Comments on: Why Democratic Voters Aren’t Enthusiastic

By: Bill L.

Bill L. — Thu, 25 May 2006 02:05:42 +0000

Wow, could Pedro be more patently dishonest? Bush's bloated Prescription Drug plan lines the pockets of big pharma and the insurance industry while blocking cometitve pricing measures to genuinly help seniors. While not technically a "cut," isn't the effect the same? That aside, what about Bush's proposed cuts to Medicare in his 2007 budget (along with cuts to veteran's benefits, children's hospitals, and the NIH and CDC (bird flu better not happen)) amounting to 36 billion over 5 years? Just because Congress backed away from the cuts to shore up their numbers in an election year doesn't mean Bush didn't try to cut the program. Even if you argue those cuts as justified, a position taken by some, they are hard to support when balanced against this administration's pathological efforts to cut taxes on the wealthy while cutting programs for the middle class and poor. Oh, and lets not forget the booming military/homeland security welfare state! Ditto Bush's ludicrous Social Security "reforms." Speaking of which, despite having the public spit in his face on SS privatization, Bush saw fit to jam it into his 2007 budget anyway. He's the decider! Fu*ck the little people! As for those Dems that gushed over Hayden while voting to confirm him, they need to get wise to the shifting winds, 'cause I'm sure there's a Ned lamont in all of their districts. "Incumbent" needs to become a dirty word. No congresscritter should feel secure in their seat simply because they've had it for a long time. Even a weak challenge would send the message that the free lunch is over. I have to believe that Feinstein could be taken down, given her ridiculous support for this administration's law breaking antics while roosting in possibly the most liberal district in the country. The DINO's need to feel the pain just like the Repubs.

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Thu, 25 May 2006 00:05:48 +0000

They created a medicare program that is at best confusing, at worst won’t provide the prescriptions the people need. They tried to privatize social security and have worked tirelessly to eventually put people on welfare.

The Republicans believe in drowing the government in a bathtub. They believe in dismantling it, either through elimination or privatization.

Democrats believe that some things need to be done by the government becuase there is no private incentive to do them or that theyre of such cost only a government can afford them.

Then again, do you want Walmart running the army?

By: duros62

duros62 — Wed, 24 May 2006 22:05:57 +0000

… but it really lowers the quality of the discourse
This from Pedro?
Funniest thing I’ve heard all week.

have you seen medicare cut? How about social security? Welfare?
It ain’t for lack of trying, numbnuts.

By: z_adura

z_adura — Wed, 24 May 2006 22:05:01 +0000

dr pedro, generally spending $1.00 for every $0.80 you make is running the country in the ground. It’s popular because you convince the people that they can have all the tax cuts without the spending cuts, but it is dangerous, and if foreign creditors give up on us, it’s lethal.

By: factcheck

factcheck — Wed, 24 May 2006 21:05:52 +0000

I’d like to take this opportunity to remember another disgraced Republican politician and how he used words to label his opponents.

Newt. Gingrich.

Time for somebody to remove a plank from their eye.

By: drpedro

drpedro — Wed, 24 May 2006 21:05:31 +0000

the republicans have had full control of the national government for years now.

have you seen medicare cut? How about social security? Welfare?

The last time I remember significant cuts were during the clenis years.

Why not argue the actual points rather than simply venting overheated rhetoric?

I think it is disingenous of you to say that the republicans just want to run the country into the ground. We, like you liberals, believe we can do things better. If you were really honest about it, you would be making a strong argument FOR what you believe than simply railing AGAINST what the conservatives believe

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Wed, 24 May 2006 20:05:44 +0000

Pedro – I believe that the conservative drive to erode the ability of our government to assist our society’s most needy to be an assault. I believed that when I had no paycheck and will believe it no matter who signs my paycheck. I think it is dishonest – not coarsening – to point out where rhetoric is betrayed by reality.

By: mjb

mjb — Wed, 24 May 2006 20:05:09 +0000

Pedro, as usual you try to change the subject to keep people from focusing on the issue at hand.
I’ll bite.
1. Of course it’s possible for reasonable people, blah blah, token strawman argument.
2. If you don’t know why oliver does it, why say anything. He does it for the same reasons all bloggers do, for emphasis and to play to his audience. At least his use of ‘assault’ can be defended as at least quasi-truthful (judging by the objectively radical legal theories they put forth to justify unprecedented behavior, and no, Clinton didn’t do the same thing). A claim Malkin, Hinddiddler, Little Green Closetcases, etc cannot make or defend. Now go raise the discourse by calling someone (or defending someone who calls someone) a traitor for questioning authority.

Lastly, apologize for lying a while back about the WaPo article that you claimed said we found Saddam’s WMD but in fact said the exact opposite.

By: drpedro

drpedro — Wed, 24 May 2006 20:05:06 +0000

would love to actually hear from oliver, rather than his rag-tag bunch of echo chamber denizens…

By: drpedro

drpedro — Wed, 24 May 2006 19:05:17 +0000

Oliver, why does everything the republicans do have to be labeled an “assault”?

Isn’t it possible for reasonable people to disagree about the best way to run a government?

I don’t know if you do this deliberately cause you think it makes you look better with your paymasters or what, but it really lowers the quality of the discourse