WP:Democrats digging harder than ever for dirt on Republicans

[Bang]

Nixon and Reagan were democrats??

Hardly,, but both foresaw the problem health care would become.

I think both were much more progressive in their thinking than the current party would like them to be, and both, IMO were great presidents because of their ability to cut thru BS, and to recognize and get to the heart of REAL problems, not the distractions that constantly crop up around the issues.

I'd bet that if they were alive, both would probably be called RINOs and castigated.

I think that is unfortunate, because I think that the neo-con factions have managed to convince people that President Reagan was not as close to the current center as he was. He's held up as a God of Conservatism, and while that may be metaphorically true, it ignores that what was solid right wing philosophy in the 80s has become the basis of a lot of more centrist to center-right thinking. ( I know if you've read my comments ove the last two years one would easily assume I'm a liberal.. fact is Ronald Reagan formed a lot of my political thinking, and while it may look like I champion the Dems, the fact is it's more that I abhor what the GOP has become. MCCain is one of the best politicians we've had i the last 20 years. He's been a real leader, a guy unafraid to listen rather than just talk. But this campaign was the final straw for me.I was all ready to vote for him in the last 3 elections, and I just could not bring myself to do it this time when he finally had the nomination.)

We always discuss what the Founders may think of our system today,, well, by the same dreaming, I wonder how Reagan would react to the modern GOP? I don't think he'd like it as much as they like to think he would.

~Bang

[Baculus]

The assumption in your question is inaccurate imo. Yes the Obama and the dems campaigned on pie in the sky health care reform where everyone is covered, health care costs are reduced and the deficit is reduced

As someone who followed the DNC platform in the 2008 elections, I am not sure if I would describe their reform ideas as "pie-the-sky." Also, considering other nations are able to achieve a near total population coverage in their health care systems at lower costs, I fail to also see how you can describe universal health care as "pie-in-the-sky."

but imo the electorate were more focused on the economy, jobs, wars, spending etc in electing Obama. Not health care.

The electorate had a lot of their plate -- that is for sure and I can agree with that. Perhaps not to the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world, but to the average American, health care costs is an extremely important subject. Especially since health costs go hand-in-hand with some of the financial issues -- in personal costs and job wages -- facing the American public.

I remember looking at Marco Rubio's website a few months ago, and he didn't even have a single portion of his platform dedicated to health care reform. And this is a guy who is supposed to represent the new Republican party . . .

Bush et al screw the pooch so many times ANYONE was better than the repubs. So given what Obama et al finally sold and delivered, you know, how's it going to affect me, in the healthcrae arena a MAJORITY do not want it as delivered right now. This may not be adequate but it's JMO.

I appreciate the honesty of your response.

Personally, I think the health care reform was mild. It's not a government takeover, and it does have some positive attributes. My own view is that it didn't go far enough, and if it were watered down even further to appease the GOP, it would have been virtually non-existent reform.

Basically, though, the Republicans are going to have to run on a health care repeal platform come November. If you ask me, that isn't going to be a very smart idea.

[Baculus]

Nixon and Reagan were democrats??

Bang already gave a good response to this, but I will add my own .02. The Nixon-Ted Kennedy reform that was close to being passed in '74 went even father than the recent Democratic reform. That's the irony. It was a universal health care system that would have probably avoided many of the issues we face today.

If the '94 reform bill, which was so heavily opposed by the Republicans, would have passed, when the average health care costs in this country was around $4,000 per capita, we probably wouldn't be facing these same problems.

As far as Reagan is concerned, I only remember him being opposed to Medicare since he believed it would lead to communism. (OF course, that was during the 60s -- by the 80s, he supported the system since it become popular.)

In this day and age, right-wingers would want to run Nixon out of the party, which really says a lot to where the GOP are right now.

I will say this: Twice, so far, in recent memory, Democrats have been willing to place their party's future on the line in the name of health care reform. They did it in 1994 and they did it again in this year . . . when are the Republicans going to place the well-being of Americans before their own political ambitions?

When does the health care problems of Main Street come before the profit bottom line of Wall Street?

[Redskins Diehard]

Come on man,, One woman in Massachusetts lost a special election,, that hardly qualifies for "voting out the supermajority" as if everyone in the nation had a say.

the fact is that this "the majority of the country didn't want healthcare" is a load of Fox bull**** spouuted out in their never-ending special report "You're living under Nazi tyranny, so be fearful and angry" .

Healthcare reform is a desire that goes back to the Nixon presidency.. he said back in 72 that it was one of the primary challenges of the future and something that needed to be addressed.

Every president since then (with a few exceptions) have championed the idea, including Ronald Reagan.

Big Medical doesn't want it. And using their lobbying power, they've managed to keep us as their cash cow.

The GOP's absolute refusal to help in any way with the problem and the subsequent alarmist yammering by their carnival barkers have convinced people that somehow the majority don't want this, when the majority voted for this promise less than a year before. It makes absolutely no logical sense at all, and anyone who has convinced themselves that somehow this IS what happened are eating bull**** that they've been spoonfed.

~Bang

I think the fact that it was the Champion of Healthcare Reform's seat makes it a little more significant than just some woman losing some seat.

Bottom line is I do not think that election 08 was a "referendum on health care reform". Pretty sure it was about "change" that we could believe in. I guess the more things change....

Honestly I am really not bent out of shape over the whole health care reform. I hope it does work. And I really don't have many problems with Pres Obama in general. He has been at least "okay" on most all foreign policy/defense/homeland security issues.

[Larry]

Was just thinking that, seeing as we're discussing politics, where sleazy dishonest acts never go away, they simply become business as usual, . . .

Recalling the stunt the GOP has been pulling for years, where they compile these hugely inflated claims of "Senator Lardbutt voted to raise taxes 17,351 times". (Which they obtain by taking every vote to introduce a bill, to sent it to committee, to bring it back from committee, send it to a different committee, permit discussion of it, end discussion of it, open amendments, . . . And by counting every bill to raise taxes, every bill against a tax cut, every bill which proposed a tax cut that wasn't as big as the GOP wanted, . . . And by then adding 20% to that number, just for good measure.)

Wondering if the Dems have considered a string of "Senator Lardbutt filibustered 17,351 times" campaign ads.

(Don't know if such things are available, though. Nor do I know if such ads would work nearly as well.)

[Bang]

I think the fact that it was the Champion of Healthcare Reform's seat makes it a little more significant than just some woman losing some seat.

Bottom line is I do not think that election 08 was a "referendum on health care reform". Pretty sure it was about "change" that we could believe in. I guess the more things change....

Honestly I am really not bent out of shape over the whole health care reform. I hope it does work. And I really don't have many problems with Pres Obama in general. He has been at least "okay" on most all foreign policy/defense/homeland security issues.

Well, no doubt it was an important seat. I hope I didn't come off as minimizing that.. not only was it the champion's seat, but it is a deeply traditionally D state to begin with. I just don't see it as a mandate of anything, and personally, I think it's probably for the best. Balance is good, providing people want to work together in the first place.

~Bang

[Cdowwe]

They've had control of Congress for 4 years.. its been a rough 4 years for most voters. Most Democrats seem to forget they had control 06-08 though