Sunday Editorial Round-Up
October 26th, 2008Inside look at the McCain campaign and its narrative attempts:
John McCain – The Making (and Remaking and Remaking) of the Candidate – NYTimes.com
This election cycle was supposed to be about “the story”. Unfortunately for McCain, his ever-changing direction has been completely transparent. Normally, that wouldn’t be such a big deal. But with the economy tanking, ever-changing isn’t what people are looking for in a candidate.
The bigger issue facing the GOP is that it is starting to look more and more like the party of yesterday. Nothing has accelerated this more than the selection of Palin as a VP candidate. The GOP looks as if it’s not the solid block (from David Frum, no less) that it has been over the past 25 years. Moderates are turned off by the current GOP tactics of name-calling and appeals to an increasingly fringe base.
The latest scare tactic from the GOP? The language of the dangers of one-party rule, which ring empty, given that the GOP has had it’s chance during its years of one-party rule to move the country forward and failed. One-party rule under the GOP gave us the massive failed response to Katrina, Tom Delay, Karl Rove, extreme fringe politics (manifest in the ridiculous Terry Schiavo case), partisan divisiveness and no end of voting district gerrymandering to ensure it stays in power.
Barack Obama has represented a surprising calm in the face of disaster. His demeanor in the face of relentless character attacks (which haven’t stuck) shows a presidential character we haven’t seen in a long while.
There have been gaffes on both sides, to be sure, but on substance alone, Obama shows an approach to problem-solving and has ideas to move the U.S. away from the apocalyptic, New Testament informed end of days chaos we’ve seen from the Bush/Cheney cabal.
Biden’s remarks about Obama being tested in the first six months isn’t quite the homerun for the GOP that it’s been made out to be. Both Clinton and Bush were tested in their first years as president with attacks on the United States. Joe Lieberman said the same thing on June 29,2008. I don’t think it’s reckless to assume that no matter who is president, the United States will have to be vigilant and aware. o
faydean,
I would imagine that you do, in fact, support some of the programs in this country that are socialist in nature. You probably just aren’t willing to stipulate that’s what they are.
Carrie,
I know you challenged faydean with your statement, but I’ll take your challenge. To what programs are you referring?
dross,
I’m not challenging anyone. Just trying to point out that McCain said in 2000 about taxes what Obama is saying now. Obama also wants to make health care available to everyone and people cry socialist! Can’t allow the government to run health care! But it’s okay to let the government run the military and the public school system. Children have the right to an education, but not to health care? It just doesn’t make sense to me. And you can call Social Security a “retirement” fund, but isn’t it basically paying into a pool that gets redistributed?
I just believe that in order to call ourselves a great nation, we need to start taking a little better care of our citizens. And if I get labeled a socialist for that, well, so be it.
Carrie,
Yes, McCain changed on taxes. In my mind, to the better position. I understand you disagree.
Government-run health care is by definition, socialist health care. The government runs the military because our Constitution set it up that way, and I think that defense and police are a proper use of government. Wanting limited government isn’t the same as wanting no government. And wanting the government involved in some areas doesn’t make you a hypocrite if you want government to stay out of other areas.
The school system is socialized, and I am against the way it operates. I think better alternatives are available, and the socialization of the function inhibits those alternatives.
Social Security is socialization of retirement, yes. I think we’d be better off without it, on the whole. Obama wants to socialize it further. Right now, the top earners stop paying at a certain income level, because they can only draw out a certain amount of benefits. Obama’s plan proposes to require them to continue to pay past the current income cutoff, yet not allow them to receive the benefits of those payments. That is wealth redistribution, and is a socialist tenet.
Rather than “take care of our citizens,” how about we just get out of the way of our fellow citizens and encourage them to take care of themselves. I don’t like the way the government “takes care” of me now.
The government does everything with less efficiency than the private sector. Sometimes there’s a good tradeoff, like for police and military, because it’s vital these services remain under public control for accountability purposes. Most other areas run better and benefit more people when left to the private sector. No system is perfect, all require tradeoffs.
I believe the government asks us to pay in freedom for security it delivers poorly at best. I’d rather take my chances on my own merits.
Dross…
you basically summed up EXACTLY how I feel.
and, my husband says you’re awesome!
Thanks for the support.
I’d really be interested in the reactions from Dems/Liberals on this editorial. When I saw it I nearly passed out, as I’m sure Dross will.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWU3ZDIwNGFlMDI4ZWNlZjU4NmQ2ZTZjOTdiMGU0ZmE=
I can’t for the life of me see how anyone could support this guy’s platform.
Just an FYI, anyone from Jon’s site who comes to my blog and leaves nasty comments will be blocked. I have an open blog, but I do not comment on politics on my blog…just my family… and will not allow people who are just pissed over over my political views to come to my family journal and leave negative comments.
You can visit if you want, but if you decide to attack me or my family, you won’t be coming back.
And yes, you can call me a hypocrite if you choose. I won’t waiver on this issue AT ALL.
faydean,
Interesting…I never would have gotten that dross’s comment summed up exactly how you feel by reading all of your other posts. Perhaps if you were better able to express your thoughts without name calling and personal attacks, you wouldn’t find yourself on the other end of such attacks.
dross,
I appreciate your thoughts, but I’m going to have to respectfully disagree on some of your points. I do agree that no system is perfect.
The public school system does need some work. No Child Left Behind has been a disaster, but I do believe that a public school system that everyone has access to is a good thing. And I while I don’t want the government making every health care decision for me, I do believe that it’s possible to find a way to make health care accessible to those who need it. I think there is a gray area to explore.
Faydean, you complain about how no one seems to be able to see your side; well, pot and the kettle and all that. You say that you can’t “for the life of” you see how anyone can support Obama. There are just as many things about McCain’s platform that make me want to “pass out.”
From fivethirtyeight.com:
Electoral vote: Obama- 348.2 McCain-189.8
Win percentage: Obama- 96.2% McCain- 3.8%
Popular vote: Obama – 52.1% McCain- 46.5%
Winning this election is the only argument I have to make on who’s the best person to lead our great nation. Americans all across the country are voting for Barack Obama in droves.
President Barack Obama! Woo Hoo!
Party at my house on Nov. 4th!
I, myself, would never go to someone’s web site and leave negative comments about them or their family.
But YOU would….and did….right here.
So yes, Faydean, you are a hypocrite.
Carrie…
I have never personally attacked any poster on this site. I don’t know anyone personally, so how could I attack them personally? (I admit the post to Jon…you can go look for yourself).
Any “name calling,” as you call it, was either in sarcasm or purely how I felt, ie “socialist” regarding Obama.
Dross and I are very similiar in our views, hence the reason we agree. I have no idea how you’d not get that in reading us both. Perhaps he’s more level headed than I am in his writing. Either way, we agree and that rocks.
Southerngirl…
If you would actually take the time to go back and read the post comments you keep referring to, you will see that I apologized to Jon. I have been a reader of both Dooce and Blurb for several years and have been a big supporter and defender of them both. Politics tend to bring out the side of people that makes them lose their shit. I’m as guilty of it as anyone. But, then again, I can easily admit it. Many of you fail to see that you have been rather callus in your remarks, but that’s neither here nor there.
I’ve been offended by some things both Jon and Heather have written. I have posted my opinion to both. When they open up comments, it’s sort of expected they will get people who don’t necessarily always agree with them. If I didn’t appreciate them as people, their views and the like, I wouldn’t visit their sites. Disagreeing heatedly isn’t insulting someone personally. I wrote to Jon that I felt bad about attacking him as I did and explained why his comment had brought about that response. I’m aware that I can get hotheaded regarding these topics. I will apologize when necessary. As you are just reading my comments and don’t know me, you can’t really make an assessment of my personality. What you see as a negative, many friends of mine find endearing. I’m known as fiery, but kind and giving. Mixed bag. So be it. Aren’t we all.
The difference, Faydean, is that the majority of the posters on this site who make callous remarks are aiming them at the GOP, or the policies of McCain, or the like. Your insulting remarks are actually aimed at US. Your remarks are worded in a way to insinuate that we are intellectually inferior to you because we have different opinions. I’m not claiming to know your intentions, but like Carrie said, perhaps if you actually took the time to read your comments and how they come across to others, you would be less likely to post them.
Mmc…
all I can say is that I’m truly at a loss. I address people who address me first. And that’s how this started, in comments. I addressed Jon…and then someone decided to address my comment, directly. I responded and there ya go.
My comments, in general, unless I put a name to it, are not directed at anyone inparticular…any more than yours, as you said, are aimed at the GOP. I’ve read all kinds of smears towards Republicans on here. I took them personally, sure. But I didn’t think they were necessarily aimed at me directly, until someone said, “Hey, you, faydean…”.
I’ve been literally told I’m ignorant by commenters on here…and can show you where. I’d like to see where I have said such a thing directly to someone. To the best of my recollection, I never have.
Anyway, as I stated before…if someone chooses to come to my site and leave nasty comments just because of differing political views, they will be blocked. Simple as that. I haven’t even gone to anyone’s blog that is a commenter on here. And if I did, I do think one commenter had some cool photos on Flickr, which I commented about favorably, I just looked at it and that was it.
If I am impressed with someone’s skill or whatever, I will tell them so, even if I disagree with them. I don’t think that is impossible…to appreciate someone at some level or many levels, yet not agree with them about certain things. Hell, I’ve lived with someone like that for 18 years!
Anyway, despite what you might feel, I have not malcontent for anyone that posts here…unless they are purposefully insulting to me. And even then, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt of just being overheated due to the nature of the discussion…politics and religion are good that way.
Carrie,
Health care IS currently available to those who need it right now. The system just isn’t very efficient. I’d rather work on the relatively small areas where it’s not working, than start over from scratch, wrecking the best system that exists and replacing it with a model that has some well known and large drawbacks. My argument with the left is that the solutions are always rooted in the use of force, and not in voluntary actions.
As to Faydean’s alleged personal attacks, after reading this blog for a few weeks, I don’t think some of the posters here realize how they’ve referred to people who vote Republican. For example, I happen to like Sarah Palin and I don’t think that she’s an obviously unsuitable candidate. Read some of the posts about her, and not only will you see attacks on her, but by implication, the attacks on anyone who could possibly think she’s a reasonable choice for VP. We’re all stupid or evil, it’s continuously implied. Faydean’s posts to me are nothing outside what’s commonly posted here, in fact I would say she’s pretty respectful until attacked.
I’d like to convince everyone who disagrees with me to see things my way. I don’t think what they believe about taxes, or the war, or the proper role of government, or guns reveals much about their intelligence or character. I wish those on the left would give me the same benefit of the doubt. On the Supreme Court, Scalia and Ginsberg are each other’s closest friends on the court and are close personal friends. They should be an example to us all, two people steeped in their own ideology, as far apart as is possible in their opinions, each one demonized by many of the others’ supporters, yet they still see the value of the other as human beings.
dross,
I guess I should have clarified…Decent, affordable health care is most certainly not available to everyone who needs it now. If it were, I would imagine there wouldn’t be 45 million uninsured Americans in this country today. I don’t think either proposal is perfect, but I’m not sure that Obama’s health care proposal calls for starting from scratch…no more than McCain’s does. Given my family’s situation, we will benefit more from Obama’s plan. And so will most people I know.
I know the debate around here gets pretty spirited. Sometimes the line between attacking the politics and attacking the person becomes a little blurred. Politics tends to bring out that beast in people. But faydean seems to give just as good as she gets. If she really felt attacked, I doubt she would keep coming back.
Faydean wasn’t provoked when she launched her personal attack on Jon in another post (and that was most definitely personal). Yes, I know she apologized for it. I wasn’t attacking her, and I don’t think I said anything that would have implied someone needed to defend her…simply pointing out that given some of the things she’s said on this website, it’s not surprising she’s getting comments. If I didn’t want people coming to my personal website and leaving nasty comments, I wouldn’t link to my website.
What we reveal to others in these comments doesn’t even scratch the surface of who we are as people. I think it’s important to remember that.
Carrie,
Thank you for your respectful post.
I said healthcare is available to everyone, and you countered with the number of uninsured. It’s a myth that the uninsured can’t get healthcare in this country. They can and do. It’s just not very efficient.
The numbers of uninsured alone don’t tell us very much. Some are uninsured by choice. It’s a snapshot in time, so some are uninsured at any given moment who have been insured in the past and will be again.
Every system to deliver any type of service, including healthcare, will have tradeoffs. A universal system covers everyone, yes, and that’s a benefit. To me, the costs of a system, and the tradeoffs required, including the tradeoffs in freedom, are not worth it. I understand that for some they are worth it. Many I see making the argument, however, refuse to acknowledge there’s any real tradeoff at all. That’s trying to win the argument with deception.
Dross- mmc is correct. No one here has attacked faydean personally. We have attacked the words and actions of the sorry-ass McCain/Palin campaign and she has chosen to take those attacks personally. Why I have no idea. When someone attacks Obama, I will defend him if I can, but I do not take those attacks personally. He is not me.
Now you say, “not only will you see attacks on her, but by implication, the attacks on anyone who could possibly think she’s a reasonable choice for VP.” Why do you think that? Why can’t we just have the opinion that Palin is way out of her league and a very stupid choice for VP (notice I did not call Palin or you stupid, I said it was a stupid choice), but still believe that you have every right to support her if you want. It’s called democracy.
You and faydean need to just be yourselves and stop trying to be McCain and Palin. Maybe you will feel better.
Fayden- I know you apologized and I appreciate that. But that does not change the fact that you made a personal attack on someone else on this blog and then spent a lot of follow-up comments whining about how people were now attacking you. When you sling mud, some of it will land on you.
@dross, “They can and do”.
What? Why are the uninsured numbers so high if “they can and do”?
There are tradeoffs for any system. No matter who wins the White House, the days of employer subsidized healthcare are numbered and that has nothing to do with socialism. It has to do with costs. When large companies spend more for health insurance for their employees than they do on their actual products, it’s only a matter of time.
What about Romney’s plan in MA? Does anyone have experience with that plan? Is it more or less expensive? I believe that Obama is going to look to a country like Germany (as it exists today) where there is private insurance, employer subsidized insurance and public assistance (by the state). I also believe that Obama’s plan will look a lot like what Romney did in MA. I could be mistaken.
Some are uninsured by choice? I don’t understand that. Are these people not seeking health care at all? Or is it because if they are making a choice between paying for insurance and putting food on the table or gas in the car, so they choose not to buy insurance?
dross–
I am self-employed and I have a “huge-deductible-major-medical-only-health-insurance-plan” whose monthly dividends skyrocket every year, even though I have never had a claim. Right now I am at the tipping point of being able to make the monthly payments which currently equal the monthly payments of buying a Lamborgini. When I can no longer afford to pay the premiums, does that mean I choose not to buy insurance?
I know you all hate it when I pull the my husband is a doctor thing, but I gotta weigh in here only because he actually works in medicine and sees the insurance thing on a daily basis.
All I can do is go point by point:
1) The 45 million number you often hear, and is confirmed through AMA research is, not completely uninsurable, which is different than uninsured. There are many people who opt to not spend the money on insurance simply because they don’t think they need it (they believe since they are well, young, whatever it’s a uselss expenditure) or are not purchasing it because it is too expensive perhaps.
2) Those who don’t have insurance (and many people can get on state programs if they are uninsured already…or Medicare…we have Tenncare in TN, that has not done well, but that’s another story) DO get care when they go to the hospital. It is illegal for anyone seeking medical treatment to be turned away, and also highly unethical. There are rules and law regarding this…it simply isn’t done and if it is then a hospital or doctor is liable.
Those costs are absorbed by a hospital typically. Most hospitals are in the red budgetarily speaking. Profits are hard to come by, especially in non-profit facilities like the one my husband works at. But the cost is spread to the other “consumers” because it has to be. These facilities are not just be greedy monsters. They must spread out the absorbed cost to people with insurance because otherwise they’d go out of business.
3) There are, in most mid to large cities, countless free and low income clinics that provide traditional, non emergent care and preventive medicine (well baby checks, test for older people like stress tests etc). We have one in our town and it’s completely non-pay (or by donation for those who choose). It’s private and subsidized by charities. They are part of a network of such places across the country…you can look them up.
4) No child would ever be turned away from medical treatment in any form who didn’t have insurance…again, mandated by law and ethically. If it happens then it’s wrong and illegal. But it’s not the norm. I lived for eight years in Memphis where St. Judes Children’s Hospital is located. It is run by donations and grants ONLY and provides 100 percent free treatment for children suffering from the most horrible/terminal cancers around. They don’t even process insurance there.
5) Most pharmacies now have either free or extremely reduced cost on many (as many as a few hundred) common medications. I, for instance, went to my local Publix not too long ago and go three prescriptions for all of us for an antibiotic for strep throat because we were going on vacation and my youngest child and come down with it (I just knew we’d all get sick since we were going to the beach so I tried to be prepared). All free. We have insurance…and good insurance.
6) My oldest daughter is a Type 1 diabetic. Her medications are unbelievably expensive. And even out of pocket with our good insurance, we pay quite a bit…but MUCH less than we would if we didn’t have insurance. I realize we’re in a good position. But being devil’s advocate here, I must ask you all…how would you feel if someone told you that your insurance might be mandated…that you might be restricted (yes, the government would restrict costs too…they must or else bankrupt the program) or your provider access limited with a child who has a life threatening illness???
Coming from the other side, as a wife of a doctor and of this child, I totally realize that once she’s an adult she is uninsurable under today’s system. And of course that frightens me and worries me. But for now, she has excellent coverage and goes to one of the top children’s hospitals in the world. No, I can’t say that I’d want anything to even remotely hinder that.
So, that’s pretty much all I can offer on these issues for now.
Blurb, my husband has looked at the MA plan and says he’s intrigued by it. He’s just not sure how you can mandate such a thing…what would be (or is) the punishment for not participating? He’s very mixed on the socialization thing. Having worked in the VA system quite a bit, the idea of the government being in control of healthcare across the board worries him. Me too for that matter, but like I said, I have a huge stake in this issue regarding my child. I’m very pleased with where I am and don’t want to lose the options I have now. If it could be a mixed bag of both private and public then I’d be ok perhaps.