously effed up.

[JSinAZ]

When has anybody not been under the threat of IRS action for high-profile statements against the interests of the party in the executive? It's why selective enforcement is so much fun for the enforcers!

[stubby]

I want to see one of those companies' CEOs use their alloted time to denounce Waxman for the would-be totalitarian he is and to tell him to shove it up his ass. Intimidation is harder to get away with when the cameras are on you. They scatter like roaches when you shine a light on them.

[James Ard]

Getting Waxman out of power should be all the motivation a person needs to pull the R lever.

[JSinAZ]

Well, at least under a Republican administration / majority, the anti-scary black rifle and honking big magazine law was allowed to lapse in 2004.

In my book, that was a concrete big fat plus in my book for the Rep side - I cannot imagine the same thing would have happened in a political polarity-reversed situation.

[Kennedy Smith]

Well, jeez Brian. As a libertarian, you must hurt frequently. Can't make both parties lose. It's simple math. The GOP's going to win a ball-stomping victory, obviously. Last time we had a Dem prez and a GOP congress it worked reasonably well. I got my doubts that Hopey will be as smooth as Bubba, though.

[prolefeed]

The GOP's going to win a ball-stomping victory, obviously.

Link?

Intrade currently has the odds of the Rs taking over the House at about 40%.

Fivethirtyeight has the Rs picking up 5 seats in the Senate.

Not saying you're wrong, but -- link needed.

[louboutinvips]

I am doing a great job of that on my own, thank you very much.
http://www.christianlouboutinvips.com