I worked on the Hill in 1994 and on that healthcare reform effort. If the Dems don't follow through on healthcare at this point (they are already on record voting for it), it will be worse than if they do pass it. Also, they will be unable to pivot to other issues b/c healthcare will be hanging over the heads with the Rs, the press and the voters. History shows weakness doesn't work but strength in adversity does.
I liken the Dems situation to a swimmer being circled by a shark. If you panic and start splashing around the shark will attack. If you stay calm and still there is a better than 50-50 the shark will go away. Better to stay calm and stay the course than panic and try to run away.
Agreed. Kemp really did care about the poor although I thought his policy prescriptions would not work. He was also good on Civil Rights going to back to his days as a football player. He was a very decent man even if I disagreed with him on politics. That is missing from today's Repub Party.
I am happy with Obama. You will never agree with everyone 100% of the time but I agree with Obama about 85% or so. I support most of his agenda and think he is on the right track. What else can I ask for. If you expect perfection in politics you will always be disappointed.
I love how this post just totally ignores that Obama got an almost $800 billion stimulus package through Congress in less than a month in office. You can argue it was too small but anyone who understands how Congress works knows this was a huge accomplishment and the priorities in it were a major change in direction for the country.
And the bill has good health care stuff in it - a 65% COBRA premium subsidy for people who have been laid off. That is a nice first step towards a more meaningful health reform effort which will take many months if not over a year to enact. It is a complicated effort as DemFromCT outlines so well at DailyKos.
I don't think Obama is perfect - the state secrets and Afghanistan concern me. However, the guy has been such a change in direction from the last eight years and the polling data shows the American people see it.
Paterson's numbers have much less to do with who he appointed than how he handled the appointment. Do you really think that if Paterson had done the same zig-zagg and trashed Caroline Kennedy and then appointed Andrew Cuomo or Carolyn Maloney or Steve Israel it would have made much difference for Paterson? I get you really like Cuomo (I wanted Carolyn Maloney for the seat) but these numbers have to do with Paterson who is pretty much his own worst enemy.
I have heard over 6,000 but we won't know for sure until April 7 since they extended the deadline to accomodate voters in the military. That's a lot of absentee ballots and the Rs in NY have traditionally had much better absentee campaigns than Dems. I have been involved in 2 campaigns where the Dem candidate was ahead by about Murphy's margin on election night and lost after all the absentee ballots were counted. I am actually very worried about this race.
It is bad policy but good politics which gets the debate back in the Ds favor. If the Rs vote no they have completely lost any advantage they might have had on this.
I look at the Rs now and in 1993 and I think what a mess they are today. In 1993 they had some evil but politically smart people - Gingrich, DeLay, Bill Paxon, Bob Walker, Trent Lott and on the not so evil and smart level Bob Dole and Alan Simpson.
I look at them today and think Eric Cantor is the best they have got? It is unreal how weak they really are right now.
Thank you. I tend to agree Geithner has no support at Treasury which is not unusual at this stage in an Admin. The problem is most cabinet Secys don't come into this kind of a crisis so they can struggle along for 60-90 days while their deputies are confirmed.
And don't dismiss the lack of deputies for being a cause for part of the bonus fiasco. Geithner, trying to juggle everything and being stretched, might have seen this as a secondary issue. I am not saying this is right but having run some major projects at my job over the years I have made those types of decisions. 90+% of the time you get it right but there are those times you miscalculate.
I think you have to give Geithner a chance to get staffed up and see what he can do. If he is still struggling 9 mos from now, get rid of him.
In the meantime, I think Obama needs to lean on Paul Volker more. He is the only person in his Admin who has dealt with anything close to this kind of crisis and he has a ton of credibility.
The people who should investigated are Fuld and other leaders at Lehman. It is really not the govts role to step in and save companies except in extraordinary circumstances which we now have with AIG, Citi, etc. If it were not for the probably collapse of the what's left of our banking system, I'd let them go under too.