The Public Albatross

Whatever the outcome of the health care saga, it seems safe to conclude that the public option is dead. It is worth analyzing its impending demise for what it teaches us about American attitudes towards government, and how political battles are won.

The key fact here is that the public option is not some long-standing, highly pedigreed idea engrained in the liberal psyche, in the way that school choice or private Social Security accounts have been for the intellectual right. In fact, the idea of a public option is very new. It was first raised in 2007 by Berkeley economist Jacob Hacker, and popularized as a device that would "someday magically turn into single payer."

Continues Mark Schmitt at TAPPED:

Following Edwards' lead, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton picked up on the public option compromise. So what we have is Jacob Hacker's policy idea, but largely Hickey and Health Care for America Now's political strategy. It was a real high-wire act -- to convince the single-payer advocates, who were the only engaged health care constituency on the left, that they could live with the public option as a kind of stealth single-payer, thus transferring their energy and enthusiasm to this alternative. It had a very positive political effect: It got all the candidates except Kucinich onto basically the same health reform structure, unlike in 1992, when every Democrat had his or her own gimmick. And the public option/insurance exchange structure was ambitious.

The public option is an idea that was born, literally, in the last Presidential campaign. Even so, it was little discussed in 2008, when the main bone of contention was Hillary's individual mandate to purchase health insurance. A Google News search from the height of the Hillary-Obama primary battle shows two health care-related mentions of the "public option" in January 2008, zero in February, and two in March, one in April, and two in May and June.

That the public option was new and unfamiliar made it easily characterized as a ploy to introduce single-payer in miniature, which it was self-transparently was in the eyes of its originators.

Indeed, reading through the founding documents of the public option is about as damning as if one got ahold of a secret dossier of Milton Friedman's proclaiming school vouchers a necessary "compromise" that would eventually usher in the death of public education in America.

So, the public option was not serioiusly discussed in 2008. It was never seen as central to Democratic demands for health care until mid-2009. Since the failure of Hillarycare, Democrats have continually stressed that they would get to universal coverage by regulating and by building on the existing system. Indeed, for all that Hillarycare was being pilloried as socialized medicine, not even it contained as overt a nod to single-payer as a government-run health care "option."

Exactly like the Social Security fight in 2005, liberals hoped that by injecting more government into the health care system they could change the political culture, just as conservatives hoped private accounts would awaken more of us to the rich abundance of the free market.

However, as the economic crisis showed, the political system is only designed to tolerate sudden changes to America's economic model in a crisis atmosphere. We've seen more than a good bit of economic nationalization in recent years/months, but only as a response to a perceived crisis. Could health care in America be nationalized? Sure -- if the pandemic flu struck the United States and was well on its way to killing millions of Americans and private institutions were judged inadequate -- and even then, political leaders would caution that it was a temporary measure. Welcome to the "bailout" school of health care reform.

The problem for Obama is that after months of "crisis" after "crisis", the welcome mat has worn thin. Not unexpectedly, "emergency" moves toward socialism in the auto and financial sectors have sidelined elective moves towards the same in health care.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)


I strongly disagree....There Will Be A Public Plan...

Doesn't anyone realize that we just had a public debate about a health care bill that doesn't exist?  Does anyone realize that we just had a public debate and no one is listening.  Does anyone realize that the american public has a short term memory.  It's the biggest red herring I've ever seen.

If there was to be true debate about health care, there would be a house / senate approved bill ready for the presidents signature.  But before his final signature, a public debate would take place.  All that has happened on this round of discussions is that democrats checked off the blocks.  They've had meetings with their constituents.  They can now say that they are not rushing something through.  After all, they did meet face to face with the public.

The polls one sees are "here and now" polls.  In order for these things to stick, there has to be either "settled facts" or loud opposition which keeps the fire burning.  There are no "settled facts" becaus the final bill is not out.  And, our only loud opposition is talk radio.  Nobody seems to want to hear from the elected officials in the super minority.

This health care bill will be framed as the christmas present to america.  In year one, the previously uninsured will beegin to flock to health care facilities.  In year two, employers will cancel their private plans and push everyone onto the public plan.  Years 3, 4, and 5 will be blissful.  Debt will be covering the expenses.  No one will feel a thing.

Then it all friggin collapses.   


We can only hope!

But, seriously, you're using the short-term-memory theory to your own advantage, here. Do you honestly not recall that the past few months—those leading up to the recess—have been squandered by the Democrats attempting to garner some Republican support for a health care reform bill (any bill)? The Democrats have bent over backwards to solicit Republican input, to involve Republican lawmakers, to concede to Republican demands, yet they have nothing to show for it. Why have they nothing to show? Simple. Republicans don't think health care in this country is broken.

While the US may have the best doctors, the best facilities, and the best environment for health insurance companies, we have some of the worst health outcomes of any industrialized nation. We are in dire need of health care reform, and Republicans at least give lip service to this idea. However, when pressed as to what sort of reform they would favor, they simply say "not that", and point at any proposal by a Democrat. Well, then what?

If you think the system we have is working, then you have never been sick.

Patrick, well put. Well said.

I think the notion of a public option is indeed dead but is it "dead and gone for good?"  It's failed mostly because Obama and the Democrats couldn't respond to simple questions requiring logical assumptions and conclusions.  

No matter how often "competition" was invoked by the public option zealots, for ordinary Americans who hadn't had their brains Obatomized, it simply underscored how fishy and suspect were the TeamObama's claims and promises.  No one thinks government intereference in the marketplace can lead to a good outcome or competition.

TeamObama gave America a new oxymoron: "government savings".  The last time we heard that phrase was from AlGore as Veep, standing next to SlickWilly as Prez, with a publicity stunt pallet loaded with unnecessary federal regulations that AlGore was going to root-out and vanquish... saving American taxpayers $680 million/year.

Yeah.  That really worked for fat AlGore.  "Government savings" goes right next to "We kept all the campaign promises we intended to keep" -TeamClinton, exiting Washington.

I hope the public option is dead.  But "dead and gone for good"?

Just like I hoped the farRight fakery in "English Only" and the Flag Burning Amendment was dead with all those Contract4America loons leaving the House.  But these things sometimes get recycled again and again... like with the farRight's anti-immigration, Know-Nothing stance toward the balanced 2006 Immigration Reform proposals.  Mexican day-laborers waving Mexican flags brought out both those silly-assed farRight issues back to the front burner.  And ultimately ruined the GOP's opportunity for success with Hispanic voters in 06 and 08.

Public option dead?  Yeah, let's hope so.  "Dead and gone for good"?  I'm not too sure.

One little fact for you to chew (and maybe choke) on.

77% of Americans want a public option. 

undoctored needs to try honesty on for a while

because his suit of "pure spin and fancy" doesn't cover the Emperor completely.  The Emperor, undoctored, is still without clothes even in your fantasy world of make-believe polls.

No, undoctored, if you look beyond your spin to the facts, you'll find that public option supporters are asking the question as a linked instrument --meaning, you take an onerous and disliked proposal, link it with a positive, well-received policy and construct the question so it comes out as a yes.

This polling question might be: "Do you support a public option if it means that you would be able to continue your private insurance policy, continue to pick your own doctors, yet drive down the costs of medical care, save the poor and homeless and provide Obama with a win?"

See how easy it becomes to answer yes?  77% of the time?

Since you didn't identify your dubious poll, you don't allow informed, intelligent people to fact check your claim.

I know that more people are moving toward the "Don't Do It, No You Can't" column each day than are moving in support of a public option.  Hell, even Democrats don't support Obama if it means the public option is removed.

And according to a brand-new NBC News poll, 47% of Americans -- a plurality -- oppose the public plan, versus 43% who support it. That's a shift from last month's NBC/WSJ poll, when 46% said they backed it and 44% were opposed.

In a follow-up question explaining the benefits and disadvantages associated with a public plan, 45% said they agreed with the description -- by supporters -- that it would help lower health-care costs and provide coverage for uninsured Americans.

But 48% sided with opponents who say a public option would reduce access to their choice of doctors, and would lower costs by limiting medical treatment options.

Like I noted above, if the survey question is written in a way that dishonestly conveys the public option will reduce costs and help the uninsured --which are both widely debated opinions of what the public option will do-- the polling supports the public option.

You need to be more honest here, undoctored.  And I'm not the first one to say that.  Probably won't be the last, either.


Nice try.

 Since I don't know which source you would trust, and since there are so many, I'll simply invite you to do a quick Google search if you have any doubts about the veracity of the 77% public option favorability rate.  This is how you do it: go to Google site, type in" 77% of Americans favor public option."  It only takes seconds to get informed if one really wants to.

What does citing a fact (77% of Americans want a public option) have to do with honesty? You and your ilk  who are always trying to refute the obvious are the ones who have a problem with honesty.  No, your little attempt to shame me (" And I'm not the first one to say that.  Probably won't be the last, either") is childish beyond words.  Grow up!   Spin as you may, facts are stubborn things, aren't they?

Jake's right again, undoctored is doctoring the polls.

You nailed it.  Nice turn of the phrase, too.

You've got it right, MI-GOPer, undoctored is doctoring polls.

And therein lies the problem with guys from the far left like undoctored.  When they hang their argument of supposed "facts" and those facts don't hold any weight or credibility, they try to spin it away to generalities and overly broad claims that bear no resemblence to their first fake "facts".

The simple truth is that a plurality of Americans now think the public option is bad policy.  Govt interference in health care is bad policy.  Heck, even when Democrats are queried about support of health care reform without a public option, they don't want health care reform.

Polling isn't about numbers.  It's about detecting public opinion trends.  It isn't, as undoctored seems to think, about swaying voters to your side with misleading, negligently worded push-polling questions.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Swaying, you say?

You state that "[i]t isn't . . . about swaying voters to your side with misleading, negligently worded push-polling questions."

Just a stab in the dark here, but are you talking about phrases like, "the far left," "supposed 'facts'," "spin it away," "Govt interference," and "push-polling"?

I'm genuinely curious as to whether you think those are neutral phrases?

Gee, imagine that... a new Democrat troll visits us

I'm wondering if YOU can answer a simple question like: what name do you usually post under in these comments?  There's a touch of the familar snark of Mead50 here... just asking.

nothing is dead

This is politics, nothing is dead. I imagine that Obama (Or Rahm) is taking the recess and recalibrating. They won't yank it like Hillary care which lead to dems losing congress in mid-terms.

Question is: Bill went on to have a pretty successful presidency. Yeah, yeah, snicker at Monica but Bill (or Reagan despite Iran-Contra and SL) is more liked now than Bush ever will be. He had a big dip after that and rose from the ashes. 

Now will Obama win health care (or some form of) and lose 2012?

I don't think he will. Maybe people don't like Obama as much as they did, but what are Reps giving as an alternative?

Bill Clinton had a successful presidency???

cr opines:

Bill (Clinton) went on to have a pretty successful presidency. Yeah, yeah, snicker at Monica but Bill (or Reagan despite Iran-Contra and SL) is more liked now than Bush ever will be.

Well, let's just say we wait a bit on whether or not Bush 41 or Bush 43 rise in the collective opinion of Americans.  It's a tad early to count on SlickWilly's reputation having been un-impeached... all we need is another instance of the sexual predating cad to get caught screwing up with some yahoo Chelsea's age and it's all over for his "restored" reputation.  One thing cops will tell anyone about sexual predators like SlickWilly is that they do NOT change their stripes... they just get better at covering it all up.  Just ask JohnEdwards, ElliotSpitzer or GaryHart.

And frankly, cr, if your standard for a successful presidency is determined by how well a president is liked after he's out of office, then I'm not sure if you really shouldn't take some time and think a bit more about what constitutes a successful presidency. Cause you ain't there yet.

For instance, unchallenged times usually produce subpar presidencies... don't you think there's something about a president's metal being tempered by significant challenges that ought to figure into your assessment. And if that's the case, SlickWIlly never had a challenge while President --except to keep a lid on his sexual predations and keep his wife busy.  Whereas Bush 41 and 43 were part of an elite corps of Presidents called War Presidents... and generally they fair far higher than the unchallenged garden variety president --which Clinton surely was and Obama surely will be.

Nope, it's not necessary for the GOP to come up with salient alternatives to Obama's nonsense.  All we need to do is keep slapping him down, diminish his standing, give his party the likely opportunities to make bigger jack-asses of themselves, quash any chance of meaningful legislative achievement, remind the American people that we were winning the WOT in Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush 43 and then ride that angst to the polls on Election Day.

You think voters were disgruntled in 08... it's going to be a seething pit of anxiety and unvented anger by the time we get to 2010 and 2012.  And even all the voter fraud that ACORN and SEIU can muster won't be enough to save the Democrats and Obama.


When my family of never-will-I-vote-for-a-democrat republicans think he's an idiot, then I feel pretty safe in saying he'll never be respected.

And what does ACORN have to do with anything? With only 25% of voters calling themselves republican, who needs ACORN?


Simple Questions

If Obama and the Democrats cannot answer simple questions about the health care bill then what would make anyone so sure that they could answer the difficult ones? casino en ligne

Simple Questions

Such as?

The trolling just keeps a 'goin.

You gotta get a new act, Mead50.

I am not findiggle.

For the record.

Yeah, findiggle... and the Pope's not Catholic, eh?



I am no more Findiggle than you are witty and original.

What's unsuccessful?

He came up with a budget surplus. He reformed welfare against his own party. No major wars, no major incidents, a booming economy . . . and yes, people liking you counts. I don't think that being like is the end all end all of a good presidency . . . Carter was liked, but I would not count his as successful. 

And better than being liked, he's respected. The younger Bush has never been respected . . . not even within the Republican party. I come from a family of dyed-in-thw-wool republicans and they thought he was a nitwit.

Face it, everything Dem bugs you. You are a minority. Your party as you know it is shrinking, and people like you are only making it worse.

Go ahead, shout, bitch, call people names . . . people are leaving you behind.


I think Dems will loose seats in 2010, but Obama will still be president in 2012.


"Face it, everthing Dem bugs you"?? --by cr

Oh come on cr, someone calls you on your silly claim that Bill Clinton had a successful presidency because he was liked after he left office and you take it all to excess to the point that we're just envious of Democrats?

No.  You are wrong again here and your opinion is fundamentally flawed as Jake pointed out.

You said the criteria for determining a successful presidency was whether or not the president was liked.  You claimed, shooting air through your shorts, that Bush would never be so admired or liked --which, by itself, is a stupidly premature opinion to hold.  He may, he may not.  But it's certainly far, far too early to tell.

Jimmy Carter is not well liked by most Americans.  In fact, he's identified as one of THE WORST presidents of the 20th C and his actions directly led to the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism and its terror threat to Western Civilization.  Carter.  W-o-r-s-t  p-r-e-s-i-d-e-n-t  E-V-E-R.

It isn't all about envy, as you try to claim.  It's about being informed and reasoned.  Two things that continually escape your grasp.

not at all

I'm just trying to wonder how someone considers him unsuccessful. As a fiscal conservative, he ran a surplus. Again, he ran a surplus. Again, he ran a surplus. How many times can I repeat that before you get it into your skull? All the talk I hear from 'conservatives' about shrinking the government and not spending me . . . he ran a surplus.

We can argue all day about the morality of where a president sticks his dick, but I vote for a president to do a job. We also could argue all day about where the government should spend money, but the only thing I really care about is that we have the money to spend. Obama included.

As for being liked, read my post. I said it counts. And as I said someplace else, more than being liked, being respected is more important.

And as I said someplace else, people personally liked Carter (that's why he was elected . . . nice southern, religious peanut farmer), but they thought he was a bad president.

And funny thing, I've seen lists by historians (that catagorize themselves as liberal or conservative) of the best presidents and the worst presidents. They're nearly identical. Particularly when it comes to the not-so-recent presidents.


Oh, did I mention, Bill Clinton ran a surplus?


speaking of good and bad presidents

Carter doesn't fair well, but he's hardly considered the W-o-r-s-t  p-r-e-s-i-d-e-n-t  E-V-E-R  (sound like my three year old daughter . . .  sweat pea, is that you?).



for cr, success = taking in more taxes, being liked as Prez?

Well, cr, you can try to escape your own noose but it isn't working except in your limited mental construct.

You said that a successful prez equalled a prez who is liked by... gosh, Americans?  the World?  Liberals? The media?  HerrOlbermann when he's on his mediciations?

Then you condemned Bush 43 or Bush 41 --you weren't specific... but then, you rarely are-- as a bad president... in fact, you called him an idiot.  Of course, we can let that slide because that's just your partisan anger speaking.  But newsflash for you, Bush 43 and Bush 41 had better academic achievements than either SlickWilly, the PeaNutFarmer, John Kerry or AlBore.  In fact, three of those four slimers are actually lawyers... like the current Prez.  And we all know lawyers are the ultimate bottom feeders in society.

You made the premature claim that Bush's presidency would never be considered successful.  I gotta tell ya, with only 6 months of your guy TeamObama, Bush 43 is looking pretty good by comparison.  He was winning the War on Terror.  He was winning the War in Iraq.  He was winning the War in Afghanistan.  He had a plan in place to end the deficits even though he was the last War Time President to do so.  Tax receipts and the federal tax burden were at an all-time low.  Our friends in the world respected us, not hated us like they do now.  Our enemies (like ColonelQaddafiDuck) feared us to the point of submission, not like it is now where they can celebrate a mass murderer of Americans with impunity.

Hmmm, sounds like your team ought to start running a storyline that the Bush 43 Administration was the least ethical, most corrupt, most ineffective presidency in history.

Oh wait, they've been trying that storyline for a while now.  The last time they tried, Dick Cheney bested them and made them eat crow... shotgun pellets included.



The elder Bush was a good guy, I suppored him over Reagan way back when (I was in elementary school, crazy how early I liked politics). And I think he got a bad rap.

The 'being liked' part was glib. It wasn't really my point. There are many factors that make up a good prez.

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar., bush merely had connections and was generally a failure at everything he did before getting elected. Carter was at least a succesful peanut farmer.


"And a plan to end deficits"???? There's no shortage of plans in DC. Wow, good for him. Snicker, snicker.


cr, thx for admitting your opinions are glib -at best

cr revised and expanded:

The 'being liked' part was glib. It wasn't really my point. There are many factors that make up a good prez

cr before revision:

Question is: Bill went on to have a pretty successful presidency. Yeah, yeah, snicker at Monica but Bill (or Reagan despite Iran-Contra and SL) is more liked now than Bush ever will be. He had a big dip after that and rose from the ashes.

Seems to me, cr, you've got a bad case of making silly statements that your brain can't back up.  It's still a stupid comment, patently false that Clinton is well-liked, had a successful presidency or that Bush 43 will never enjoy the normal post-Office warmth nearly all presidents enjoy --even one as miserably incompetent, negligent and complicit in the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism and the threat of terrorists to Western Civilization that Carter has proven to be.

But you go on making it up as you go... facts and the truth will continue to escape you... even in the 4th or 5th revision.


making stuff up

Clintons approval ratings

His approval ratings go up after steadily throught his presidency . . . and after the health care defeat. Look at Bushes, they go down. Quite the opposite

Now, part of my opinion is based on fact. Bill finished his eight years in a climb in popularity. Bush fished going down. Opinion tends to soften of presidents as time goes by, but all things assumed equal, Bush has a much longer way to go up than Clinton ever did. You could also base popularity on book deal advances and revinew from speaking engagements. Bill is in contant demand, Bush  .. .  Laura is going to have a book out before Bush and she got much less than Hillary.

Now, part is opinion. I know a large number of Dems and a large number of republicans. Dems love bill. They really do. He's a master fundraiser and is pretty respected through the world. Respect means that you get people to do things for you. Hence, the recent korea trip.

Reps, depends. Most Goldwater republicans like my dad hate him. He thought Iraq was bullshit and Bush had expanded the government intrusively into peoples business.  For the religious set in my family, he didn't stop gay marriage and did little for abortion. But, they'd rather have him than a Dem. That is his big selling point . . . Democrat, no.

McCain could barely be seen with him while campaining, and even during the convention he basically did a phone (video) in. Bill will be at every Dem convention as long as he can walk, and they'll always want him there. He's that much of an asset to the Dem party.

Even post presidency, Gore lost because of Bill's indiscretion, but Gore went on to win a Nobel. Scoff at the climate stuff, but he won a Nobel. Reps aren't even close. Cheney is constantly on the defensive . . . and will be. Mostly the racket is from Libs, but there are conservatives that stick with 'the law is the law' mantra. 

So, yes, I was initially glib because my point was about Clinton coming back from the health care loss. Succinctly put, a successful reeliction bid, and steady approval ratings climb kind of confirm that in a lose way he succeded in his agenda. Simply put, look at the polling at the end of the second terms of both prezs. Don't listen to me, look beyond your skull, crank up the google machine.

cr, still making things up, eh?

You could also base popularity on book deal advances and revinew from speaking engagements. Bill is in contant demand, Bush  .. .  Laura is going to have a book out before Bush and she got much less than Hillary

Or you could argue that the Bushes have been out of office about 6 months and it takes a little more time to write a book, build a library, settle into a new home than it took the Clintons --of course, the Bushes didn't steal furniture and art treasures from the White House like Bill and Hillary did.

Even post presidency, Gore lost because of Bill's indiscretion, but Gore went on to win a Nobel.

Umm, the Nobel Prize often goes to the most liberally outrageous political type available... Tutu, Arafat, Lee duc Tho, JimmineyCricketCarter, Elbaradei and others.  If you think getting the Nobel Peace Prize is noteworthy, you probably think the Pulitizers, Oscars and Grammies and Tonys are important too.  Gheez, what a loser.

I get that you think you need to defend Bill Clinton against smarter, stronger, more effective presidents like Geo W Bush.  It's ok; if we were in the locker room it'd be penis envy on your part.  The Democrats have to make a big deal out of Bill Clinton because, with the last Kennedy thankfully dead and soon-2-b-buried, the Democrats don't have much star power.

War Time Presidents, cr, rarely exit office on a wave of popularity.  The far left and Democrats have been merciless on them since the founding of the Republic.  Bush 43 will rise in popularity as time passes.  Bill Clinton will remain the only other president to be impeached in history --not for his sexual predations, but for his lying under oath as a lawyer trying to escape responsibility for his conduct.

You think he's great. I don't.  You think Bush 43 is an idiot or horrible.  I don't, I think his accomplishments are laudable and notable and historic.

One thing I have learned about TNR, it seems people like you are so busy discounting what's emerging from the right you have failed to take note that you're back in the minority.  A plurality of Americans consider themselves conservative, cr.  You're back to being in the minority, once again.

Another definition of success

Failures have excuses, successes have wins.

In every one of your post you have an excuse for Bush and belittle the successes of others. Presidents (and their cohorts) have deals for engagements and books before they leave office. It doesn't matter if he has the book out.

There's now a rumored-price tag on George W. Bush's forthcoming memoirs, "Decision Points:" a $7 million advance from publisher Crown. How does that stack up to other Deciders? It's $5 million less than Bill Clinton's advance for My Life, $1 million less than Hillary Clinton got for Living History, and $2 million less than the advance for the memoirs of Tony Friggin' Blair, the British prime minister who answered to some queen, and to George W. Bush.

Now, be honest, this is kind of silly, and if I wasn't on my next to last day leaving for my new job I wouldn't even be entertaining this conversation. I don't believe a book deal is the way to base presidential success, but a pop-culture facet. History judges much better than any one person or metric.

However, I've given you a number of silly things to back up my claim that Clinton is heading for a better future than Bush. It works for a blog conversation.

You've given me nothing but your opinion. No matrics, no . . . anything. It's rediculous, you even called me a 'minority'. Well, yes, in the since I'm a libertarian I guess. I'm also taller than average, smarter than average (I like to think), but I'm white with a wife and two kids. That's pretty typical. I'm a fiscal conservative. I hate debt, and from there, it's up to you what you do with your money as long as it's responsible and respectful.

But if 'a plurality of American's' consider themselves conservative, then why are republicans the third largest party behind Independents and Dems? You could be right in that people consider themselves 'conservative' but not your whack-job kind of conservative. My mom is a Dem but has used a credit card only once in her life, paid off her house decades ago, has no outstanding debts  . .. I mean none. She considers herself conservative.

That's the problem with people like you on these sites. You think being a Republican is the gold-standard for being a conser vative, when people have a very nuanced view of what conservatism is.



Not at all, cr, you've given exactly squat.

Well, squat and what comes after that position is taken.

First, you said that Presidents are successful because they are liked after they leave office --to point to it, you claim "Dems love Bill".  Um, Right.  Silly premise, silly idea.  Oh wait, then you expanded the silliness by arguing success can be measured in what liberal booksellers are willing to pay you.

Second, you said that Bush was unsuccessful because "my family doesn't like him, they think he's an idiot".  Um, we're supposed to be impressed because you come from a family of disloyal wanna-b Republicans?  And that proves Bush 43 isn't ever going to be liked after basking in the glow of retirement and post-Prez reflections of history? What a crock.  What a load.  Good that you're squatting while typing.

Oh yeah, and then you add that Bush43 didn't get as good a book deal as you think Clinton did and Mrs Bush didn't get as good a deal as Mrs Clinton got... more proof of "presidential success" in your book?  What a load of crap.

Third, you say:

You've given me nothing but your opinion. No matrics (sic), no . . . anything. It's rediculous (sic), you even called me a 'minority'. Well, yes, in the since I'm a libertarian I guess.

Congrats on being able to finally spell libertarian correctly.  I figured there was a reason for your thick-skulled slow-witted thoughts... it's that you're a libertarian.

After reading your comments, I would hazard to give you some advice, even if it is unlikely you'll hear it through those partisan ear protectors... I'd suggest you go back to whatever mail-in college you got those two undergrad degrees from and ask for refund.  They clearly failed in their education of you.  Second, I'd alert C-M advisors that you're there at their school under false pretenses... you aren't competent even in simple conversation, let alone articulating complex thoughts.

Frankly, cr, you ought to spend as much time as possible flipping those hamburgers at work.  It'd be a far better use of your limited resources.  Leave thinking to thoughtful people, ok?

still nothing

For politicians, getting reelected and opinion polls do count. Presidents don't have much power outside of their percieved power. Presidents can sign laws, but they can't make them. Presidents can appoint, but they find it difficult to control semi-independant beauracracies. The administration may change, but agency employees stick around . . . far too long if you ask me.

You may not like my facts, but you still haven't given me any of yours.  All you've been able to do is piss on what anyone says. I may spell it like 'as whole' but an as whole you are.

I'm pretty far from burger flipper.

Real median household income in the United States climbed 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007, reaching $50,233

I make far more than that by myself. My wife makes even more than I do. If I'm flipping burgers it's because I own the store.

My mail-in degrees were from University of Maryland, College Park. 6 Years mailing in from campus. Care to offer your credentials?

I don't think being educated and making money make you right, but you keep trying to deminish me (and my arguements)  by making me out to be something I'm really not. Repeating things ad nauseum, doesn't make you right either.

Again, the only thing you have is to piss on everybody and anything you don't agree with.You are a sour-grapes bitcher. Bitcherrrrrrr.

still nothing --> ignore double post


cr, I gotta agree with Jake on this one...

you have to give it a rest.  You lost the argument when you started down the ridiculous path of "Bill Clinton was a successful president' and Bush was an idiot because Clinton is better liked and got a better book deal.

When does it become apparent to you that defending a stupid idea is still stupid of you. 

By the way, when you wrote:

I don't think being educated and making money make you right, but you keep trying to deminish (sic) me (and my arguements)  (double sic).

Did you know you were embarassing the entire Cargenie Mellon community?

Don't say it ain't so!!!

MI-GOPer agrees with Jake!!!!!  Ah, I thought I was winning your [sic] over. I'm sad.


I am giving it up. As I said in another post, the only reason I'm here is because this is my next to last day at work.

I'm too busy embarrising CMU and walking with my head in shame into a 42 percent raise at my next job. How will I ever live with myself now that jake has put me down!

Don't cry, you and Jake still have each other.


And speaking of universities, neither one of you Einstiens [sic] have told why I shouldn't think either one of you are anything other than glue-sniffing ditch diggers. Too busy at your proof reading jobs? [sic]


cr, careful... you're out-snarking Mead50 now

just kidding, that's impossible.

Bill Clinton Successful?????

<<He came up with a budget surplus. He reformed welfare against his own party. No major wars, no major incidents, a booming economy >>

No Major Incidents????????  Holy crap, did i imagine  the two  world trade center bombings? Maybe if he was paying attention, instead of testifying about sex, we wouldn't have had 9/11.  

No Major Wars???????? Uh, hello, you liberals seem to all be suffering from a case of revisionist history.  Let me tell you, all throughout Clinton's presidency, WE WERE STILL AT WAR WITH IRAQ.  WE WERE MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CEASE FIRE.  THE WAR NEVER ENDED....WE STILL HAD FORCE THERE PATROLLING NO FLY ZONES, Oil For Food, Making sure Saddam didn't build any weapons of mass destruction, etc.

Booming Economy????????? the collapse of the internet bubble.

Naughty Naughty with the intern......simply no respect for the office of the presidency. 

Geez.  You know, were just not going to let you get away with false statements any more

CR Response

No, the world trade center bombings weren't significant. As the most powerful country in the world with an open society, that kind of BS wil always be possible by committed players. It's very hard to stop. And if fallacious thinking to say if he was fooling around with Monica that some how that would have influenced the CIA or FBI to do a better job.

No, monitoring Iraq wasn't a major war, or even a war. Saddam didn't build WMD, and Oil-for-Food was a UN debacle, not a US one. In fact, that part of the world was largely in check considering the turmoil before.

As for the economy, the president (thank god) only has so much power. Markets go up and down as they have for hundreds of years, but the mark of a good ecomony is its resiliancy . . . which again, Bill left a surplus. What republican can say that?

As for Bill dalience, nothing new. George Washington was the original 'player'. Most of the founders have indescretions. Are you saying Washington, Franklin, Hamilton didn't have a respect for the office?

"Geo Washington was the original 'player'" by cr

cr, there is absolutely no truth to your baseless, disreputational idiot claim that Geo Washington was a "player" and therefore, Bill Clinton can be excused because he was just as perverted as the Founding Fathers.

No, Bill Clinton (D) and Jack Kennedy (D) were THE "original players" -but that's been true for most Democrat presidents.  FDR (D) is a legendary player and it is well documented.

Geo Washington was not.  Thom Jefferson (D) was and his mixed race spawn can be found in the graveyard at Monticello.  Ben Franklin (D) was and his son despised him for it until his death.

Geo Washington's greatest biographers have found nothing to document him as a leader of loose morals.  Your spin is pure ether and nonsense.  You shouldn't believe everything you read in the National Enquirer, cr.

Shame on you for trying to tarnish his name in an effort to defend your own stupidly held opinions.  No wonder Obama won-- with idiots like you voting, it's a surprise he couldn't win without fraud.

You're wrong

It is well decumented that Geoge Washington was a fashionista, a very good dancer, a lady's man, a mediocre general and a pretty good prez. I bet I read a lot more than you, and it's not the enquirer.

And other presidents before Kennedy had affairs. I'm not saying what Bill did was right. I think it was stupid, but I'm simply not going to base his job as the president on a sexual dalliance. By all measure he had a very successful presidency, but he's certianly a lousy husband.

And look at any line of business:  there are incredible people who are great at their job and lousy husbands or parents. Politicians happen to be in that line because its such an extrodinary profession. It's not a nine-to-fiver.

And you seem to think have a (D) by your name makes you a liberal, a-moral election cheater. And that's simply not the case.

You're caught in the perception that purity only exists in some people or one side and that people aren't complex. You rant and rave, and ordinary people are leaving the republican party.

You know nothing about me and are calling me an idiot. I'm getting my masters at Carnegie Mellon. I already have two undergrad degrees. I make good money, read good book (the newest on Alexander Hamilton), have a great wife with a good marriage, and two awsome kids. I know good, decent republican and very honest, caring Democrats. And I refuse to buy into  BS party doctine/propoganda.

Obama won, just as Reagan did, because he was articulate and gave people hope despite the charges of inexperience. The republican party is now losing because it's a small group of sour-grape bitchers.





cr, MIGOPer has it right; you can't handle the truth...

Let's say that we have to take you at your word that you are working on a Masters at C-M and have 2 undergraduate degrees... and you aren't really the idiot that your posts here seem to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't think much gets accomplished when guys who are from the other camp try to act like they have a different political philosophy from the one that clearly controls their comments and advise their better opponents about what to do... it is inherently part of the character of trolls on the net.

You'd be better off limiting you opinions expressed here to what the Democrats or progressives need to do to improve themselves or, in the alternative, discussing why your side has been such an utter failure in governing under Obama.

There are no sour-grape bitchers that I know of in the GOP.  I can't speak for MI-GOPer, but I doubt he runs into those types anymore either... when they were around, they were usually the Libertarian types who were still angry that the GOP wouldn't endorse their dopehead lifestyle.

Like Patrick points out in his excellent post here, the public albatross is a weight tugging at the chords the TeamObama far Left have wrapped around their own throats.  Frankly, I'm hopeful it will strangle them into a failed 1st term, discredit the Prez as a failed, hopelessly radical leader who couldn't be honest or candid with Americans, divided the Nation far more than any other president to date... and he's limited to one term, the Congress flips to the GOP and guys like you go back to your CodePink and lines tossing bricks at govt buildings and spitting on military recruiters.

cr, MI-GOPer has pegged you to a tee.  And I appreciate you don't like that.  It's ok, while it's certainly true, they're only feelings.  You'll get over it someday.

nothing to get over.

I have an awsome life. I just got a 42% raise, I was accepted into one of the best Grad School programs (part-time) for my field, and a new nice grocery store opened up two blocks from my house. And my house prices are rising.

I'm only here because I like politics. If both the Democratic party and the GOP burned up in flames, my life is still good. My one goal is good governance no matter what name.

You can spout on about whatever you're talking about but people are leaving the republican party. That's not something I'm making up. And the one strategy I hear from people like you is the hope that the Dem party screws up so Reps will be appriciated. I think that's a bad strategy, and can hardly be called a strategy. That's why I like this site. You have Patrick talking about Climate legislation from the right instead of the left. Often the post talk about real strategic and governance issues, not sophomoric issues like mentioning ACORN every post.

If ever I became a Democrat (no plans at all), it would merely be to dissassociate myself from dicks like you. And if I were a Democrat (no plans at all), Good Bless You! You, to me, is what is driving people from the Republican party. They may be Independants rather than Dems, but leaving they are. Good bye to a solid voting base.

I'd rather be wrong than sign up for any truth you're selling. It seems to be working out for me. There's not getting over anything, I'm laughing my head off into a new job and grad school. And thanks to your tax dollars that Dems keep asking for, and Reps seen unable to stop, that trend will continue. If you ever make it to DC, I'll throw you a bone and buy you a nice dinner at Brassie Beck. Maybe you won't be so angry after a good dine.

And if you're still in a twitch, I'll take you to some of the Stake Houses where the Republicans spend your tax dollars. I bet they'll be enthused with your support.


As for 'the other camp' crap, the Rep party needs everyone it can get given declining affiliation. It's a free world, still. And if you can't hang with people outside the party, how do you ever expect to win? Despite Obama's misteps, Replicans are still polling low. I thin mid-terms look bad for Dems, but given a Clinton model I talk about in another post, Dems will lose, Obama will not. He has time to turn a loss into a win.

And like the other parties, there are some loony Libertarians out there. I consider myself a moderate Libertarian. To be honest, I think party affiliation is for lemmings. I couldn't care less about it.


If you think Bill Clinton's

If you think Bill Clinton's presidency isn't a success (I assume you would think the same of FDR's), so would be Ronald Reagan's for your opponents.

Don't let your cognitive biases overwhelm your passion for political ideology.



SHOUTING and puzzZZ????????ZZlement doesn't help either.