If Coakley Loses

January 16th, 2010 at 11:36 am David Frum | 76 Comments |

| Print

The big question for Democrats: Has the time come to play dirty? To delay seating Scott Brown and push through the legislation as rapidly as possible?

Jon Chait is (so far as I am aware) the first liberal writer to argue the point explicitly.

As the likelihood grows that Republicans could win the special election in Massachusetts, it’s worth thinking again about alternatives for health care reform in case that happens. I see three, in descending order of preference:

1. Finish up the House-Senate negotiations quickly and hold a vote before Scott Brown is seated. Republicans will scream, but how could they scream any louder? It’s a process argument of murky merits that will be long forgotten by November.

Senator Tom Harkin has been toying with the idea too.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate health committee, disputed Frank’s prediction [that health reform would die if Coakley lost], saying Democrats would pass a bill.

‘Well, those are kind of apocalyptic terms. I still think there is a wellspring of support in this country for doing something about health care because people are losing their health care every day, thousands every day. All these things are out there, so the momentum is still there for getting a health care bill.”

Cramming HCR through Congress in this way may not strictly be unprecedented. Surely somewhere in the annals of Congress there must be another case of a bill that is one vote short of passage – where a special election is fought exactly on that bill – where proponents lose – and where they execute a parliamentary maneuver to enact the bill anyway.

But I’d be astonished if anybody had ever before tried to pass a law of this magnitude in a way that so blatantly tramples on election results.

I’d be astonished if it works this time either. After all, if Brown loses, panic will grip the Democratic senators. Does Blanche Lincoln want to gamble her future that her voters will forget by November that the most important domestic legislation in a generation was passed in this way? And the others on the ballot in 2010?

Recent Posts by David Frum



76 Comments so far ↓

  • balconesfault

    This is done for one reason, to avoid any discussions about Socialism vs. Capitalism.

    Actually, I’d love to have this discussion. Bring it on. Just try to stay intellectually consistent during it, and stay on track, and we should have a great time.

    American CAPITALISM is an IDEAL REGIME for an average HUMAN. Even a slightest deviation from American Capitalism (as we’ve had it for 200 years) IS a CONSIDERATION for SOCIALISM, which in turn, is already The SOCIALISM.

    What it the American CAPITALISM we’ve had for 200 years? Is your thesis that the regulation of the marketplace in 1810 would properly govern the markets we have in 2010?

  • Mandos

    I’m very happy to say that I am in support of socialism.

  • communists-basher

    “Another reason is that Obama was a fresh face within the party. He inspired with the ‘hope and change’ banner”.

    Maybe only now some on the Left are starting to understand that this message was really just a banner, a cover-up for an agenda that has nothing to do with reflecting on desires of many Americans, left or right leaning.

    Seriously, why would someone who has a genuine desire to restore the economy, be pushing healthcare and cap-and-trade instead of creating jobs, at the time when millions are unemployed. Get a job first then worry about improving healthcare and saving environment. How come this ‘inspiring and fresh’ president couldn’t understand the basic human mentality? The answer is: it was never on his agenda, to save American workers from unemployment, foreclosures and despair.

    Instead, he wants to force you even deeper into that despair. And so came all those stimulus’s, bail-out, cash for this and cash for that programs, tarps, anything to increase national debt, anything to drive down the US Dollar, anything but new jobs. Anything to lower your level of living even farther.

    And all that had to be done real fast, in the shortest period of time, before people start waking up to the reality, while beliefs into ‘change’ and ‘hopes’ are still high. And all of those initiatives were promoted as job-creation initiatives! This was/is the greatest trick a President elect ever pull on American people. Bush’ Iraq fades in comparison.

    Then this president has run into an issue: the healthcare reform ended up too complex to sell easily and quick. His Progressive caucus was too small to be a force, his corrupt associates were too greedy to make a quick decision. Time was lost, and people have started to wake up … and now Massachusetts race clearly indicates that The machine has stumbled.

    Republicans got lucky with Obama as he is too radical and pushes too hard. With H.Clinton, things could have been different, kind of.

    Now we should ask ourselves these questions: “What is this president true agenda? Why would he bribe, hide, arm-twist and lie so openly? And why is his wife spending federal money like there is no tomorrow, on clothes, balls, banquets, trips, jewelry, and a huge staff of assistants?”

    And the answers are:
    - the agenda was to advance Socialist reforms (that cannot be repealed) as far as possible in the shortest time frame possible, before anyone figured it out. Healthcare is the fundamental basis of any regime, and that is why reforming it had to be done asap if not first, to shatter the fundamentals of Capitalism forever.
    - in reality, what was done first and swift, was the destruction of the Capitalist credit system (banks), Capitalist money making mechanisms (Wall Street), the destruction of Consumerism (the US Dollar value), and the destruction of the Capitalist beliefs (free market).
    - Obama’s ruling was never meant to be long term: the goal was/is not to remain in power but to initiate the ‘transformation’ to Socialism… because even the most radical Socialist strategists understand that such transformation cannot be achieved quick without being noticed. It takes time to transform to Socialism.

    Anyhow, Obama’s goals have been almost achieved … it is very unlikely that, if passed, healthcare reform will be repealed by corrupt Republicans. Neither party would allow to shrink back big government or to give up more control.

    Obama’s goals have been also achieved in a sense that he bankrupted the US. We’re due over $120 billion in interest to China this year – 2010 – that we do not have. How could this be resolved no one knows: a war with China or going back to Gold standard may work… Obama’s solution, in the case he would have hung around longer, is to replace dollar with UN/IMF supported new currency.

    While credit, financials, jobs and even the US Dollar can still be saved/restored, the healthcare will be hard to repeal. That is why it is so important to vote in Conservative pro-Capitalism candidates who will pledge to restore Capitalism by repealing most of Obama’s initiatives. One can only hope…

    (The easiest way to repeal every Obama’s initiative is to prove he is not eligible to serve as President. Once Americans understand the grave danger they’re in they can become more comfortable with this idea.)

  • Mandos

    but I don’t think the current bill is as awful as it could have been, if the Senate had been as liberal as Pelosi. Given that liberals are now running Washington, the bill could have been much worse from my standpoint. They wanted a public option as a first step toward a single-payer America; fortunately that’s as good as dead now.

    I don’t know why you would say “fortunately” to anything that doesn’t end in single-payer. Anything less than single payer health care is effectively leaving money on the table, to no one’s benefit but the robber barons.

  • rbottoms

    Obama’s goals have been also achieved in a sense that he bankrupted the US.

    You people are insane.

  • communists-basher

    balconesfault: “Actually, I’d love to have this discussion. Bring it on. Just try to stay intellectually consistent during it, and stay on track, and we should have a great time”

    Mandos: “I’m very happy to say that I am in support of socialism”

    rbottoms: “You people are insane”

    Hahahaha. I did not run away from Socialist jail-like nightmare/false equality/false happiness/socialized healthcare death panels/and outright Evil to discuss it with the Socialists … I simply wish you all disappear (not to say more).

    If you’re one of those Intellectuals who believes that:
    - Socialism works in Canada or Denmark or anywhere else in Europe
    - and/or Socialism works in China
    - and/or lessons from Denmark (with population of 5 million) and lessons from China (with population of over 1 billion) can be applied in the US to build a successful Socialism
    - or Socialism works in general …

    then I won’t discuss it with you … because it DOES work … but only for less fortunate people like those in Haiti, North Korea and Cuba. And because it did work for me for 29 years until I got a chance to try Capitalism. Once I tried Capitalism, I instantly understood the True Evil of Socialism and any form of it.

    If you’re Americans, I suggest that instead of discussing it, you try it. Seriously, go live in Denmark or England or Canada or Sweden for three months… you may like it (unless you’re free-spirited Individuals).

    See, the US was created by and for free-spirited entrepreneurial achievers … not for lazy incapable un-achievers. You’re in the wrong place. You should leave, go away, it’s not worth the fight you cannot win in a country where most people are FREE.

  • balconesfault

    - in reality, what was done first and swift, was the destruction of the Capitalist credit system (banks), Capitalist money making mechanisms (Wall Street), the destruction of Consumerism (the US Dollar value), and the destruction of the Capitalist beliefs (free market)

    Umm – that all pretty much happened under the other guy, you know.

  • rbottoms

    See, the US was created by and for free-spirited entrepreneurial achievers

    And here all this time I thought they were a bunch of slave owning hypocrites who built this country on the backs of men, women, and children forced to live in squalor and sold like cattle.

    My bad.

  • rbottoms

    You keep forgetting that a fairly large segment of the population thinks that 400 years of free labor courtesy of millions of blacks in chains is of little consequence when stacked up against the manly men from England who wrote lofty paeans to freedom and human dignity while millions lived like dogs.

    Rugged individualism and Christian values, with a little rape and mutilation on the side.

    This country became great the day Lyndon Johnson put pen to paper finally guaranteeing the right to vote, finally securing the full citizenship of a vast underclass.

    You’ll never believe it, and you’ll never understand we can both this country and at the same demand that it do better, that it do right by all its citizens, not just the ones with a 450 year head start.

  • franco 2

    ktward // Jan 17, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    franco 2:

    Across the less-partisan ideological spectrum, most agree that, for many reasons, our current health care system is untenable. IMHO, a single broken element does not a legitimate argument make, either for or against HCR.

    But there are a few glaring bottom lines:”

    I recognize there are real and profound problems with health care and insurance. In fact I believe insurance itself – the idea and its effects, causes real problems in a marketplace. Whenever an entity already has a persons’ money before service is performed is a recipe for a rip-off. I am not of the belief that government intervention -especially this monstrosity of a bill – will improve it in the least, and will make matters worse. This is because there will be NO competition at all. Not only will the government already have our money, but governments differ from insurance companies in that they can take money out of your bank account and they can deprive you of your freedom. They have been known to do this. As bad as insurance companies are (under the current restrictions) the government as our insurer will be certainly worse.

    Prudent, thoughtful action is needed, not a rushed, partisan governmental takeover.

  • franco 2

    “rbottoms // Jan 18, 2010 at 6:04 am

    You keep forgetting that a fairly large segment of the population thinks that 400 years of free labor courtesy of millions of blacks in chains is of little consequence when stacked up against the manly men from England who wrote lofty paeans to freedom and human dignity while millions lived like dogs.”

    More bullshit propaganda.

    This is a purely fantastic notion of history. Slaves have existed throughout history all over the world. It even exists today. Slaves built the pyramids (supposedly, I happen to think aliens did it) . Besides actual slaves in America, there were indentured servants, mostly European immigrants, who were de-facto slaves also. None of these people, white or black can realistically be claimed to have “built this country”. One simply has to look at other examples where slaves were used in this hemisphere at the same time to see what slaves build. The answer is …not much. This country was largely built, as it were after the industrial revolution which took place after slavery was abolished. Slavery isn’t a very good economic model.

    Beyond this, however is how is this supposed to be redressed? People like rbottoms want to use a black and white model- an incredibly simplistic notion whereby if you have dark skin you are entitled because it assumes you have descended from slaves and if you have white complexion it is assumed that you are descended from personal beneficiaries of slave labor. Nevermind that this model helps many who have no legacy of slavery and hurts many whose ancestors had nothing to do with slavery and in fact were exploited themselves, there are people who just want to apply this simplistic, and horribly unfair “fix”. Once applied, this “fix” is essentially racist, since it judges people merely by their color.

    Millions lived like dogs everywhere in the world in those days, and even now in case you haven’t noticed. Slavery takes many forms. There are factory workers in Asia cranking out shoes marketed by multi-millionare black men and women. Will someday Kobe Bryant’s great grandchildren bear responsibility for the great grandchildren of the Asian sweatshop workers?

  • rbottoms

    Beyond this, however is how is this supposed to be redressed?

    I’ll settle for stop pretending it didn’t happen. I visited the slave quarters at Jefferson’s estate and I wouldn’t let a dog sleep there much less a human being. That slavery existed throughout human history has nothing at all to do with the stalwart men who made a part of this country’s founding. They didn’t have to perpetrate such an evil in the new land, but they chose to anyway.

    All I ask is stop telling me the fairy tale of how wondrous capitalism alone built this country. In fact captive blacks, maltreated Asians, chattel wives, and indentured servants built America for a very long time and it is very recent history that it changed for anyone one else no tborn to priviledge.

    The only thing the Democratic party buys my loyalty with is their apparent ability to elect black people to the Congress of the United states of America.

    When the GOP manages the dififuclt feat of actually finding a black person who they can elect to public office, drop me a line.

  • franco 2

    “….that it do right by all its citizens, not just the ones with a 450 year head start.”

    Who exactly had a “450″ year head start? White folk? Such a broad brush you use. Ever heard of the waves of immigration? And ever wondered why this country succeeded where other places with slavery failed? I mean if slaves build such great empires like the USA how come Jamaica and the rest of the Carribean are hell holes out side the tourist veneer? They had more slaves per capita than here.

    And how many black folks are not descended from slaves? What about the immigrant blacks? Like Obamas dad? Like the Nigerians? Are they supposed to get the affirmative action action too? Just because they share the color but not the “legacy”? That’s right because the legacy is really another fiction anyway and after 50 years of equal rights under the law, there are still people who want to focus on the legacy of slavery rather than the legacy of the “perfect storm” of what hit the black community in the 60′s and onward, instigated by well-meaning Democrats and their liberal statist Republican friends.

    This perfect storm, in a nutshell was this: Massive welfare payments to poor people who were disproportionately black. These payments were for women and children who were unmarried. This created a perverse incentive while at the same time robbed the black man of dignity and responsibility. Naturally crime became the outlet of young black men with no fathers and/or few good male role models in their life. This was anthropological terrorism IMO though for the most part unintended.

    Shortly after the civil rights advances, the feminist movement piggy-backed on the zeitgeist, making things even more difficult for black males and the resultant damage to black families and culture. That is, females benefited disproportionately from the Affirmative action laws. A white female with a working husband counted the same in AA as a black man with a family to feed. Black females were a two-fer, Black AND female, so they were hired before black men, further upsetting the natural balance, taking power away from men and giving it to females. The other element in this perfect storm was narcotics and the underground gang economy. Men will always find something to do, and men are naturally competive. So gangs are a natural outgrowth of this kind of environment, and violence is a natural result of gangs.

    Crime begets, insecurity begets poverty.

    It isn’t the legacy of slavery that is the dominant cause, it is the legacy of the remedies applied broadly and badly and the effect on the family and culture. Until that is understood, all this talk about slavery keeps the black community right where it is.

    Democrats have a big stake in burying these failures of government solutions. Not only failures, they caused even worse problems for the black community. Democrats need to focus on slavery and the last vestiges of racism to cover the damage they have done. They keep trying to make Republicans and “racists” the boogeyman. They are exploiting black folks anger – that anger has justified roots but it is displaced – it should at least be directed where it would make the most difference to an aversion of government “solutions” promoted by Democrats.

  • franco 2

    communists-basher,

    I pretty much agree with everything you say. Nothing like living in a socialist country to start to LOVE capitalism. I lived in Egypt for a year where everyone had a government job, nothing got done and everyone from local cops to teachers to every bureaucrat was corruptible with a cheap bribe. That’s because no one was making any real money. They were slaves to the State. There is no equality either because the politically connected get the privileges.

    But here in the USA real capitalism is being subsumed by socialist laws and it is becoming vaguely fascistic. Some call this corporatism, and it is different from capitalism. In this way Socialists can condemn capitalism when they are really condemning corporatism.

    I think this distinction is important. There is nothing wrong with a company trying to make money, but when the laws trying to control the corporation get out of balance with the real world, the corporation turns to government for remedies. When the government becomes so big that corporations depend on it we start to have problems. It stops being a free market. The market is dominated by government through regulation.

    Having been born in the USA I know how these people think. They really don’t understand what Socialism is because they haven’t experienced it. Much like someone who thinks they know what an LSD experience is by reading about its effects and maybe watching “Easy Rider”.

  • franco 2

    “The only thing the Democratic party buys my loyalty with is their apparent ability to elect black people to the Congress of the United states of America.

    When the GOP manages the dififuclt feat of actually finding a black person who they can elect to public office, drop me a line.”

    There are large pockets of black folks in various congressional districts. They vote for people who come from their districts and who look and talk like them and have the same experiences essentially. For whatever reason these people believe that Democrats are for them and Republicans are against them. They have believed this for a very long time, enabling these districts to become essentially one-party states controlled by black Democrats. They are then going to elect black Democrats….forever.

    Then there is the secondary rationale that you are using: Since black folk elect Democrats, Democrats must be good for black folks. This is a self-perpetuating tautology that encourages a non-thinking lemming mentality. It trusts others to make decisions. You are entrusting people far more ignorant and superstitious than yourself to make your decisions. Look at the political sclerosis caused by decades of racial politics in Detroit, Philadelphia Washington, DC , Baltimore and tell me that

    How many of the people in Maxine Waters district go online to discuss politics? Are you saying you trust them to decide for you who is best to vote for?

  • sinz54

    ktward: Many (most?) of those same ‘netroots’ groups are not at all happy with Obama today. They’re quite vocal about it, in fact it’s the epicenter of ‘netroots’ drama these days; they’ve not influenced Dem Congressional votes/disposition a single discernible whit, it would seem, and that’s what they’re *most* unhappy about.
    The “netroots” were great at organizing political campaigns and getting candidates elected. Their big triumph was getting Obama elected.

    But now they’re finding out the hard way that governing requires an entirely different set of skills than campaigning. That’s because most Americans aren’t political junkies. Once Election Day passes, most of them say “Well, that’s over” and go back to their own lives. They stop responding to campaign-type tactics like phone calls and TV ads. Governing requires leadership from our elected officials. That’s can’t be outsourced to the “netroots.”

    The “netroots” will have their day again, as the November elections draw closer and they start campaigning for their favorite candidates again. But it’s now clear that they are a campaign machine, not a governing machine.

  • GOProud

    Lovely diversion by the far Left democrats here, but the question was: “The big question for Democrats: Has the time come to play dirty? To delay seating Scott Brown and push through the legislation as rapidly as possible?”

    I guess, David, that presupposes a predicate that the Democrats have NOT been playing “dirty” up to now? Characterizing all the GOP proposals on HCR as “not appropriate”. Keeping GOP members out of the debate. Holding secret meetings. Bribing Senate and House members for votes in a manner that would get anyone OUTside the chamber doing the same a quick trial and long sentence in the nearest federal prison.

    Seriously, David, do you even read a newspaper or watch TV once in a while??? You and your far Left plans here really need to put away the tin foil hats… the aliens are no longer sending special messages from Andromeda.

    The Democrats have been playing dirty since Day 1 of Hope & Change… Feb 10 ’07.

    Put down the kool aid, David, and return to some semblance of reality, ok? “start” playing dirty??? Get serious.

  • sinz54

    rbottoms: I thought they were a bunch of slave owning hypocrites who built this country on the backs of men, women, and children forced to live in squalor and sold like cattle.
    How many slaves did Abraham Lincoln’s family own in their little log cabin?

    The hunters, the trappers, the immigrants who poured into America from Europe, owned no slaves. Slavery was limited to the plantations of the antebellum South.

    Your reading of history is WRONG:

    The 13 colonies had earlier agreed that the vote on the Declaration of Independence had to be unanimous. No colony wanted to be FORCED into independence from Britain by some slim majority vote: Declaring independence meant war; and if Britain won, all those who had dared to vote for independence were sure to be hanged as traitors to the Crown. Alternatively, a colony which did not vote for Independence might side with Britain against the other colonies that had declared independence, in which case we would have had a civil war, North colonies vs. South colonies, in 1776 instead of 1860.

    There was only one way to go: All 13 colonies had to declare independence or not at all.

    The Southern colonies gave Jefferson and Adams an ultimatum: We won’t vote for Independence unless we’re allowed to keep our institution of slavery. If Jefferson and Adams had listened to people like you (and there were such people), and turned down the the Southern colonies, the Declaration of Independence would never have passed, and the American colonies would have remained part of the British Empire like Canada.

    I’m proud of this country and its achievements on its own. I don’t think losing the battle for independence from Britain would have been a good thing. We proved that in two world wars plus the Cold War, where we (NOT Canada) saved Britain and the rest of Europe.

  • sinz54

    rbottoms: In fact captive blacks, maltreated Asians, chattel wives, and indentured servants built America for a very long time and it is very recent history that it changed for anyone one else no tborn to priviledge.
    Some time ago, you had said that you had enlisted in the American military.

    Given your bitterness about this country’s heritage, why would you enlist to defend America, especially given that you might be called on to do so in war and might have to risk (or even give) your life in defense of this nation?

    You don’t seem to express much love for America or much pride in its history–yet you volunteered to risk your life for it in war. Why?

  • anniemargret

    communist-basher: “And this why this country is in ruins now … thanks to the millions of young adults who only voted because it was fun, and because their Intellectual parents never taught them any values.”

    Who made you the Grand-Poobah of all that’s holy and moral? “Intellectual parents?” Are you one of those calling for more ignorance and less education as something to aspire to for this country while you rail about China? The Chinese are already over the hill and speeding down on the other side with their students graduating in science and math. They are already ahead of the game in development of green-renewable energy industries, while we got right wingers saying American students are the product of ‘intellectual parents!’ Unbelievable. God forbid they should go to college and learn to ‘think” on their own!

    And who are you to speak against parents you know nothing about? How dare you attack the morals of thousands of young people who are smart, aware, well-read, well-informed and moral as well. My children were taught right and wrong. Keep putting your party in that stricture and see where’s it gets you. I’m proud of the kids today. They have a lot more to deal with than other generations before them. They work hard, and they’re good kids, doing good things.

    David Frum is trying to wrest his party away from extremism. Good luck, David. This screed against all the young people in this country is exactly what’s wrong with your party. Instead of addressing their concerns and the issues that will be affecting them for decades to come, the right wing counters with more fear-mongering and ignorance. This is what these young people rejected in the last election, and why they will, again.

    Our capitalist country is the better for the social programs that had been implemented decades ago. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security can be defined as ‘socialist’ – despite that word being used as a sword by the right wing, and yet….

    ….the American people have *embraced* these programs as an integral part of a nation that aspires to greatness by a combined effort to keep capitalism morphing into an aberrant form of corporatism, and balances it with humanitarian efforts to help the needy, the poor. Humanitarism. This is a word that is slowly being weeded out of the lexicon of Republicans.

    Try wresting these social programs from the American people. Like the Tea Party attendees, they won’t let them go. Why do you think that? Because they like them. Pragmatism wins over ideology. They’re not stupid. We do not live in an ideal world where everything is fair and balanced.

    The healthcare industry already profits on illness. I would prefer to live in a country where we are judged by how we take care of those that are less fortunate and in need, not how the rich can get richer.

    This is the great Judeo-Christian model of which millions live by in their personal lives and how our nation was birthed. A nation that is cold-blooded in the face of the sad fact that 45,000 Americans souls lost their lives because of the lack of adequate healthcare, due to insufficient coverage by insurers, or bankrupted by their medical problems, is not a nation I want to live in.

    I care more about people than I do about insurance companies and their profit margins.

    I much prefer the ‘capitalist/socialist’ model. And when push comes to shove, so do the majority of Americans.

  • sinz54

    Mandos: I’m very happy to say that I am in support of socialism.
    Which model?

    USSR?
    China?
    Sweden?
    Netherlands?
    Israel?

    All the ones that still give their people freedom are also the ones with vibrant private sectors. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

    China admitted that their hope of stamping out free enterprise had failed, and so they went with free market reforms. They’re doing very well, high growth rates.

    The USSR refused to admit that, and they collapsed.

    I don’t think that’s a coincidence either.

  • anniemargret

    sinz: China is also dreadfully uncaring about its people.

    See my response above. Are you saying you prefer we have no social programs at all in this country?

  • sinz54

    balconesfault: What it the American CAPITALISM we’ve had for 200 years? Is your thesis that the regulation of the marketplace in 1810 would properly govern the markets we have in 2010?
    In truth, America has always had a mixed economy. We’ve never been 100% laissez-faire. The Erie Canal, the Homestead Act, the transcontinental railroad, were government initiatives that offered substantial government contracts and subsidies to private farmers and businessmen.

    The innovation of manufacturing with interchangeable standardized parts, which would eventually enable Henry Ford to mass-produce cars, originated in America by the U.S. Army, which recognized the value of standardized parts for rifles. This would facilitate both production and maintenance of said rifles. So in the first half of the 19th century, the Army wrote contracts for the procurement of rifles that mandated the use of standardized interchangeable parts. That innovation, once proven successful with rifles, soon spread to other manufactured products, as the contractors who built the rifles diversified into other markets.

    “rbottoms” is flatly wrong when he claims that black slaves built this country. No black slaves were responsible for any of the above initiatives.

    But free-market purists are wrong too.

    A careful reading of American history shows that much of it owes its success to visionary public-private partnerships and endeavors.

    The problem we have today is lack of vision. Government now sees itself not as a leader in public-private investment, but as a redistributionist machine. Playing Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, without regard to just which rich people are being soaked and which poor people are being benefited, has failed–and it has led to disgust with Government generally.

  • balconesfault

    Government now sees itself not as a leader in public-private investment, but as a redistributionist machine.

    Interestingly, from what I can tell, it has been Obama’s use of the stimulus bill to push public-private investment (rather than just giving out most of the stimulus money as tax breaks) that’s been one of your biggest criticisms of him to date.

    Am I wrong?

  • Paul In Pittsburgh

    Now where left to turn up the outrage? Wow there are so many clueless and out of touch people here it’s frightening.

    I live in one of the blues regions in the country, a city in Pennsylvania that hasn’t elected a Republican in over 60 years and for the past six months I’ve heard more people than I can count, blue collar union family members, co-workers in academia, neighbors and friends at social gathers, say that they are so disgusted by Nancy Pelosi’s totalitarian proclivities, Barrack Obama’s extremism and Harry Reid’s timidity and cowardice that they may never vote for another Democrat ever again. Everyone I know, and I mean EVERYONE, has had their view of the part altered and they now see it as an extremist party run by kooks and wanna be tyrants.

    You haven’t begun to see the outrage and when the dust finally settles on this I wouldn’t be surprised if the Democrat leadership didn’t inflict a mortal wound on the party this past year.

  • balconesfault

    Paul – I still don’t get this:

    Barrack Obama’s extremism

    Can you tell us what part of his agenda that he’s been pushing isn’t pretty much exactly what he campaigned on in 2008?