quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Do you agree that the continued growth of the settlements is highly provocative to Palestinians?
Israel's existence is highly provocative. They consider all of Israel to be occupied Palestine. Tel Aviv is a "settlement" to them.
Their insistence on wiping us out is provocative to us. When will they stop that?
Nice non-answer.
Big issues that need to be resolved include: -rockets, suicide attacks etc. -recognition of Israel. -settlements.
Everyone knows this. What should the Palestinians read into the continued expansion of the settlements?
You're looking at this through the lens of a perspective that didn't exist until the early 90s, and the Oslo accords.
Settlements are not an issue. Nor are rocket attacks and recognition anything but symptoms of the larger issue, which is the Arab/Muslim refusal to countenance a Jewish state in the region they consider their own.
You're fooling yourself if you think that there's anything that will satisfy them short of all the Jews packing up and leaving.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Dismissing "the housing needs of settlers" when we're talking about essentially making yet another area Judenrein (like Gaza)."
Either Israel ought annex the territories and give the Palestinians there full Israeli citizenship and voting rights, or it should stop these settlements.
The settlers have no business there. Occupation is one thing, and even occupation can be justified in the case of danger. But settlements are an attempt to displace the native population and they can't be seen as anything but a form of ethnic cleansing, same as China sending Han Chinese to change the demographics of Tibet.
The "two-state nonsense" as you call it, is the only solution that doesn't include a either the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from Israel or all the ethnic cleansing of all Arabs from Palestine.
You say, Lisa, "they consider all of Israel to be occupied Palestine". The problem is that you (and the current Israeli governnment) seems to consider all of Palestine to be not-yet-cleansed Israel.
And you may want to consider "Arabs" as one single group, but truth is that you got peace with Egypt, you got peace with Jordan, and Hamas often seems to be fighting Fatah more than it's fighting Israelis.
And guess what? Hamas doesn't want a Palestinian state either. Fatah does. Which one is a worse enemy, the ones wanting a two-state solution, or the ones believing that a two-state solution will never work?
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: "Dismissing "the housing needs of settlers" when we're talking about essentially making yet another area Judenrein (like Gaza)."
Either Israel ought annex the territories and give the Palestinians there full Israeli citizenship and voting rights, or it should stop these settlements.
No. Israel should annex the territories and give the Arabs a couple hundred thousand dollars per family and a ticket to the country of their choice.
Not only the Arabs in the territories, but the Arabs who currently have Israeli citizenship should be required to take an oath of loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state, or leave.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: The settlers have no business there. Occupation is one thing, and even occupation can be justified in the case of danger. But settlements are an attempt to displace the native population and they can't be seen as anything but a form of ethnic cleansing, same as China sending Han Chinese to change the demographics of Tibet.
They aren't "the native population". Nor is it occupation. For the takeover of territory to be considered occupation, it must be taken over from a polity. Who did Israel take Judea and Samaria from? Jordan. Whose annexation of those lands went unrecognized by the entire world (other than Britain and Pakistan). What polity preceded Jordan as overlords? That'd be Britain, who requested an end to the British Mandate in 1948. Once the Mandate ended, the UN's offer of two states went into effect.
The thing is, Aris, the Jews accepted the offer. The Arabs declined. Violently. So no Arab polity came into being in those lands, and when Israel took them in 1967, they were politically ownerless.
Now, if you're talking about private ownership, that's another story. What about all the land that Jews bought prior to 1948? One of the settlements that was destroyed in Gaza was built originally on land bought by Jews, and then conquered by Egypt in 1948. Is there any sane way you can call it occupation when Israel took it back in 1967? The same is true of the Etzion Bloc of settlements south of Jerusalem. In 1948, the Arabs massacred the inhabitants who didn't manage to escape, and in 1967, the area was rebuilt. That's occupation?
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: The "two-state nonsense" as you call it, is the only solution that doesn't include a either the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from Israel or all the ethnic cleansing of all Arabs from Palestine.
Well, I can guarantee you that so long as there is a Jewish state in the middle east, the Arabs will continue their war against it. So I'm fine with expelling them and dealing with an external enemy instead of an internal one.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: You say, Lisa, "they consider all of Israel to be occupied Palestine". The problem is that you (and the current Israeli governnment) seems to consider all of Palestine to be not-yet-cleansed Israel.
Yes, I do consider all of it to be Israel. Of course it is. And your continued use of "cleansed" for removing a genocidal populace is noted and disregarded.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: And you may want to consider "Arabs" as one single group, but truth is that you got peace with Egypt, you got peace with Jordan, and Hamas often seems to be fighting Fatah more than it's fighting Israelis.
I wish people would stop calling it Fatah and go back to calling it the PLO. That's what Fatah means, you know. It's an abbreviation (reversed, because the actual abbreviation was embarrassing) of PLO in Arabic. It's a terrorist organization, and Hamas is just PLO+.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: And guess what? Hamas doesn't want a Palestinian state either. Fatah does. Which one is a worse enemy, the ones wanting a two-state solution, or the ones believing that a two-state solution will never work?
The ones wanting a two-state solution. Thanks for asking.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm moving this discussion to a new topic. This one has lasted 24 pages, and on the chance that this subject attains lockability, I don't want to get this topic locked.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked this take on Obama's speech. It summarized much of the feeling I had about it. Overall, I thought it hit the right tone, but I tend to disagree with Lyrhawn's suggestion that it approached any real(istic) policy proposals. From the article:
quote:Still, I can't help but feel frustrated that I've been watching Obama closely for more than two years now, and after an hour-long speech in Cairo today, I still don't have a clear read of which way he'll come down on the looming hard decisions for which there is no middle ground, try as he may to carve some out. He talked about violent extremist groups and democratic elections. Well, Hezbollah is about to win one (partly) in a few days. Then what? He talked about democracy and the non-linear path that it often takes. Well, I'm not sure where on that path the Egyptian or Saudi governments are, and surely today's speech won't stop them from imprisoning peaceful dissidents, and worse. So, then what? How hard will Obama strain those relationships for the sake of human rights, if at all? Or for that matter, how hard will he push his own Congress and State Department to restore the funding that was recently cut for democratic reformers in Egypt? He talked about the war in Afghanistan, which may very well get worse before the new commanders, troops, civilians, and resources can make it better over the coming year, and many in Obama's own party may start heading for the door. Then what? I wish I knew.
posted
I must have misspoke, though I'm not sure where. I didn't really see him laying out any specific policy proposals, but then I don't think that's what the speech was about.
It was a big olive branch and a coming out party. I didn't think it was the place for new policy proposals. Sure there were a couple specifics like rebuilding Afghanistan, and reaffirmations of policies already in place like troop withdrawals in Iraq. But the speech was from the get go more about good will than it was good policy.
But yeah, I agree with a lot of that article too when it comes to the issue of what comes next is certainly the real crux of the problems in our relationship with the MidEast. I said as much in my pre-speech comments. And like I said there, there isn't going to be a single problem he can fix that won't have huge ripple effects. Pushing for human rights will come at the expense of relationships with the leaders of the countries we'd be pushing, and those leaders provide intelligence and increasingly a coalition to use against Iran. If Obama has to choose between an Iranian nuke and support for human rights in places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, I think we know it will be the Iranian nuke that takes precedence, but both are still issues at hand.
We're living in a world where, like he laid out, there really are six or seven issues at hand as a real MidEast agenda for the United States, and some of them are diametrically opposed to each other, and pulling one thread is going to unravel another. And for that matter, no matter what he does, someone is going to slam him for it.
So, did it suggest any new policy proposals? Not really, but it did set the new policy framework for what we'll be dealing with in the Middle East, and it did so quite well I think. Now that we know what's at hand, how do we solve it? Well that comes next. We'll wait and see.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: "Words alone aren't cannot meet the needs of our people," hm, maybe I was wrong, he will do something concrete. Okay, from the looks of things, he's actually laying out an agenda. Interesting.
Rereading your commentary (which I certainly understand only reflects your impressions at various points of the speech, this one pretty early on), I see you never really said he was making concrete proposals. However, I don't really think what he gave was an agenda, either; it was more a wish list. One that I think most people can agree on, and that ruffled as few feathers as possible. It was a good speech, but I'm waiting to see what comes next.
On a nit-picky note, he used one of my least favorite of his rhetorical devices. John Dickerson pointed out in an article a couple months ago how Obama is a "nuance-free exaggerator." He often frames an extreme position of expectation, and then benefits by seeming reasonable in comparison. Examples Dickerson points out include the following:
quote:Some of my reporter friends from the States were asking, 'How come you didn't solve everything on this trip?'
quote:We did a video, sending a message to the Iranian people and the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran. And some people said, 'Well, they did not immediately say that we're eliminating nuclear weapons and stop funding terrorism.'
Dickerson goes on to point out that Obama uses this device to not only contain expectations, but also to caricature his opponents viewpoints, putting words in their mouths that no one ever said (sound familiar, Hatrack?).
From the speech last night he said
quote:I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust...
It's hard to argue with the sentiment. In fact, I'd call it impossible. Which is why I doubt any of the pre-publicity of the speech set any such expectation, despite Obama's intimation that it did.
Anyway, not a criticism, just a vague annoyance. As I said, on the whole I think it was a good speech that offended few and prepared the ground for hopefully at least modest progress.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj: I agree that the device can be annoying, but at the same time sometimes you have to preempt those extreme statements so that the talking heads can't use them. I could easily see certain news outlets saying, "It's ridiculous that the president thinks that by just making speeches he can solve our biggest foreign policy problem, maybe he should take a look at our troops and realize that they are doing the most for our country's interests."
or "What did that speech accomplish? I'll be nice and answer my own question, nothing!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where are all the non-conservatives speaking out against Obama now?
Try reading the non-conservative press some time. Or just wait. Obama's been a huge disappointment to the Left already, and the muttering started a while ago. It'll get loud within a year, I promise.
It was already at that point in Canada when I left a week ago. Even our right-wing pro-business newspapers have been regularly running articles on Obama's hypocrisy when it comes to protectionism while the actual left-wing newspapers have been eating up the hypocrisy on issues such as torture and transparency.
Obama's foreign "honeymoon" at least in Canada has been pretty short-lived.
Edit to add: Here's a good example in one of Canada's more left-wing newspapers
quote:The saint is no longer quite so saintly. Barack Obama began his presidency promising a sea change in the way America handles civil liberties. Now, four months later, and after a masterful – if unconvincing – attempt this week to explain his contradictions, he's shown that he's still an old-time Chicago pol.
Willing to wheel, willing to deal and – when the going gets tough – willing to retreat.
Americans have already figured out that Obama is a mere mortal. But to the star-struck world outside, his abrupt reversal on the use of Guantanamo Bay military commissions is a stark reminder that the new U.S. president is more man than god.
He's also more like George W. Bush than either would care to admit.
...
He boasts about his decision to ban torture by government interrogators. But read the fine print: He would still permit the use of so-called extraordinary rendition – sending prisoners to be tortured in other countries.
And, as Central Intelligence Agency chief Leon Panetta told a Congressional committee this year, Obama has left open the possibility of authorizing harsher, unspecified interrogation techniques.
Obama once opposed Bush's use of domestic wiretaps as an unnecessary infringement on civil liberties. He now happily uses those same wiretaps.
As a senator, Obama staunchly fought Bush's attempt to forge a free trade deal with Colombia because of that nation's human-rights abuses. He now supports the deal and has ordered his trade representative to make it happen.
quote: However, I don't really think what he gave was an agenda, either; it was more a wish list. One that I think most people can agree on, and that ruffled as few feathers as possible. It was a good speech, but I'm waiting to see what comes next.
Didn't he specifically call it an agenda? It was a list of all the major points of contention or things that need to be addressed between the West and the MidEast. I'd call that an agenda.
Besides, "agenda" and "wish list" aren't mutually exclusive. Just because you want to solve something on the agenda doesn't mean it gets solved, it just means it needs to be addressed.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't think it's valuable to see how people who oppose your own view on things express their view?
In fairness, I was being maybe 90% sincere and 10% sarcastic, since Lisa could have more accurately titled the link "An extremely pro-Israeli lens through which to view the Cairo speech."
I don't think the people on the opposite end of the spectrum from Lisa's link, those who think the speech was all sunshine and rainbows and the best thing ever are right either. But seeing the extremes, for me, makes it really easy to spot the flaws in their arguments that might get lost in an analysis written in gray rather than black and white. You have to be careful not to allow over the top arguments like that one color your judgment too much, lest you start to think it's actually representative of a huge population, rather than being a loud mouth one off (which it may or may not be), though.
And then there's the very real possibility that I might have just missed something. I think of myself as pretty smart most of the time, and that I have good enough background knowledge to analyze Obama's speech in the right context and against my own personal beliefs for what is right and wrong, and what we as a nation should and should not do. But I rarely close the door to the possibility that I'm wrong, and I'll never know I'm wrong unless I go looking for other viewpoints, no matter how extreme, that might point out something that I totally missed, or that engage a flaw in my reasoning. Or I might still be right but using faulty logic, so it allows me to refine and hone my argument.
Besides, if for no other reason, if you aren't listening to a multitude of opinions, you're just hearing your own echo, and that's no fun at all. Discussing the issue with a bunch of adherents is fun for a pep rally, but if you want to accomplish something, you have to engage people who hold fast to extreme ends of the spectrum, both to learn and understand where they are coming from, and to represent your own views before them.
I might have overanswered you, since I suspect you don't have a problem with reading up on opposing views, but merely want to know why I'd place value on such an extreme end of the spectrum of opinions. And the answer to that is: In America anyway, I think the average politico will tell you that maybe 20% of the country is die hard Democrat and 20% is die hard Republican, and 60% will swing whichever way they feel most appropriate given a set of circumstances. Just because someone holds an extreme view doesn't mean they can be dismissed, because they still have power, and friends, and the opinion makers among them have influence. They can't be ignored, so rather than view them through a filter or not view them at all, from time to time it's best to hear it straight from the horse's mouth to see what everyone is saying, so you can consider it fairly, dismiss it, agree with it, qualify it, or whatever, but at least you're ready when you hear someone of like mind put forth that argument, everyone has had their fair attempt at a say, and pluralism reigns.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I might have overanswered you, since I suspect you don't have a problem with reading up on opposing views, but merely want to know why I'd place value on such an extreme end of the spectrum of opinions. And the answer to that is: In America anyway, I think the average politico will tell you that maybe 20% of the country is die hard Democrat and 20% is die hard Republican, and 60% will swing whichever way they feel most appropriate given a set of circumstances. Just because someone holds an extreme view doesn't mean they can be dismissed, because they still have power, and friends, and the opinion makers among them have influence. They can't be ignored, so rather than view them through a filter or not view them at all, from time to time it's best to hear it straight from the horse's mouth to see what everyone is saying, so you can consider it fairly, dismiss it, agree with it, qualify it, or whatever, but at least you're ready when you hear someone of like mind put forth that argument, everyone has had their fair attempt at a say, and pluralism reigns.
I think the general consensus is that it's 30, 30, 40 in America, but other than that, I think what you said is fair. You should try reading Think Progress or Daily Kos and then go right to Red State or Townhall, it is such an interesting dichotomy and 9.5 times out of 10 they find a way to look at any problem from two completely different angles.
I do believe there is value in extreme thought, but only in so much as it shows us what shouldn't be and is wrong. And that's why I asked the question, I don't place too much value on extreme thought because I think that, by definition, it is illogical and false. I think the trick is deciphering what is extreme and what is not, what is conspiratorial or not, but other than that, cheers Lyrhawn.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to calculate the percentages of Die-hards, there's more lefties than righties. The lefties are extraordinarily fissiparous, the righties are single-minded and still well-organized in the wake of the Bush years. There's a concentrated core of 'red-staters' that are given incredible solidity by their undying attachment to what are often called wedge issues but to them are the issues: anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-gay, pro-god, pro-god in government, pro war on terror, pro supply side economics, pro deregulation, etc.
Nate Silver puts these at about 20% of the American population. They have been the driving force behind all of the tumult of contemporary politics because it is their role, their political viability, their legacy, and their stature that has changed dramatically over the past ten years. The short copy is that they used to be the driving force behind Republican victories, but they have rapidly transformed into a political liability and they are purposefully driving a wedge between themselves and the moderates of the party.
The liberal bloc is larger and growing, but they're all over the place. They're 'aligned' towards liberal values, but only the same way a bunch of cats can be considered 'aligned' just by being in the same house.
The 'mainstream' populace is apparently sort of shifting over to a sort of left-center (!) that most resembles and probably explains the success of Blue Dogs and Westy Dems.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
That wasn't analysis so much as "rantalysis." There wasn't anything that approaches careful consideration in the man's post, just a whole bunch of 'gotchas' and 'whydidncha.' I mean speaking from Indonesia? Seriously? That's like trying to give a human rights speech directed at the Chinese people from Toronto or San Fransisco. Most of his points were in effect, "Thanks for bringing up this idea, but because you didn't talk about it as much as I would have, you didn't do that idea justice, you might as well have not spoken at all!" You can't bring up slavery unless you disown your ancestors who may or may not have been involved in that slave trade. Saying that supporting nuclear energy for Iran indicates that one is OK with them getting nuclear weapons is probably the best non sequitur I've heard so far this week, maybe this month.
Come on Lisa, I like healthy criticism of all ideas as much as anybody should, but that can't be the best critique of the speech out there. Just because the writer seems to dislike Obama as much as you do doesn't mean he's right.
Fawn Brodie is an exmormon who is no fan of the church, but she still has done some of the best scholarship on Joseph Smith there is. If she was a slathering rabid madwoman who would pay attention to her?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Thus far (I'm flipping back and forth between this and the US Open), I think that he's been very clear, very concise, and very informative.
Congress has been more reactive than I've ever seen during a presidential address. Republicans were actually catcalling at one point. Otherwise, it's been like the Sharks and Jets have been elected to Congress based on the somewhat funny back and forth they're doing.
Thus far he's hit all the sweet spots I want to hear, with the exception of tort reform, which I hope to hear before the end of the speech, whether the Dems want to hear it or not.
My biggest problem? He needed to give this speech two months ago.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This has always been the history of our progress. In 1933, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.
You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter - that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.
What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road - to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.
But that's not what the moment calls for. That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it.
Yup, well, good luck.
Ironically, Boustany (the guy they chose for the republican 'response' speech) is also the co-sponsor of the "Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act of 2009" which would mandate that Medicare reimburse the cost of end-of-life counseling, a.k.a.'d as the "death panels."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could tell he was chosen only because he's a doctor. He has shockingly little charisma or positive on screen quality.
Some interesting reactions to the speech:
Early polls are showing a double digit gain in support of Obama's plan (now that he's actually elucidated one), and among those who actually watched the speech, 67% responded favorably, though the audience is believed to be more Democrat than Republican. Still, I think that number ranks higher than his previous purely Democratic favorability ratings, which still indicates a post speech bump.
Joe Wilson, the man who shouted "you lie!" when the president stated that healthcare for illegal immigrants was not part of the package, seems to be the biggest subject of attention following the speech. He called to apologize afterward, and has been condemned or castigated by pretty much everyone who can find their way to a microphone, regardless of party.
Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who along with Republicans like Susan Collins (R-ME) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA), were supposed to be key players in Obama's drive for bipartisanship, has come out in opposition to a straight out public option for the reform bill. Grassley, actually, has turned from a Kennedy ally supporter of reform to saying that the plan will 'pull the plug on grandma,' which is a pretty interesting turn of positions. Snowe, like centrist Democrat Ben Nelson (NE, I think), is leery of the public option, though more because it's a huge stumbling block to passage of the bill rather than for ideological reasons. Snowe and others have suggested, as the president mentioned tonight, a trigger, which, if certain cost inefficiencies are not remedied, would allow for a public option to become available if other attempted remedies don't function well enough. If Dems can't get people like Grassley, Nelson, and Snowe on board for a bipartisan bill, and Democrats can't pass it alone, they might have to settle for just such a compromise.
What's the real thrust of the speech? Obama is banking on turning back the tidal wave of anger that Republicans have stirred up at town halls across the country. No one knew what was going on, and confusion is to water as fear is to mosquitoes: a potent breeding ground. He's trying to move the debate back to substance, for one, and back into his court, for another. If he drops the ball and hands it back off to Congress, this will all have been for nothing, but if he hammers the point and leads the negotiations, then the last couple months of disarray might actually wash away a bit. A lot of that will depend on the media, and to a degree, none of it really matters, as an extremely small number of Republicans are actually going to vote differently just because of that, but it might move the debate, and it might put Democrats back in the drivers' seat for the first time in months. If even that happens, then the speech was well worth it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The speech isn't as important as the actual bills being written. If the bills stay the same, or more likely are written even worse than they are now, then the opposition will continue. I can see the Democrats writing terrible bills again which will force any 'trigger' for the public option to occur.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am watching it now (I put my kids to bed at 7-8 in the evening). I'm liking it. He's been very vague before and this time he was far more clear and specific. I actually wouldn't even mind something more like universal health care, but he made a valid argument for building on what we have now. Though, I suspect, it's got a lot more to do with the fact that our very conservative country simply isn't ready for that kind of radical change.
I was actually disappointed that the public option is only available to those who can't get insurance any other way. I would actually like to see us eliminate the employer-based health insurance in which the companies we work for get to choose our plans for us. My family has seen the best and worst of that. The job my husband just quit came with absolutely atrocious insurance (he worked for an insurance company ). He started a new job this week and we're excited to be switching next month, but still...I see real need for individual choice rather than company choice.
Without competition on an individual level, we have to hope that his other proposed changes will actually work -- caps on out of pocket expenses, no caps on how much the insurance company will pay for care, no pre-existing conditions, and no cutting someone off when they need treatment. Yes, these are all things that need to happen but I'm worried about how enforceable they will be and on the flipside, how affordable they will be. These are currently the way insurance companies make money. It seems like he's asking insurance companies to take a serious hit to their bottom line.
But those doubts aside, I did at least think the speech was (finally) what we needed to hear: what this plan is about. I would even go so far as to say that I support the passing of this plan if for no other reason than we need to do something and I am now confident that this proposal will make improvements and do less harm than good.
So I don't know about anyone else but I was on the fence and now I support the bill. It's a compromise, but that's what our government does. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The speech isn't as important as the actual bills being written. If the bills stay the same, or more likely are written even worse than they are now, then the opposition will continue.
This speech wasn't really directed at either the cheerleading liberals or opposing conservatives, neither of which are likely to change their position regardless of what the bill actually contains. The purpose of this speech was to provide some cover to Blue Dog Dems and to provide specific information to the confused and undecideds which haven't really understood what exactly the proposed reforms would involve.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: The speech isn't as important as the actual bills being written. If the bills stay the same, or more likely are written even worse than they are now, then the opposition will continue. I can see the Democrats writing terrible bills again which will force any 'trigger' for the public option to occur.
You think Democrats are so ideologically entrenched in the idea of having a public option that they would intentionally sabotage the rest of the bill, and health care in general, just so they could have an excuse to get the public option?
quote:Originally posted by Christine: So I don't know about anyone else but I was on the fence and now I support the bill. It's a compromise, but that's what our government does.
quote:Joe Wilson, the man who shouted "you lie!" when the president stated that healthcare for illegal immigrants was not part of the package, seems to be the biggest subject of attention following the speech. He called to apologize afterward, and has been condemned or castigated by pretty much everyone who can find their way to a microphone, regardless of party.
This bit amazed me -- it's as if he thinks that by yelling loud enough he can change the facts. The illegal immigrant exception is explicitly stated in the bill. Opening up the public option to illegals doesn't really help the Democrats, so why would they put it in the bill?
posted
Well, the idea would be that illegal immigrants use ER facilities just like other uninsured people do. If the idea is to get them insured so they cost the system less as a whole, then insuring them would make sense.
But it's a political impossibility.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well, the idea would be that illegal immigrants use ER facilities just like other uninsured people do. If the idea is to get them insured so they cost the system less as a whole, then insuring them would make sense.
But it's a political impossibility.
Exactly. I was actually disappointed when he said that illegal immigrants wouldn't be covered but I do understand why it has to be this way.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a compromise I'm willing to live with if it means getting reform as a whole passed.
Illegal immigrants will still seek and receive ER care in most states, and it's a battle I'd be willing to take on after the bigger problem is solved.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As compared to...I don't know...letting them bleed to death in the hospital waiting room. I mean, after all, they aren't US Citizens, and are criminals.
It is sad that on one day in Washington DC illegal immigrants, who are not Citizens, lose while the corporations who employ them have their rights bolstered. (Supreme Court listening to arguments that Corporations have the same freedom of speech as citizens, so can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.)
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well theoretically, corporations who employ illegal immigrants wouldn't be the exempted small businesses that Obama was referring to, and they would be legally required to contribute to the fund or provide even their illegal workers with some sort of health insurance.
I'm wondering if businesses will find new ways around who they have to report as workers, but a large number of the millions of employed illegals already pay income and state taxes, as they are employed using falsified records, but their employment is still recorded. It'll be interesting to see the response from the business world to mandated coverage.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:CNN is reporting a double-digit bump for health care reform in the wake of Obama's speech:
Two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama's health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans — a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll of people who tuned into Obama's address Wednesday night to a joint session of Congress.
At least one organization's focus group found the biggest gains among swing voters:
Support for Obama’s plan jumped 20 points, from 46 percent before the speech to 66 percent after. Importantly, Obama also achieved one of his principal goals of boosting the intensity of support. Prior to the speech, just 2 percent of these swing voters supported the plan strongly while 26 percent opposed it strongly; by the end of the evening those numbers were virtually reversed, with 28 percent supporting the plan strongly against just 8 percent strongly opposed. The president was also extremely successful in moving the needle on areas where progressives have struggled over the last few months, making great strides in reassuring voters on issues like the deficits and taxes, seniors and Medicare, choice and control, competition and costs, and government intervention.
posted
A lot of that is sort of pointless without telling us how many people actually watched the speech. I love poll numbers in a vacuum.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: interesting, i seem to remember most of the pre election polls being pretty accurate.
The poll is accurate of people who watched the speech, but the conclusions drawn are misleading in that the poll is more Democrat than any other group. This poll does not mean the nation as a whole, or independents and republicans, are more in favor of the democrat health care plan.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DarkKnight, it only claims that it is a poll of people who watched the speech. That isn't misleading to people who bother to read.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: interesting, i seem to remember most of the pre election polls being pretty accurate.
The poll is accurate of people who watched the speech, but the conclusions drawn are misleading in that the poll is more Democrat than any other group. This poll does not mean the nation as a whole, or independents and republicans, are more in favor of the democrat health care plan.
No, but then again Obama was never going to get the people with their fingers in their ear. He did seem to get a number of people who were at least somewhat inclined to hear what he had to say.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: interesting, i seem to remember most of the pre election polls being pretty accurate.
The poll is accurate of people who watched the speech, but the conclusions drawn are misleading in that the poll is more Democrat than any other group. This poll does not mean the nation as a whole, or independents and republicans, are more in favor of the democrat health care plan.
What are you talking about?
Poll #1 is selective to people who watched the speech, and it states that plainly.
Poll no. #2 is taken from a focus group designed to be representative of swing voters, not democrats. It means it would primarily be a sampling of independents and weak partisans.
If you want to claim bias in a poll, don't make stuff up to do so.
Independents and swing voters are, by the way, actually more in favor of the health care proposal post-speech. Just fyi.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: No, but then again Obama was never going to get the people with their fingers in their ear. He did seem to get a number of people who were at least somewhat inclined to hear what he had to say.
More from the instant-response analysis (that stuff where people are essentially given a dial and asked to rate their approval or disapproval in realtime)
quote:Obama also made great progress in reestablishing that he is “on your side” – one of the traits our polling has consistently shown to be a key driver of his overall approval – with the percentage saying this describes Obama “well” jumping from 50 to 72 percent.
Significantly, Obama’s speech played well across the political spectrum. Traditionally, voters from the opposite party of the president tend to score consistently low and to create huge partisan divides in these dial tests. That was not the case with Obama’s speech. With just a few exceptions, Republicans held solidly around 50 and even exceeded 70 percent favorability during parts of the president’s speech, giving particularly high scores to Obama’s remarks on not adding a penny to the deficit, creating a health care exchange, protecting Medicare, and reforming medical malpractice. While Republicans in the audience may have viewed this as a partisan speech, those outside of the room clearly did not.
Several sections of the speech stood out for their resonance across party lines. Voters, especially independents, reacted strongly to Obama’s determination to end the partisanship on both sides and to build on the current system to get reform done, with the dials spiking when he proclaimed that “now is the season for action.” Obama’s call to hold insurance companies accountable, particularly with his pledge to end the practices of rescission and denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and to implement insurance exchanges, received some of the highest marks of the night, with the dials topping 80.
Two focus groups were conducted among select participants following the speech – one among those who switched from opposing Obama’s plan before the speech to supporting it after, and one among those whose support shifted from weak to strong. Among those who shifted from opposition to support, there was consensus that Obama gave a powerful and compelling speech that hit on many key issues. While they continued to express skepticism about cost and the ability to execute such widespread change at once, they repeatedly cited the reassurances offered by Obama – the plan pays for itself and will not increase the deficit, no coverage for illegal immigrants, medical malpractice reform, and his sharp rebuke on death panels – as the parts of the speech which stood out most to them. They also highlighted the end of lost coverage for pre-existing conditions or serious illnesses as critical and expressed confidence that his plan will be able to control costs to some degree. More than anything, they shared a belief that something must be done and that a failure to deliver any reform represents a victory for the insurance companies and other special interests who profit most from the status quo.
One of the most striking aspects of tonight’s speech was the large increase in people who went from “somewhat supporting” to “strongly supporting” the Obama health care plan. In our focus group discussion, these voters agreed that the president did an excellent job of explaining his priorities and refuting the horror stories they have been hearing from the media or from email chains.
quote:Last week, just 40 percent of these adults approved of how the president was handling health care. More, 47 percent, disapproved. After the speech, 52 percent said they approved and only 38 percent said they disapproved. Those are the best assessments for Mr. Obama's handling of health care shown all year by CBS News Polls.
President Obama's speech was particularly successful in unifying Democrats. Now, 85 percent of them approve of his handling of health care.
Approval rates also rose among independents and Republicans, but independents are still divided and only 17 percent of Republicans approve of the president's health care actions.
posted
It seemed to me that the speech was basically targeted to blue-dogs. I think the poll numbers support that.
This is something they should have done some time ago: abandon attempts at bipartisanship and work to consolidate your party.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
WaPo poll shows 3 point post Obama-speech bounce for health care reform. The proposal(s) went from 45-50 against to 46-48 against. The 20-point instant poll improvement Samp linked above appears to have been somewhat evanescent. I wonder if there's any substantive work on modeling the dynamics of public opinion poll data...
posted
The numbers that Samp referenced were only among speech watchers, not the general population. It wasn't temporary, it was incomplete.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:WaPo poll shows 3 point post Obama-speech bounce for health care reform. The proposal(s) went from 45-50 against to 46-48 against. The 20-point instant poll improvement Samp linked above appears to have been somewhat evanescent. I wonder if there's any substantive work on modeling the dynamics of public opinion poll data...
What? No, the numbers above are from different sections of the populace, not an overall polling — those hadn't been even attempted yet.
Believe me, as much as I would like a 20% shift in 'all americans ..'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note the timing of the whole ACORN thing. The smear machine has been very good at anticipating the news cycle.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Obama's been a huge disappointment to the Left already, and the muttering started a while ago. It'll get loud within a year, I promise. 
