General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama supporters say electing a Republican would be worse.
Is that really what Obama supporters say?
If so, smart people.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Doesn't mean that re-electing Obama would be a good thing. That whole lesser of two evils thing ya know. Wouldn't it be nice to actually deal with good again?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Doesn't mean that re-electing Obama would be a good thing."
...some believe he should be on Mt. Rushmore
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002530308
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Your point?
"And some believe Reagan should be up there as well...Your point?"
...maybe it means that like Reagan, Obama sucks? Still, perspective is everything.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)He's a Mormon Bishop who created Obama Care. That a bigger leap than President Obama who is the most progressive President in 40 years.
Zax2me
(2,515 posts)You are reading too much into it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)imagine!
Marr
(20,317 posts)In the short term, sure-- at least in terms of rhetoric. But the long term is another question.
When a politician wins an election, he or she has, by definition, employed a winning strategy. Their successors will naturally take their cues from previous elections when setting their own strategies. So every time we vote for corporate Democrats, we encourage the very rightward slide that we all complain about.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)and that is precisely the benefit of purchasing two parties.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I don't know that this will ever turn around, either. The American public seems to me (contrary to our cherished little myth), incredibly docile and submissive to authority. We don't seem the sort of people to decide en masse to tell the boss to go to hell.
When a politician wins an election, he or she has, by definition, employed a winning strategy. Their successors will naturally take their cues from previous elections when setting their own strategies. So every time we vote for corporate Democrats, we encourage the very rightward slide that we all complain about.
...voting for Republicans helps to move the country left? Are you saying that a Romney Presidency will help in say...2020?
Flawed logic.
Marr
(20,317 posts)In any single election, our choice is between racing to the right, and ambling to the right. We're not going to fix anything with short-term thinking, or one or two elections.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"In any single election, our choice is between racing to the right, and ambling to the right. We're not going to fix anything with short-term thinking, or one or two elections."
...reinforces the OP, which is that "racing to the right" is worse than "ambling to the right"
It also lacks perspective.
In fact, I'd argue that when it comes to the health care law, most people aren't taking the long view, which is positive.
by Richard Kirsch
Its not just about expanded care. Its about proving our government can be a force for the common good.
Why are John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell so intent on stopping health care reform from ever taking hold? For the same reason that Republicans and the corporate Right spent more than $200 million in the last year to demonize health care in swing Congressional districts. It wasnt just about trying to stop the bill from becoming law or taking over Congress. It is because health reform, if it takes hold, will create a bond between the American people and government, just as Social Security and Medicare have done. Democrats, and all those who believe that government has a positive place in our lives, should remember how much is at stake as Republicans and corporate elites try to use their electoral victory to dismantle the new health care law.
My enjoyment of the MLB playoffs last month was interrupted by ads run by Karl Roves Crossroads front group against upstate New York Rep. Scott Murphy, who was defeated last Tuesday. Roves ads rained accusations on Murphy, including the charge of a government takeover of health care. Some might have thought that once the public option was removed from the health care legislation, Republicans couldnt make that charge. But it was never tied to the public option or any other specific reform. Republicans and their allies, following the advice of message guru Frank Luntz, were going to call whatever Democrats proposed a government takeover.
Theres nothing new here. Throughout American history, health care reform has been attacked as socialist. An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in December 1932, just after FDRs election, claimed that proposals for compulsory insurance were socialism and communism inciting to revolution. The PR firm that the American Medical Association hired to fight Trumans push for national health insurance succeeded in popularizing a completely concocted quote that it attributed to Vladimir Lenin: Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the Socialist State.
<...>
President Obama and Democrats in Congress understood the historical importance and profound moral underpinnings of the new health care law when they enacted it earlier this year. And they knew that the right-wing attack had soured the public in swing Congressional districts and states on reform. They stood up then. They will have to stand up again, understanding that if they give way to Republicans, they lose more than the expansion of health coverage. They lose the best opportunity in half a century to prove to Americans that government can be a force for the common good.
http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/11/08/why-republicans-are-so-intent-on-killing-health-care-reform-26298/
The Long Moral View
http://prospect.org/article/long-moral-view
Marr
(20,317 posts)But I've got to tell you, calling Obama's health insurance reform something that proves government can do right is fairly laughable. It's built around the idea that the corporate sector will do things more efficiently than government.
But I've got to tell you, calling Obama's health insurance reform something that proves government can do right is fairly laughable. It's built around the idea that the corporate sector will do things more efficiently than government.
...really. I mean, while the plan builds on the employer-based health care model, the reforms also strengthened Medicare, giving seniors free preventive care for the first time ever, and achieved the largest expansion of Medicaid since the 1960s.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002496395
Improvements built into the law will make additional improvements (a public option or Medicare buy in) more efficient.
Simply put, the law isn't all about insurance companies.
MrBig
(640 posts)If nothing else, for Supreme Court nominations, which are grossly undervalued in elections.