dstraito
TB Fanatic
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5d87e54e-0925-11df-ba88-00144feabdc0.html
Does anyone need a more worthless example of the liberal left agenda that would compromise the United States in order to further their own career and/or party?
This guy is a POS, an example of what the PROBLEM is and should not be given another minute's worth of air time.
His views are self-serving and just as narcissitic as the adiministration he extoles. For anyone who opines the end justifys the means, well dam# him to hell and hope this minion of satan is called home soon.
Democrats need to learn the blame game
By James Carville
Published: January 24 2010 20:20 | Last updated: January 24 2010 20:20
The most exciting spectator sport in American politics is in full swing in Washington following last Tuesday’s once-unthinkable election result. And it is just beginning.
Contrary to what you might think, I am a proud member of the pro finger-pointing caucus. It wasn’t too long ago that my longtime colleague Paul Begala and I urged our friends on the other side of the aisle to engage early and often in the blame game.
Now it is the Democrats’ turn. Point fingers is exactly what Democrats have done following Republican Scott Brown’s surprise victory in Massachusetts, and the subsequent setback for healthcare reform.
The White House, Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts attorney-general, Celinda Lake, her pollster, congressional Democrats, the Democratic National Committee, Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, and Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, are just a few of the circular firing squad that has sucked up every last breath in Washington this past week.
I should admit I watched the cataclysmic election and the subsequent war of words from over 9,000 miles away. As author of 40 More Years, in which I outline how the Democrats are well positioned for sustained electoral dominance for the next three decades, I couldn’t help but be happy to be watching the sun set in the Seychelles rather than have to defend my thesis (which I stick to) Stateside.
Democrats would not be playing the blame game with one another for the loss or for the healthcare debacle if they had only pointed fingers at those (or in this case, the one) who put Americans (and most of the world) in the predicament we’re in: George W. Bush.
It is under his disastrous tenure in the White House that health insurance premiums nearly doubled for the average American family and the number of uninsured skyrocketed. It was under Mr Bush that the deficit spiralled out of control as we fought an unnecessary and endless $3,000bn war in Iraq and enacted the largest unfunded entitlement programme in history with the Medicare prescription drug benefit. It was Mr Bush’s economic team that worshipped at the Church of Deregulation and was asleep at the wheel as banks and insurance companies became too big to fail.
But Barack Obama, the US president, and his team admirably and eloquently argued that the US was ready to turn the page on the Bush years, ready to be united. Rather than look backward we should march forward in a new post-partisan environment.
Part of the problem is that Mr Obama was refreshingly naive in believing his own rhetoric. He really believed we could rid Washington of revolving doors filled with lobbyists or that “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America”. Mr Obama and his team really believed he could bridge the partisan divide. Being elected as a change candidate in a change election does not translate into changing Washington. Nothing can change Washington.
You can’t fault him for believing forward-looking governance is what the country really wanted. He saved the economy from near collapse and was on the brink of passing sweeping healthcare reform. But at some point reality catches up with you. So as the healthcare bill sat in committee for months waiting for a Republican senator to support it, momentum began to build for reform’s opponents. “Tea parties” popped up in the unlikeliest places, and Republican obstructionism set in firmly. No votes for the costly but necessary bail-outs, no votes for the stimulus package, and virtually no votes on healthcare.
While Republicans decided that obstructionism would be their winning tool of choice, Democrats were left trying to explain what happened to the thriving America they once knew. Democrats were blamed for the recession and 10 per cent unemployment, while Mr Bush raised millions for his presidential library in Texas.
In the end, blaming Mr Bush might not have been enough to win in Massachusetts, or to deflect anger from the governing party, or to get a healthcare bill signed. Maybe healthcare reform is just hard. Just think, if the US only spent $4,763 per person on healthcare costs, like Norway (the second-highest per capita costs of a developed nation), there would be nearly $750bn less to spread around insurance and drug companies and their 3,000 lobbyists. There’s a reason why Presidents Truman, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton all failed before.
There is still a chance Mr Obama and congressional Democrats can get some aspects of reform passed in the coming months. And the shift toward populism – reining in a banking industry which so badly needs it – will appease both allies and tea party critics alike. But Mr Obama now knows that he and his Democratic majority in Congress are mostly on their own in their attempt to get the American economy and morale back on track. In the aftermath of Massachusetts, our country and our political system seem more divided than ever.
My Republican wife Mary Matalin recently pointed out that: “It was once said of Mike Tyson, he hits you so hard, he changes the way you taste. If we (Republicans) win a seat in Massachusetts on the signature issue of the Obama agenda, healthcare, this will change the way politics tastes.” And taste differently it does: sweet harmony has turned sour in Washington.
The writer, chief strategist for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, is an international political consultant
Does anyone need a more worthless example of the liberal left agenda that would compromise the United States in order to further their own career and/or party?
This guy is a POS, an example of what the PROBLEM is and should not be given another minute's worth of air time.
His views are self-serving and just as narcissitic as the adiministration he extoles. For anyone who opines the end justifys the means, well dam# him to hell and hope this minion of satan is called home soon.
Democrats need to learn the blame game
By James Carville
Published: January 24 2010 20:20 | Last updated: January 24 2010 20:20
The most exciting spectator sport in American politics is in full swing in Washington following last Tuesday’s once-unthinkable election result. And it is just beginning.
Contrary to what you might think, I am a proud member of the pro finger-pointing caucus. It wasn’t too long ago that my longtime colleague Paul Begala and I urged our friends on the other side of the aisle to engage early and often in the blame game.
Now it is the Democrats’ turn. Point fingers is exactly what Democrats have done following Republican Scott Brown’s surprise victory in Massachusetts, and the subsequent setback for healthcare reform.
The White House, Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts attorney-general, Celinda Lake, her pollster, congressional Democrats, the Democratic National Committee, Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, and Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, are just a few of the circular firing squad that has sucked up every last breath in Washington this past week.
I should admit I watched the cataclysmic election and the subsequent war of words from over 9,000 miles away. As author of 40 More Years, in which I outline how the Democrats are well positioned for sustained electoral dominance for the next three decades, I couldn’t help but be happy to be watching the sun set in the Seychelles rather than have to defend my thesis (which I stick to) Stateside.
Democrats would not be playing the blame game with one another for the loss or for the healthcare debacle if they had only pointed fingers at those (or in this case, the one) who put Americans (and most of the world) in the predicament we’re in: George W. Bush.
It is under his disastrous tenure in the White House that health insurance premiums nearly doubled for the average American family and the number of uninsured skyrocketed. It was under Mr Bush that the deficit spiralled out of control as we fought an unnecessary and endless $3,000bn war in Iraq and enacted the largest unfunded entitlement programme in history with the Medicare prescription drug benefit. It was Mr Bush’s economic team that worshipped at the Church of Deregulation and was asleep at the wheel as banks and insurance companies became too big to fail.
But Barack Obama, the US president, and his team admirably and eloquently argued that the US was ready to turn the page on the Bush years, ready to be united. Rather than look backward we should march forward in a new post-partisan environment.
Part of the problem is that Mr Obama was refreshingly naive in believing his own rhetoric. He really believed we could rid Washington of revolving doors filled with lobbyists or that “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America”. Mr Obama and his team really believed he could bridge the partisan divide. Being elected as a change candidate in a change election does not translate into changing Washington. Nothing can change Washington.
You can’t fault him for believing forward-looking governance is what the country really wanted. He saved the economy from near collapse and was on the brink of passing sweeping healthcare reform. But at some point reality catches up with you. So as the healthcare bill sat in committee for months waiting for a Republican senator to support it, momentum began to build for reform’s opponents. “Tea parties” popped up in the unlikeliest places, and Republican obstructionism set in firmly. No votes for the costly but necessary bail-outs, no votes for the stimulus package, and virtually no votes on healthcare.
While Republicans decided that obstructionism would be their winning tool of choice, Democrats were left trying to explain what happened to the thriving America they once knew. Democrats were blamed for the recession and 10 per cent unemployment, while Mr Bush raised millions for his presidential library in Texas.
In the end, blaming Mr Bush might not have been enough to win in Massachusetts, or to deflect anger from the governing party, or to get a healthcare bill signed. Maybe healthcare reform is just hard. Just think, if the US only spent $4,763 per person on healthcare costs, like Norway (the second-highest per capita costs of a developed nation), there would be nearly $750bn less to spread around insurance and drug companies and their 3,000 lobbyists. There’s a reason why Presidents Truman, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton all failed before.
There is still a chance Mr Obama and congressional Democrats can get some aspects of reform passed in the coming months. And the shift toward populism – reining in a banking industry which so badly needs it – will appease both allies and tea party critics alike. But Mr Obama now knows that he and his Democratic majority in Congress are mostly on their own in their attempt to get the American economy and morale back on track. In the aftermath of Massachusetts, our country and our political system seem more divided than ever.
My Republican wife Mary Matalin recently pointed out that: “It was once said of Mike Tyson, he hits you so hard, he changes the way you taste. If we (Republicans) win a seat in Massachusetts on the signature issue of the Obama agenda, healthcare, this will change the way politics tastes.” And taste differently it does: sweet harmony has turned sour in Washington.
The writer, chief strategist for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, is an international political consultant
