McCain: No More Republican/Democrat Co-operation

[Tyyr]

There could be. However you don't have to say it didn't go far enough, you can simply claim that it calls itself healthcare reform but it does nothing about costs or anything else. I honestly don't think that most people are against doing something. I think most people would agree that there are some fundamental issues with the insurance system and the healthcare system. However they don't think that the solution is the government taking it over completely.

Things such as pre-existing conditions, not being able to drop people, and looking at ways to seriously reduce healthcare costs will probably get nearly universal support. However the republicans aren't proposing anything like that. They're just... being dumbasses about this.

[Sionnach Glic]

To be perfectly honest, it seems that both parties are being utterly incompetant about this. Both sides have given the opposition plenty of oppertunities to exploit to win the PR battle, but neither side seems to be using them.

[Tyyr]

I honestly believe both sides are lacking a strong unifying voice.

[Sionnach Glic]

I'm inclined to agree.
Again, my viewpoint from across the Pond is a bit hazy, but from what I can see it looks almost as though the entire Republican party has just fragmented and begun to drift apart. With no one to rally around, their supporter base is breaking up and just grouping around a handful of the more well known personalities, ruining any chance the party has of making a concentrated attack against the Democrats.
The Democrats, on the other hand, have a clear leader to rally around in Obama, but Obama himself seems utterly incapable of controling his own party and has failed utterly to utilise the momentum that got him into power in the first place.

[Tyyr]

In my opinion the Democratic party wanted and continues to want nothing to do with Obama. Hillary was the anointed one of the party and Obama came in and stole the election from her. He's considered quite a bit farther left than the majority of the party and as such much of the majority of the party isn't firmly behind him. When he took office he got into a pissing match with Pelosi. He's not the strong central figurehead of the democratic party you'd expect the president to be.

On the Republican side most of the old guard is gone. People like Gingrich, Bush Sr., etc. are all retired now. Unfortunately no one seemed to realize that they needed to plan for this and nurture a crop of new strong figureheads for the party. So you've got imbeciles like Rush and entertainers like Beck becoming almost default figureheads and neither of them should be that. They're at best right wing stand up comedians. Palin becomes a key figure in the Republican pantheon when she has no business being there. John McCain who's a republican in name and that's about it. No one really seems to be trying to grab the reigns right now and they need it more than ever. They've backsliden into emotional appeals, demagoguery, image instead of talking substance. They've become democrats. People have noticed this and you've got people like me who don't want anything to do with the party or groups like the Tea Party that are trying to reclaim the party and give it direction.

You're not wrong, neither party has any real leadership right now.

[Reliant121]

So you've got a party divided and complacent with the dems, and a snake without a head with the reps.

[Tyyr]

I dunno if I'd call the democrats complacent. Right after winning the super majority they definitely were. They strongly believed back then that they'd just ram whatever they wanted through and into law and the Republicans could just go fuck themselves. After over a year of finding out just how ineffective they really are I don't think they're complacent any more so much as desperate. Look at how they passed this bill, not through standard means but through a budgetary reconciliation loophole.

[Reliant121]

Conceded, I kinda took the complacent from Rochey's comment on Obama's seeming inability to do jack in his party. However, the party as a whole seems almost chaotically active.

[Sionnach Glic]

In my opinion the Democratic party wanted and continues to want nothing to do with Obama. Hillary was the anointed one of the party and Obama came in and stole the election from her. He's considered quite a bit farther left than the majority of the party and as such much of the majority of the party isn't firmly behind him. When he took office he got into a pissing match with Pelosi. He's not the strong central figurehead of the democratic party you'd expect the president to be.

Really? That's interesting. Over here the only Democrat you're likely to ever really hear about is Obama. Hillary and the few other prominant ones slid off the map when Obama won the election, and I (well, "we" I should say) have always gotten the impression that Obama was, and continues to be, the Number One Democrat in terms of US politics.

So basically, Hillary was being groomed for the presidency, then the virtual unknown that is Obama suddenly appeared and more or less stole the crown from her. But this only succeeded in pissing off large numbers of his own party, resulting in his complete inability to actually control his own party. With Obama bogged down in arguments and concession with members of his own party, other Democrats have become more prominant in US politics, despite their lesser power.
Would that be a somewhat accurate reading of the situation?

Also, do you think things would have been any better if Hillary had been elected, or would it have been worse?

On the Republican side most of the old guard is gone. People like Gingrich, Bush Sr., etc. are all retired now. Unfortunately no one seemed to realize that they needed to plan for this and nurture a crop of new strong figureheads for the party. So you've got imbeciles like Rush and entertainers like Beck becoming almost default figureheads and neither of them should be that. They're at best right wing stand up comedians. Palin becomes a key figure in the Republican pantheon when she has no business being there. John McCain who's a republican in name and that's about it. No one really seems to be trying to grab the reigns right now and they need it more than ever. They've backsliden into emotional appeals, demagoguery, image instead of talking substance. They've become democrats. People have noticed this and you've got people like me who don't want anything to do with the party or groups like the Tea Party that are trying to reclaim the party and give it direction.

That's my impression of the situation as well. All the "classic" Republicans are either gone or going (with McCain being one of the last to leave), but they never bothered to prepare a younger team to take the reins for after they'd left. Thus you have clowns like Beck and completely unsuitable politicians like Palin becoming the public face of the party.

You're not wrong, neither party has any real leadership right now.

It sounds like the entire situation has just gone completely FUBAR over there on the political front. Any ideas on how this will ever be resolved, or do you think that it'll just keep on spiralling downwards with both sides becoming more extreme and separate?

[sunnyside]

It's funny, because while it seems you're right when it comes to brass tacks, GOP leadership has lately seemed content to go for puerile-sounding attacks instead of policy for sound bites.

They aren't picking their soundbites. Remember the article we're discussing comes from a leftist blog, not even a journalistic news source. I'm sure on Fox news they seem much more erudite and the Dems look worse.

With sound bites it's half saying good stuff and half not saying anything that, even out of context, can make you look bad. And the latter half, especially regarding heated issues, is exceedingly difficult unless you only say scripted words in public. Insofar as I can tell Obama is much better than most about that (ask him a question in an interview and he's on script in a couple words, almost regardless of what you asked).

I think Republicans are doing alright with much of their base, they have this Tea party thing seperate from the GOP itself to deal with, but what they're doing actually should jibe pretty well with all that. However I don't think we have anyone here who really IS their base.

What they need to do is figure out how to reach out to moderates who probably are getting more of their information from left leaning sources. And it is tricky to have an exciting message when you're mostly in support of the status quo. Though I think there are some things they could push. For example I recall some studies that found when a region clamps down on excessive and extranious lawsuits medical costs drop significantly for everyone else. They could work that.

Otherwise they have their typical problem of not having charismatic enough leaders. Maybe they should consider getting actual actors to front for them. Halle Berry in 2012.

[Tsukiyumi]

...For example I recall some studies that found when a region clamps down on excessive and extranious lawsuits medical costs drop significantly for everyone else...

Dude, you're not talking about malpractice caps, are you?

[Tyyr]

Really? That's interesting. Over here the only Democrat you're likely to ever really hear about is Obama. Hillary and the few other prominant ones slid off the map when Obama won the election, and I (well, "we" I should say) have always gotten the impression that Obama was, and continues to be, the Number One Democrat in terms of US politics.

Understandable given that you're on the other side of an ocean. Obama is the face of the party right now and he gets most of the air time but he's far from in total control of it.

So basically, Hillary was being groomed for the presidency, then the virtual unknown that is Obama suddenly appeared and more or less stole the crown from her. But this only succeeded in pissing off large numbers of his own party, resulting in his complete inability to actually control his own party. With Obama bogged down in arguments and concession with members of his own party, other Democrats have become more prominant in US politics, despite their lesser power.
Would that be a somewhat accurate reading of the situation?

In my opinion that's largely what the situation is.

Also, do you think things would have been any better if Hillary had been elected, or would it have been worse?

You're asking that of a conservative. Depends on your goal. If you're looking for party unity I think Hillary would almost certainly have been a better choice.

That's my impression of the situation as well. All the "classic" Republicans are either gone or going (with McCain being one of the last to leave), but they never bothered to prepare a younger team to take the reins for after they'd left. Thus you have clowns like Beck and completely unsuitable politicians like Palin becoming the public face of the party.

Pretty much. Most of the names put forth as the new face of the Republican party were just jokes, like Jindal. I mean honestly who picked that twit?

It sounds like the entire situation has just gone completely FUBAR over there on the political front. Any ideas on how this will ever be resolved, or do you think that it'll just keep on spiralling downwards with both sides becoming more extreme and separate?

It depends largely on someone pulling their head out of their ass. If one side or the other can find a good solid figurehead to rally behind and then focus their message and ideals it'll halt the whole thing. The other side will have to follow suit or be completely marginalized. At this point though, I largely suspect it's going to keep circling the drain for a few years more.

[Sionnach Glic]

You're asking that of a conservative.

Aye, might not be the most unbiased guy to quiz on it.

Depends on your goal

Well, I was thinking in terms of getting the country back on its feet.

[sunnyside]

Dude, you're not talking about malpractice caps, are you?

Mmm I think what had happened was a restructuring of the law in the state emphasising reducing extranious lawsuits.

I don't know how it is in other countries, but over here the basic way it works is along the lines of "they didn't install my grandmother into the Golden Throne of Terra and sacrifice sufficent psychers to her to sustain her" is what constitutes malpractice. The fact that their grandmother was not the Emperor of Mankind and that this isn't the year 40,000 will not get a judge to throw the case out.

In all seriousness there are ads all over the place for lawyers that will gladly work for free if anyone's outcome for anything was less than perfect because they can waste their time on dozens of ridiculous cases and only occasionally get their massive cut of a multimillion dollar settlement.

However the hospital has to dump loads of cash defending themselves against every case, which as I understand it is significant even to the cost of claims that they might wind up paying.

I'm not sure about malpractice caps, though I think at some point that's reasonable especially on the parts for "mental stress" and such beyond treatment costs. But it seems, from that state, that part of our massive cost of healthcare is the barrage of BS lawsuits. Maybe I'll see if I can find that later.

Regarding some of SGs questions.

I don't believe that Obama's problems with controlling the party had as much to do with them prefirring Hillary or having better relations with her as it is that he doesn't keep them in office, the voters in their districts do. Voters who had only a few years ago elected Republican candidates. Since ultimately their priority number one is getting re-elected, the president can only exert so much control.

In terms of getting the country back on its feet (And keeping it there) Obama is probably worse, because it's quite possible Hillary wouldn't have been able to get as many bankrupting policies through.

As for republicans and democrats, in many ways they're actually getting rather close together. It isn't like Bush was slashing social programs in order to pay down the deficit. However a number of news outlets have figured out that playing off the difference and stoking the fire pays, from Comedy Central to Fox News exacs, hosts, and writers are rollin' in the dough. So don't expect the tone to get mellower.

[Mikey]

Hill-dog wasn't exactly the heir apparent; there was a fair bit of opposition to her, and Obama's star was in ascendancy in the party almost as soon as he hit the national stage... certainly since his incredible address at the 2004 convention. However, there was a fair division between the people who thought it would be more historic for a woman to become president and those who thought it would be moreso for an African-American. Also, while there was a considerable amount of abrasion between Hill and the right-of-the-aisle, most of her planks were in general more conservative than Obama's.

I daresay, though, from her prior stances that the healthcare debacle would largely have turned out the same.