Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Cruising the Web

The problems inherent in winning the senior vote.

Jonah Goldberg wonders why liberals are so opposed to the concept of American exceptionalism. Perhaps it is because they either don't understand the concept or history.

Jed Babbin has a very good idea: bring in conservative governors in to discuss the GOP congressional policy proposals so that the result would be a truly fiscally conservative and federalist agenda.

David Freddoso has some interesting observations from the exit polls.

Gerald Seib thinks that the Republicans may actually have a functional majority in the Senate.

Mark Thiessen thinks that Olympia Snowe may have trouble winning reelection in 2012. However, Maine conservatives need a good, viable candidate to put up against her.

John Hawkins has some fun compiling a list of "7 Lame Liberal Excuses for the 2010 Election Shellacking."

George Mason law professor Ilya Somin writes
that the legal challenges to the individual mandate could indeed prevail.

7 comments:

Tacitus Voltaire said...

John Hawkins has some fun compiling a list of "7 Lame Liberal Excuses for the 2010 Election Shellacking."

just keep in mind that "conservative" excuses for losing control of the house, senate, and presidency in 2008 didn't - and won't, when you come up with them here - sound any different

p.s., why would anybody quote a moron like jonah goldberg?

ic said...

Liberals are so opposed to the concept of American exceptionalism because they are the "intellectual", the smart ones, the born rulers. There are two classes of people, the ruling class, and the rest. The Europeans know their positions in life. They are supposed to go to certain universities to be trained to rule, or born into the ruling families. The exceptional American hicks don't understand the "natural order", they don't know their station in life. An Iowa grad moose hunter "white trash" tried to be vp, a self proclaimed little witch wanted to be a senator. How awful!

Tacitus Voltaire said...


William Saletan of Slate wrote an interesting piece about who won. The conventional wisdom is that politics is about who is in power. He disagrees and says politics is about using power. By that measure the Democrats won--they got one of their top priorities, health-insurance reform--written into law. Congressional majorities come and go (witness the turnaround between 2006 and 2008), but once a major law is passed, even with a lot of opposition--think Social Security and Medicare--it is almost never repealed. It can and will be tweaked around the edges, but even if a Republican is elected President and the Republicans capture Congress in 2012, do they really want to

* Re-open the "donut hole" for seniors' drug benefits?
* Allow insurance companies to cancel policies after people get sick?
* Refuse to insure critically ill children?
* Kick 18-25 year-olds who can't get insurance off their parents' policies?

Probably not. Talking about these things during a campaign is one thing. Actually doing them is something quite different. Remember, while the exit polls showed the public split evenly on repeal, other polls have consistently shown that the public overwhelmingly approves all of the above provisions. Of course, this is inconsistent, but few voters actually know what the law does.

If the Democrats hang onto the White House or one branch of Congress in 2012 (when Democratic turnout will be far higher than it was this year), repeal will be impossible until 2017, at which time the entire law will have kicked in and repeal will be completely impossible (see: George Bush's attempt to phase out Social Security in 2004).


of course, if you actually read saletan's article - which would violate your policy of never finding out what "liberals" really think - you would have to read an actual "liberal's" actual analysis of why democrats lost so many seats - slightly different than the fake "reasons" that hawkins pulls out of his posterior:

I'm not buying the autopsy or the obituary. In the national exit poll, voters were split on health care. Unemployment is at nearly 10 percent. Democrats lost a lot of seats that were never really theirs, and those who voted against the bill lost at a higher rate than did those who voted for it. But if health care did cost the party its majority, so what? The bill was more important than the election.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

ic said...
Liberals are so opposed to the concept


you entire comment is a load of hogwash that no progressive believes

did you wash dishes and work as a breakfast cook to put yourself through college like i did?

equitus said...

TV,if you really want us to read Saletan, maybe you can have your mother or a neighbor show you how to link to a URL in a comment here. It's really not so hard.

What you quote here reeks of disingenuous. As if Republicans oppose the health care bill because they want to harm children, the elderly and infirm... please! Can you not understand that we simply thing there are more effective and more fair ways to go about improving the system than what Pelosi et all foisted on us?

Locomotive Breath said...

The old people unapologetically continue to vote for putting a financially crushing burden on their children and grandchildren which quite a few of them didn't bother to have. Greatest generation? No.

Pat Patterson said...

Since TV didn't mention which poll he used I'll provide the Rasmussen exit poll. In his poll, aside from revealing that the economy was the main issue it was found that 59% were in favor of outright repeal. I have noticed that many pundits on the left comingle a concern for healthcare to claim that most people are for retention. That argument, and BTW, there are solutions to that donut hole gap since 2002, is simply wishful hindsight. It's akin to Japan announcing how pleased they are with the end of the war as they destroyed European colonial power in the East. But weren't able to figure out a way to take credit for that success.

http://tinyurl.com/2a7pnp9

This may seem unfair but unless TV learns how to link then I'm all in favor of his unsourced comments never appearing.