The Victorious Opposition

It’s a perfect opportunity for the GOP to bring in the key ideas of interstate purchase, tort reform and switching the tax incentive from employers to individuals.  These are three simple reforms that will do much more than a government bureaucracy ever could and now is the perfect time to re-introduce them to the discussion.  They would certainly be heard, as the message is easy:  “the President excluded us our ideas from the political process, and the Brown victory is a message that those in power need to re-involve us and our ideas to find common ground for true reform.”  Sadly, I think the party is more interested in riding the wave of Obama discontent than being proactive in advancing its ideas.

Sadly, I think the party is more interested in riding the wave of Obama discontent than being proactive in advancing its ideas.

I will have to agree with this comment.  Also, I think that health care reform pales in priority to job creation right now.  Finally, given the amount of consternation over what has been done on HCR so far by the Democrats, the GOP is probably very reluctant to get any of the current stench on them…

Heres what I really don’t get…. why hasn’t anyone asked them for their plan?

I know the Uk is much smaller and a totally different system, but if any politician or political party doesn’t cover something in theri manifesto, then they get absolutly slaughtered. And we’re talking about healthcare here, not some small policy thing that no one thought would ever come up.

I think that health care reform pales in priority to job creation right now.

I don’t disagree with that. But even with that, it’s like the Democrats handed the GOP a “here, take the ball and run with it” moment, and they’re saying “nope”.

In fact, I’d argue that they could use this to take the initiative on both agenda items - make the Democrats look foolish with a small, bi-partisan health care package, and use the message of that to make the point of getting past health care into jobs, trade, etc.

The point isn’t necessarily so much about getting their health care plan through. It’s about taking the initiative on the agenda and showing they’re a party with a plan rather than just saying it.

But even with that, it’s like the Democrats handed the GOP a “here, take the ball and run with it”

To use your own analogy, the GOP was caught on the sidelines, dressed in street clothes because the coach never told them they would even be playing. So yes, they were caught off guard and are now scrambling to get their uniform on.

First of all, some are telling the GOP to play nice and cooperate. But lets remember, when you are outside looking in, to all the sudden get a seat at the table when you did not expect one, can cause some disorientation. Up until a week ago the GOP was not the part of “NO”, it was the party of irrelevancy, it had zero power, not even filibuster power.

The GOP was also caught unprepared with dealing with Obama’s Federal Debt Commission, a nonpartisan congressional commission to weight options and implement policy to curtail deficit spending. Some would hail this as a positive attempt to rain in spending, good for them,

others want nothing to do with it because it will broad brush the GOP as part of the problem and make them complicit in ill advised tax increases. Right now they look divisive (same with health care reform) but they will form a consensus, give them time.

I would prefer Obama to abandon healthcare reform altogether (for now)and concentrate on the economy, but there are dangers in this as well. The current crew will only implement further stimulus programs and other cosmetic (deficit growing) measures (squeezing the banks or other entrepreneurial entities) while ignoring true measures (corporate, capital gain, small business tax advantages).

the GOP was caught on the sidelines, dressed in street clothes because the coach never told them they would even be playing.

If that’s the case, then they were foolish.

- They’ve been telling everyone they’ve got alternatives to the Democrats plans for half a year or more. We’ve debated about the fact that they talk about it, but don’t show it. Do they have it, or don’t they?
- They’ve been working to defeat Coakley for months, and the indications that they might actually do it were visible for at least a couple of weeks before the election. Christ - the major talking point about Brown winning was “defeat the Democrat takeover of healthcare”.

If, with all that, they don’t actually have anything to talk about, well, that’s a hell of an indictment of the GOP, now isn’t it?

First of all, some are telling the GOP to play nice and cooperate.

That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m not talking about “play nice”. I’m talking about step up with a message and try to take the lead away from the Democrats. The first is politics; the second is policy. But maybe politics is all there is to be had, if they were really as unprepared as you suppose.

I would prefer Obama to abandon healthcare reform altogether (for now)and concentrate on the economy, but there are dangers in this as well.

There’s no chance of that happening. The Democrats are going to get something passed, because they absolutely must do so for all the incumbents up for reelection in 2010. Because if they don’t pass something, then they have to explain why they dropped the ball on the economy and got nothing done on healthcare, too.

The GOP are letting an opportunity to define that something slip away from them.

This, to me comes back to the difference between telling people what they want to hear (ie. democrats trying to get elected) and telling people what they need to hear (is anyone willing?). What would you have the GOP do about this?

Talking healthcare is political disaster and if anyone touches the ball (to use your analogy) they are condoning a huge game of “smear the queer with the ball”. Much like California, no proactive step can be made because it involves potentially damaging a political ally. If you attack the dems on health care, and bring up some of the solutions zoomzoom mentions, you could get the behemoth Health Care industry to attack you and run you out of existence. If you sign onto the democrats failure, or “play nice” you will get the shit end of the stick when all of this falls apart.

So, instead of being honest and telling people what they need to hear (you don’t send us enough tax dollars to fund health care for everyone), or making a pro-active suggestion that might piss off a lobbyist, the safest route is to just say that you “oppose” it.

You know, kind of how the democrats “opposed” publicly almost every measure that Bush implemented in the War on Terror, but really did nothing to offer other solutions. It got them an election.

Heh.

Talking healthcare is political disaster

I think that’s complete bullshit.

Talking healthcare the Democrats’ way is political disaster.

Talking healthcare in the right way is political win, potentially huge. It completely turns the debate on its head, and takes a major issue away from the Democrats almost completely.

Acting like there’s nothing that needs to be addressed is foolish. People care very much about losing their health insurance. Those who’ve already lost it care very much about being able to find new insurance. What they don’t want is higher taxes and/or more government control in the process. But this is a huge issue for a large segment of the population.

And it’s an issue that can be tied to the jobs issue, because most (non-Medicare/Medicaid) people get their current insurance through their employers.

It’s foolish to not take advantage of the Democrats dropping this ball.

. We’ve debated about the fact that they talk about it, but don’t show it. Do they have it, or don’t they?

Well, lets see, portability, tort reform, private sector inclusion, allowing those that are happy with their healthcare to keep it, fixing the flat tire as opposed to trying to rebuilt the car from the wheels up, yes, I’d say they have some very definite ideas.

- They’ve been working to defeat Coakley for months, and the indications that they might actually do it were visible for at least a couple of weeks before the election.

You are totally missing the obvious here. Coakley had a 30 point lead on Brown, there are 5 registered Democrats for every one Republican in Mass., what Brown did was historical and to think that anyone could of predicted that is bologna. And nobody could of possibly guessed the magnitude of the win. To say that the GOP should of been ready for this is total crap, they were hoping for a Brown win, which would give them one more vote, but then the tsunami hit and all those congress critters in both houses saw the writing on the wall and said to themselves ,“Holy Shit, if it can happen in the bluest of the blue Mass., then it can happen to me, I gots to distance myself from this toxic bill”, hence Pelosi coming out and saying that she no longer has the votes to pass the Senate version.

To chastise the GOP for not predicting this star alignment and its blow back, I’m not on board with that.

I’d say they have some very definite ideas.

No, they have a PowerPoint presentation. And they aren’t even really talking about that.

To chastise the GOP for not predicting this star alignment and its blow back, I’m not on board with that.

The potential for Brown to win this was clear for at least two weeks before the election. If the GOP leadership was taken as much by surprise as you want us to believe, and hence was as completely unprepared as they appear to be well, as I said, that’s quite telling.

Sure, it wasn’t a given; not even close to be one. But it was definitely possible, and trending that way for at least a couple of weeks. To be unprepared to actually act on their own “a vote for Brown is a vote against Obama’s healthcare program” message borders on criminal negligence. You shouldn’t really be trying to excuse that.

Talking healthcare in the right way is political win, potentially huge. It completely turns the debate on its head, and takes a major issue away from the Democrats almost completely.

dwex, sometimes I feel that you let your intelligence get the best of you. When I was in design school, I had this teacher who would always write on the board “K.I.S.S.”. KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID… Meaning that whatever your message is, you should keep it very basic and simple to understand. Three reads at the most.

You are a Mercedes customer in Wal-Mart, my friend. The GOP can probably get the furthest right now by saying no, much like the dems did and patiantly waited 8 years for. It’s not a lot of time to wait, and offering solutions is just providing fodder for the enemy. Seriously, dude. Think about the dems election campaign:

• We’re going to create jobs (Union jobs)
• We’re going to end the war in Iraq (sometime)
• We’ll make sure every American has basic health care (we never promised it wouldn’t look like car insurance in the end)

The average dumb fuck in a trailer rocks their bad tooth around in their mouth, pays their Union dues, and changes from red to blue. The GOP is criticized for pandering to Christians, but these retards are just as bad.

Now tell me, do you really think that the average person would even recognize a good solution? No. They just want to hear that it’s solved. Or, if it might cost them a little bit personally, they will of course pass it up for the free solution.

People of wal mart dot com.

MW - I think you are right, but that is very depressing.

Do the parties have manifesto’s or anything like that? In the UK over the next month or so, all the major political parties have to produce a document outlining all their plans for if they get elected. If there is something missing, or something that doesn’t add up, that politician gets absolutely crucified in the press and in the commons.

Just a couple of weeks ago, David Cameron got absolutly roasted becasue he couldn’t remember immediatley his partys policy on Married Persons tax credits. Can you imagine if the conservatives didn’t actually have a plan for the NHS?

I guess my question is this. Why isn’t it more of a big deal? Why can’t the democrats on any single political talk show just ask whichever republican that is there exactly what they would plan to do about healthcare, and then wait for the silence that follows. Look into the camera and say ‘don’t vote Republican, they are making it up as they go along’. Surely that’s easy for the people of Walmart to understand?

(actually, I seem to remember someone did something similar a couple of weeks ago?)

The potential for Brown to win this was clear for at least two weeks before the election.

And what, exactly, do you think anyone in Washington regardless of their political agenda, can do in two weeks…?

I seriously don’t get your point.  Potential means nothing in this case - until the election actually was decided, I am not sure what you thought could have been done.  In any case, I think your point is still valid…two weeks after the election or even two months I would not hold my breath for the GOP to provide a counter solution….

And what, exactly, do you think anyone in Washington regardless of their political agenda, can do in two weeks…?

If the GOP actually had these healthcare alternatives to Obamacare that they and so many pundits have said they have, then all they should have needed to do was dust them off and bring those talking points along with them to the various speaking gigs they all got post-election.

If, however, your contention is that they didn’t have time to prepare a new healthcare agenda to talk about, well, that pretty much says all the prior talking is a complete load of nonsense.

Either way you look at it, it’s damning as hell for the GOP leadership. Either they had a plan and failed to take the opportunity to take the lead with it, or they didn’t actually have a plan and have been lying all along.

I don’t see how it can be anything else. Or perhaps concede that this is pure craven partisan politics, which is actually the most likely answer, as well as the most pathetic one.

Cress, a couple things you have to remember here. Universal healthcare is the Democrat’s boondoggle/bailiwick, they want the government to take over one fifth of the our economy and want to grow government, not the GOP.

A good analogy would be to take something near and dear to the GOP’s heart, like tax cuts. Supposing that a few years ago Bush got his tax cut proposal derailed by a special election winner, would the Dem’s seize on this opportunity and then declare a tax cut proposal of their own? OF COURSE NOT, they want nothing to do with tax cuts because (to their way of thinking) it clogs the spicket of the money flow and impedes their ability to do what they want, to grow government influence at the expense of the people.

The GOP understands that our health care system is not perfect and needs some tweaking, but they want to do it with the people making the choices, to fix it, not rebuild it from the ground up. To think that the GOP should now ride in and provide their own version of universal healthcare belies the fact that they were not on board with it in the first place.

But they are doing things near and dear to their heart, like trying to reign in government spending.

Rich - I’m sure there are a lot of reasons for this - the size of the counry and the system at work for example - but to my British sensibilities, the idea of a party having no policy (or a secret policy) on anything is wierd to me.

Healthcare policy is always changing - not always in the huge way that Obama is proposing, but in smaller ways.

Put it this way - when the Brits go to the polls later this year, they will know EXACTLY what each party promises to do on all issues. All pretty much budgetted out - so the electorate knows what they are voting for. Every time an issue comes up, the opposition have to come out with their opposing plan if they disagree with the Governments plan, and that goes for anything. It just seems odd that in healthcare, your options are 1) Obamacare or 2) Something else (To be decided) (also see Democrats : GWOT)

Although - maybe its a size issue - does this happen on a state scale?

the idea of a party having no policy (or a secret policy) on anything is wierd to me.

Who says they have no policy? As mentioned before:

Well, lets see, portability, tort reform, private sector inclusion, allowing those that are happy with their healthcare to keep it, fixing the flat tire as opposed to trying to rebuilt the car from the wheels up, yes, I’d say they have some very definite ideas.

Again, they don’t want “universal government run health care” but something less intrusive, more efficient, and more individually managed.

Put it this way - when the Brits go to the polls later this year, they will know EXACTLY what each party promises to do on all issues.

But this assumes 1) that all parties focus on the same issues as priorities, and 2) that once in power, they will make good on all their promises. Anyone who has lived beyond one voting cycle realizes that campaign promises reveal little into the actual governing style of a candidate, because they never deliver.

If we dial back that wayback machine and look into just a few of the Obama campaign promises:

Transparency in government, putting everything on CSPAN
No lobbyists in his administration
Closing Gitmo
No “business as usual” with special interest pandering
Out of Iraq within months
“Line by line” accountability of budgets to remove waste and redundancy
No tax increases on 85% of the people
A bipartisan approach to governing

Now, how many of those things has he made good on?

I’m not saying that the GOP is any better in this department, only that campaigning and governing is two different things.

As for 1) - Its not about priorities. It is with all issues. Each party might give more airtime to some policies (Blair : education) but when asked what they are going to do about anything else, they better have an answer, or else be discounted as taking the whole thing seriously.

2) And thats the beauty of it. You elect someone, and they have down in black and white what they are going to do. It wouldn’t be about going through the speeches on Youtube, it would be about taking a large black marker to the Obama manifesto. If the opposition can point to the black marks come election time, then the party isn’t going to get releected (see G.Brown in May)

Campaigning and Governing are two different things, but imagine if they weren’t. Imagine for a minute that everything a candidate said on a campaign wasn’t bullshit?