Or should that be "accomplishments"?
As the end of her second term nears, news organizations are assessing what she did for, or perhaps to, the state. Here, for example, is what the Seattle Times editorial board has to say, which is mostly positive. For other points of view, you can read the almost entirely negative comments.
(The editorial writer seems to be assuming that this is the end of her career. I have been assuming that the Obama administration would find some job for her, perhaps even a responsible job. However they don't confide in me, so I have nothing more to go on than the gossip I read in our newspapers.)
So what's your assessment of Gregoire's career?
(My own assessment is mostly negative. She raised taxes (most of them regressive) and spending, but we don't seem to have gotten much for our money — unless we happen to work for the state. And I have never seen any evidence that this moderately accomplished politician was a good judge of policies, or even that she understands basic cost/benefit analysis.)
Posted by Jim Miller at December 31, 2012 07:45 AM | Email ThisFor instance, in a simple cost/benefit analysis, I doubt that the cost of environmental damage caused by a corporation ever enters your calculation of the 'benefit' received from their product.
'Confide' is the root word of confidence, and the voters have demonstrated that they have none in your brand of public policy.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on December 31, 2012 08:40 AMAlmost entirely negative comments... that pretty much just consist of angry conservatives venting their spleens but not really providing coherent "points of view".
Posted by: demokid on December 31, 2012 09:51 AMKeeps pushing the "need to know math for graduation requirement" further out so her school union buddies don't have to explain why the schools are doing such a poor job of providing a solid education (per student costs have gone up, perfomance results have not, so more money is not the answer).
Sees no problem letting the parks department wither away even though our parks attract more unique visitors than all the stadiums combined. And this from the "I'm a Tree Hugger" governor. But it's ok to spend billions on a tunnel project the public doesn't want and has the highest environmental cost out of the three alternatives.
She also likes windfarms even though they slice and dice birds and have to be heavily subsidized because of their piddly output.
Increased many fees and fines without letting the public know.
Thinks it's ok for deranged felons, legal or illegal, to be let loose among an unsuspecting public and then acts so surprised when innocents are killed. She thinks her time is far better spent trying to raise taxes on internet sales instead of giving law enforcement the tools they need to minimize such tragedies.
We won't even mention the sorry excuse called DSHS that is in serious need of an overhaul. May the little Powell boys rest in peace.
Ok'd the world's dumbest slogan: Say WA!
Thinks the populace should take public transit but insists on being chauffered the few yards from her residence to her office.
Readily advocates tax increases as the cure for all the budget woes but has never championed significant spending cuts. Do we really need an official state poet on the payroll???
Continues to encourage the practice of robbing Peter to pay Paul in setting her budget. Money in a designated area needs to stay in the designated area. Gas tax revenue needs to be applied to it's intended purpose, not get siphoned off for the latest failed social experiment.
What's really sad is that Inslee is going to be much much worse for the state.
Posted by: Burdabee on December 31, 2012 01:27 PMOk, so she did a couple things right. The things that required zero effort. The hard stuff of being fiscally responsible and passing policy that requires accountability evades Democrats like a scared rabbit.
Posted by: Leftover on December 31, 2012 03:29 PMThe problem with the modern Right in this country is that they are reflexively against anything that is not given the blessing of Rush Limbaugh or FOX News. Look at Gregoire's expansion of individual civil liberties. You would think Miller would spend his time extolling this, instead of being mired in the bitterness of the Right's continuous losses.
Posted by: Lionel Hutz Esq. on December 31, 2012 03:57 PMGiven that Gregroire's first gubernatorial election was the subject of national stories on the three counts and court case, I'd say that Mr. Limbaugh here dem
Posted by: tensor on December 31, 2012 05:41 PMGiven that Gregroire's first gubernatorial election was the subject of national stories on the three counts and subsequent court case, I'd say that Mr. Limbaugh here demonstrated his usual sharp command of the facts.
(Was most of his response a rant about our coddling of hippie stoners, while we neglected to legalize the *right* drugs, the drugs a *real* man desperately needs? Fess up.)
She charges boat owners an annual fee that is to be used to pay for maintenance of state owned docks and marine facilities.
The state had never, ever charged such a fee prior to the Gregoire Administration, and she imposed it without legislative approval.
If you avoid this tax, you are subject to imprisonment.
Unlike taxes on non-boats, payments of which are totally optional, and incur no punishment for failure to pay.
She no longer uses the money for the legally stated purpose, but rather dumps the money into the general fund.[citation needed]
Although you're clearly still hurting from last month's election results, I think you guys can totally win future elections on a "pity we suffering boat owners" platform. Trust me on this.
Posted by: tensor on December 31, 2012 05:56 PMYeah! Who needs those things called "facts"? :)
Posted by: demokid on December 31, 2012 09:11 PMAnd yet, those things would not have been done by a Gov. Rossi, which validates Dr. Steve's point nicely. Dr. King, whose birthday we will soon celebrate, warned us that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice anywhere," and so we can now celebrate Gov. Gregoire's leadership on ending injustice. Truly a happy new year for all of us!
Posted by: tensor on December 31, 2012 10:10 PMShe didn't do too much for me personally, but among other things, she wasn't one of the UW Women's Center's Women of the Year last year for nothing. I can respect that. Add that to that the list of things we didn't have to put up with from a Governor Rossi, which probably would have left us a tragic story like Wisconsin or Michigan, I'm pleased enough. Inslee already has a plus going for him - I don't have to put up with a Governor McKenna for the next four years, thank goodness!
Happy New Year, everybody!
Posted by: Doctor Steve on January 1, 2013 11:17 AMThe Governor's election in 2012 was almost a carbon copy of the presidential election. The hard core conservatives had lukewarm support for both Romney and McKenna, although McKenna did notably better in WA than Romney did. Democrats are easier to get to form a coalition, while Republicans are more difficult and in some cases like herding cats. The secret sauce candidate(s) to bind conservatives/Republicans/Independents into a coalition since Reagan are few and far between here and nationally. Just sayin'
Posted by: KDS on January 1, 2013 11:39 AMWhat's frustrating when talking with conservatives is their fundamental lack of understanding as to why these "secret sauce" candidates are "few and far between".
I'll give you a hint: if you systematically work to alienate every single demographic group outside of rich white dudes and crazy Tea Party types, you're not really that good at coalition-building. No single candidate is going to fix that, no matter how hard they try.
Posted by: demokid on January 1, 2013 01:44 PMI take it that you're trying to say that Republicans need candidates who are more hard core so that your hard core conservatives can get behind them. Hmm, actually, that works for me too. So I'm not going to try to change your mind on that one. Go for it. But to tell the truth, I was under the impression that Rossi and McKenna were your guys's idea of "lessons learned" after the disaster that was Ellen Crasswell.
I recall RickyD once egaging in an intelligent, thoughtful conversation over at HA. Once. A long time ago. Maybe it requires meds or something, but he's really not quite as dim-witted as he comes off in these (un)SP comment threads.
Posted by: Doctor Steve on January 1, 2013 01:59 PMHere's a hint -- Robert Byrd was not ever from "around these parts." Also, if you want to play that game, you'd better not whine when we recite the long list of racist Dixiecrats whom the GOP welcomed with open arms. There's a reason GOP presidential candidates lose the minority vote by margins of 70-80 percent, and it's not because liberals offer them "free stuff."
Posted by: tensor on January 1, 2013 02:33 PMtalk about an oxymoron...
Posted by: Rick D. on January 1, 2013 04:22 PMPosted by demokid at January 1, 2013 01:44 PM
It takes a modified approach and obviously more than one candidate - it requires a new strategy and attitude; as I wrote, but all critics conveniently ignored - "The Republican party needs to resonate better, use social media more effectively with a stronger get out the vote effort and get behind their future candidate as Governor if they hope to win in this seasick blue state."
In this state, hard core conservative candidates do not work well - previous elections bear that out. This is not Utah or Indiana (both more conservative states), and moderation and facing that reality by hard core conservatives is what it will take until there is a tectonic shift to more conservative, which I do not see happening. Rossi and McKenna are more moderate - it will take a Scott Brown type Republican to win here (along with the charisma). A strong presidential candidate will bring the coattail effect to downwind candidates.
Communication (lack of) is the main weakness of the R brand and until they start reaching out sincerely to blacks, hispanics and single women - it will be an uphill climb and non-starter. Free stuff from the left vs. self-sufficency and an adequate safety net by the right - they need to take that message to the people. I know that the left believes that will happen when pigs fly, so it is incumbent on the opposing party to prove them wrong !!
Posted by: KDS on January 1, 2013 06:47 PMThe trouble with that line of thinking, and why the most left leaning states and countries are bankrupt, is that freedom requires restraint and reason. Today's leftward bent is simply ignorant hedonism. Which is why you consider it a success when people vote for a president based on skin color and free cell phones. Those of us who actually understand liberty know that a successful society requires active participation and contribution from all of its citizens and a culture of success.
And no matter how many laws you pass, nor how much hedonism Hollywood sells, nor how much the media covers for liberal bloat and scolds us all, you will not be able to create success or prevent failure.
Posted by: Leftover on January 1, 2013 07:07 PMThe immediate challenge is will the House pass the bill that will remove the fiscal cliff ? At least they plan to vote. Final spending cuts, entitlement reform and the debt ceiling will be debated in the next two months but not until the revenue part is passed.
Posted by: KDS on January 1, 2013 07:52 PMThis is a battle that the Republicans need to forego, IMHO. Its about knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.
Posted by: KDS on January 1, 2013 08:07 PMWe ignored it because it's feel-good nonsense. Your party didn't lose because your candidates did a poor job of communicating, your party lost because those candidates communicated your party's anti-woman, anti-immigrant, anti-reality stance very well. In 2004, Dino Rossi came to within 133 votes of Christine Gregoire precisely because he ran like a coward from the anti-choice GOP platform in this deeply pro-choice state. Suzan DelBene pounded John Koster on this point so forcefully he wound up helplessly playing Rape Philosopher, just as she hoped he would. (Where is pudge, anyway?)
The immediate challenge is will the House pass the bill that will remove the fiscal cliff ? At least they plan to vote. Final spending cuts, entitlement reform and the debt ceiling will be debated in the next two months but not until the revenue part is passed.
New Congress on Thursday, with less teabagger content. That way lies greater sanity. Fewer Republicans = better government.
Posted by: tensor on January 1, 2013 08:17 PMYour REPUBLICAN congressmembers (Reichert and Morris-Rodgers) just voted for the highest tax increase in TWO DECADES.
So you probably should clean your house, do something about your people before criticizing the other side.
Can't beat something with Nothing. If you want to see a repeat of 2012 only worse keep on supporting the Establishment Republicans. If you want a chance to keep some of these seats then support opponents in the primary, because people are fed up with supporting these losers in the general.
Posted by: Max on January 1, 2013 08:36 PMBut you're not proposing anything different, just trying to "get the word out". Sorry... but people have heard the word, and they don't like it. Doesn't matter if you tweet it more often.
Communication (lack of) is the main weakness of the R brand and until they start reaching out sincerely to blacks, hispanics and single women - it will be an uphill climb and non-starter.
Again... saying "reaching out sincerely" gives no indication that the Republicans are willing to change. If there were some perceived latitude about civil rights, voting rights, immigration, etc., that would demonstrate sincerity. However, telling people about your positions with no room to accommodate all of these groups you're talking about doesn't win votes.
Free stuff from the left vs. self-sufficency and an adequate safety net by the right - they need to take that message to the people.
"Free stuff" is the mantra of the left and the right -- it's merely who is getting the free stuff, and whether it contributes to a healthy society or just makes rich people richer.
And I'd argue against your characterization of the right as being in any way concerned about the social safety net. Someone that supports an "adequate" safety net wouldn't be so quick to want to decimate healthcare for the poor, support for education, sufficient unemployment insurance, etc. Conservatives seem more than eager to try to punish the poor for being poor.
Posted by: demokid on January 1, 2013 08:39 PMWhy would I want to support a party that might say one thing, but in the end does the exact opposite.
Republicans lost this year because conservatives turned out. You aren't going to bring them back by calling the biggest tax increase in two decades a "win".
Reichert and McMorris-Rodgers are WORSE than Democrats. At least the Democrats ADMIT what they are. Reichert and McMorris-Rodgers lie to us election after election preventing us from getting good Republicans in office.
If they are going to vote like Democrats, then they might as well be Democrats so we can run good candidates in their place.
They will be blamed for this double dip and they would just sound like hypocrites when they blame Obama. They voted for it THEY OWN IT. They own this recession and they will be up in 2014 - NOT OBAMA!
Posted by: Brian on January 1, 2013 08:44 PMObama will not be up for election in 2014. But Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris-Rodgers WILL be. And people don't care about parties anymore and they don't like the whole "blame Obama" thing. They voted for this, they will OWN this and the double dip recession this cause. Any attempt to run away from their curability will not work.
Democratic Challengers will make hay out of all the pork this deal had, especially to Hollywood. The only chance Republicans have to keep these seats in 2014 will be to have these incumbents replaced in the Primary. But that's not the Republican Party's way and it's too old to change. So just count on losing these two seats in 2014.
And, no Obama Hate won't save these seats. It didn't pull Romney over the finish So don't expect Obama Hate to save these seats. And of course no upsurge is going to come from a "tea party movement". Such a movement would only hurt these incumbents. And I doubt there is going to be a "Republican Revolution" either so, just like there will be no 2010 there will be no 1994. What there will be is a 2006 (where Republicans Lost the House).
Again the only chance to prevent losing these seats is to replace this people in the primary, but that has never happened, at least not in this state.
Posted by: Kevin on January 1, 2013 09:12 PMI would not have expected any different response from the hate-filled left, but go ahead, keep thinking of it that way. If more Republicans were unafraid and assertive and good at framing the debate like Chris Christie, they would turn the tables on Democrats here or anywhere, with the possible exception of CA or NY. A Republican who campaigned like Christie would be elected Governor here - McKenna did not campaign that well either and that is partly the fault of the State Party - who has been less than stellar for a long time and whether you like it or not, it is all about messaging.
Communicating means framing the message. With your description, it plays right into that theme - they let the leftists frame the message to portray false narratives (in most cases) for the candidates above. Koster ran a lame campaign (Pudge can argue about that, but I'd say it was lame because Del Bene out messaged him) and any Republican that brings up rape will LOSE the women vote instantly.
"Reichert and McMorris-Rodgers are WORSE than Democrats. At least the Democrats ADMIT what they are. Reichert and McMorris-Rodgers lie to us election after election preventing us from getting good Republicans in office.
If they are going to vote like Democrats, then they might as well be Democrats so we can run good candidates in their place.
They will be blamed for this double dip and they would just sound like hypocrites when they blame Obama. They voted for it THEY OWN IT. "
Face it, Obama and Dems had the stronger hand for revenue increases - both sides disliked the bill, which told me that part was tolerable. The Republicans have the stronger hand for spending cuts and debt ceiling and throw in entitlement reform. This is the bigger deal and has a bigger effect down the road. How they frame that message and sell it to the people will foretell their success in 2014.
That is why I implore the House to get a new speaker !! I have seen that movie before in 2011 and did not like the ending.
Boehner is not a skilled communicator or messenger and I would suggest Tom Price (R) or Louie Gohmert (R) be the new speaker. Either one of them are better communicators and would be unafraid to challenge the lippy leftists for a change. I hope this change can occur, for the betterment of the country - that the narcissistic left would have a hard time wrapping their brains around.
"Again... saying "reaching out sincerely" gives no indication that the Republicans are willing to change. If there were some perceived latitude about civil rights, voting rights, immigration, etc., that would demonstrate sincerity. However, telling people about your positions with no room to accommodate all of these groups you're talking about doesn't win votes."
That's the problem - your version of the word is not the TRUTH.
Those are merely democrat talking points, with little if any truth and the Repubs. do not counter those charges enough and that's why biased and low information voters carry around those misconceptions, thanks to messaging by Democrat operatives.
What is civil rights to you ? To me, a flat tax is a civil right !! To you and a lesser extent me, health care is also a civil right !
Immigration - both parties are disingenuous. The Dems want their votes and the chance to offer them free stuff along with low cost labor for some corporations and Repubs want their cheap labor in general for corporations. Future Republican positions may need to evolve to the dismay of some conservatives to obtain more of the minority voters - no denial of that.
However, conservatives really need to affect the culture, which is what Andrew Breitbart drove home and he was spot on ! The conservatives as a whole need to pay more attention and act on this notion more than they have, instead of concede the culture and educational system (esp. college campuses) to the left.
Prager University has some instructive on line classes for this.
I would challenge you of the liberal persuasion to view at least one of these.
http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/The-Welfare-State.html
http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/Proving-Media-Bias.html
Right there, you've lost. It does not matter how well the WSRP "frames" their anti-woman, anti-immigrant, anti-Social Security, anti-reality message. It remains a message which will lose, and lose badly, in Washington state. That is why Dino Rossi ran from it.
With your description, it plays right into that theme - they let the leftists frame the message to portray false narratives (in most cases) for the candidates above. Koster ran a lame campaign (Pudge can argue about that, but I'd say it was lame because Del Bene out messaged him) and any Republican that brings up rape will LOSE the women vote instantly.
DelBene forced Koster to admit to what he was: a Rape Philosopher who hated women so much that he'd use the power of the state to force a brutalized rape victim to bear her assailant's child. He was the modern GOP in person, which is why he lost. Bleating about "traditional values" to an electorate which voted to make gay marriage legal is a loser, no matter how pretty the packaging.
Posted by: tensor on January 1, 2013 10:38 PM@52 - unknowingly, you proved my points- right there they let the Dems frame the argument without defense - too many low information voters swallowed those narratives because the GOP candidates did not attack that message effectively enough. All of those assertions are patently FALSE and if you were honest, you would acknowledge that, but honesty does not count in politics today. So, I will repeat again for your benefit;
Your version of the word is not the TRUTH.
Those are merely democrat talking points, with little if any truth and the Repubs. do not counter those charges enough and that's why biased and low information voters carry around those misconceptions, thanks to messaging by Democrat operatives.
You exaggerated who Koster is - another false narrative, but he gave a weak rebuttal which cost him. Granted, traditional values does not resonate - unless compelling examples are shown, which there were none - but that doesn't mean there aren't any/no Repub is audacious and assertive enough to bring them up so far. Looks like gay marriage will no longer be a campaign issue - right ?
Posted by: KDS on January 1, 2013 11:06 PMWhat defense? That gay marriage should remain illegal, because we should continue to discriminate for the sake of the "traditional values" of bigotry and discrimination? That the state should allow senior citizens to die in poverty -- while eagerly checking the body of every rape victim to ensure she bears her assailant's child? Good luck on "messaging" those losers into winners!
Looks like gay marriage will no longer be a campaign issue - right ?
You tell me. The voters of Washington state legalized abortion via popular vote (Referendum 20) in 1970 -- and John Koster was still fighting it in 2012.
Posted by: tensor on January 1, 2013 11:25 PMhttp://mynorthwest.com/11/734914/Missing-child-found-safe-outside-Portland
What will the State of Washington do when every woman has the right to choose, but choose not to?
Posted by: Smokie on January 2, 2013 03:39 PMThe Democrat party is the party of bigots. Are you gay ?
That the state should allow senior citizens to die in poverty -- while eagerly checking the body of every rape victim to ensure she bears her assailant's child?
That's rich - more lies.
Is that all you have ? The WSDP encourages free loading, mooching and instilling the entitlement, give me attitude - that's the spirit. Making up feel good garbage that is BS. Nothing but Democrat party talking points. Tsk, tsk...
Posted by: KDS on January 2, 2013 05:28 PMMeanwhile, the Seattle Gay News told the real story:
The Anderson/Murray Anti-Discrimination Bill (HB 1515) passed out of the state House of Representatives on Friday, Feb. 11 [2006]. Six Republicans joined Democrats to pass the bill with a final vote of 61-37. It is the fifth time the bill had done so over its 29 year history.
[...]
Last year, the bill passed out of the House, but Republican leaders in the Senate essentially killed the bill by adjourning the session early rather than allow a vote on the legislation. This time, Murray hopes for a far different scenario now that the Democrats control both the House and Senate.
What color is the sky in your world?
Posted by: tensor on January 2, 2013 06:06 PMWhat should be applauded is the rare politician who truly makes hard spending choices.
Posted by: righton on January 2, 2013 07:49 PMGoodbye Queen, and good riddance.
Posted by: Freedom Lives! on January 2, 2013 08:57 PMI didn't know that governors were in charge of state-run sterilization services.
Posted by: demokid on January 2, 2013 09:38 PMIneptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
Posted by: KDS on January 2, 2013 09:46 PMOtherwise known as "sour grapes". Why don't you just call for a waaaaaaaaaaaaaahmbulance?
Posted by: demokid on January 2, 2013 11:26 PMThat may well be the most coherent and sensible statement you've ever made here. On the generous assumption it means anything at all, your equation of basic human rights with "get free stuff" is pretty revealing.
You're living in the past (2006) like the typical low information voter.
Yes, let's leave the far, far distant past of Gov. Gregoire's first term -- you know, part of the ostensible topic of this post -- and fast-forward to the gay marriage debate, last year:
The political divide in America is nowhere on greater display than in support for and opposition to same-sex marriage, according to a new national poll conducted by the Pew Research Center.
Sixty-five percent of Democrats support marriage equality, as will the party's 2012 national platform. But only 24 percent of Republicans feel that same-sex couples should be allowed to wed.
The key block in the middle, Independents, supports same-sex marriage by a 51-40 percent margin, according to the poll. A 2008 survey showed a near dead-heat among Independents, with 44 percent supporting and 45 percent in opposition.
Is there no trend the Republicans can't miss?
This is the government that those who voted for the winning candidates in this last election get, including those who voted for the current and past governor of this state...
Do tell us if you voted for George W. Bush, would you? That goes for everyone here slagging Gov. Gregoire's record. It would give the rest of us a proper basis for evaluating your fitness to judge political CEOs.
Posted by: tensor on January 2, 2013 11:31 PMFree stuff?
Posted by: red hiney monkey on January 3, 2013 11:30 AMThe problem with Romney is that he trusted the intelligence of the American people way too much - as he did not engage in pushback against the demagoguery of the Obama campaign nearly enough. That would have improved his political instincts and communication if he had challenged Obama more on his false narratives. This strategy proved that it was a mistake to trust the intelligence of the low information voters as evidenced by the outcome.
The same can be said for a lesser extent toward McKenna and also Rossi in 2006, when he lost to Gregoire. A stronger Republican party will make the Democrat party better than it is now, because neither party is worth s**t when it comes to serving its constituents.
Posted by: KDS on January 3, 2013 01:18 PMThere's something that's especially pathetic about Jim's letter's but I can't quite put my finger on it. Yeah, the silly "gotcha" questions that he takes so seriously are obvious. His vain patience, waiting for a US Senator to reply to an obnoxious letter. More of that tired and simplistic maker/taker BS, of course. But there's something else going on here. Hmm, something on a Psych 201 level? Eh, nah, that probably just wishful thinking on my part.
Posted by: Doctor Steve on January 3, 2013 04:01 PMYou're just not getting any free stuff, KDS. We commie-fascists are all getting our free stuff! Get some free stuff, dude, and it just might help you to get your mind right. If that doesn't work, we can try a little voltage.
Posted by: Doctor Steve on January 3, 2013 04:09 PMWhenever he talks about "giving them the chance to respond", I always wonder what kind of "response" he thinks he's going to get. Does he actually believe that he's an important journalistic force to be reckoned with?
Posted by: demokid on January 3, 2013 04:53 PMBecause we have different opinions? That doesn't count as "low information", dude.
Posted by: demokid on January 3, 2013 08:16 PMIf you like that sort of thing (and I sure find it funny), I recommend the Letters From a Nut series by "Ted L. Nancy".
Posted by: scottd on January 3, 2013 09:35 PMLow information is anyone who does not understand a given concept. For example, someone who does not understand that we will not have a successful society when there is no expectation that everyone contribute. Those looking for free health care, free cell phones, government rebates for auto purchases, and so on have it all wrong. And those willing to use government to overpay public employees, allow public employees to stop being productive at 55, and provide subsidies for all the above and so much more have it all wrong. A successful country is one where real value is real value. In such a place, hard work, responsibility, and self sufficiency are not celebrated but expected. This is basic. And this is not a difference of opinion, but a fiscal reality. So if you don't understand, you are low info. And you are a large part of the problem.
"Ask not what your country can do for you..."
Posted by: Leftover on January 4, 2013 12:11 PMLike, say, people who crank on about the evils of single-payer healthcare as if Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, &c. are all poverty-ridden totalitarian hellholes with life expectancies of 42 or whatever.
You're right, such persons contribute nothing to our national discourse, and can be safely ignored. (See "Elections, 2012" for an example of how this is done.)
Posted by: tensor on January 4, 2013 05:32 PMWhat you've listed is indicative of "low information" on the conservative side.
...someone who does not understand that we will not have a successful society when there is no expectation that everyone contribute...
Progressive policies don't exclude these expectations. Quite the reverse, actually, when you consider that conservatives are more keen on destroying university education, decimating student aid for higher education, and reducing the opportunities available to all but the rich.
The difference is that progressives don't typically believe that you deserve to be killed or thrown on the streets if you're down on your luck.
Free cell phone lady voted Obama because that is the easy way out and not because she is incapable of contributing.
@78, thanks for making my point.
Posted by: Leftover on January 5, 2013 09:15 PMSpeaking of the latter, did you vote for W.? Twice? We really could use some background on your qualifications for judging political CEOs.
"@78, thanks for making my point."
Thanks for agreeing that such alarmism can and should be ignored by voters.
Posted by: tensor on January 5, 2013 10:35 PMYou mean that conservatives think that CEOs who make bad choices, routinely fail, and lose money for their companies shouldn't be given new jobs? Doesn't quite seem like the free market works like that. (Must have missed seeing John Thain in a soup kitchen in New York City...)
Look, it is far more about luck than conservatives would like to admit. The free market is littered with folks that made rational choices and circumstances beyond their control led to their financial destruction (or irrational choices and won). As an abstraction, it is fine to encourage that behaviour in the free market, but as social policy, it is absurd to kill people if they do not survive in the market.
Free cell phone lady voted Obama because that is the easy way out and not because she is incapable of contributing.
Then she must have voted for Bush, right? I mean, this cell phone program was in place when he was president...
Posted by: demokid on January 6, 2013 09:43 AMFor one, I never said CEOs who made bad choices, nor for that matter free cell phone ladies that make bad choices should be deinied jobs or killed. Those are your fantasies about blood sucking conservatives getting the better of you again. There is a big difference between a postivie society that expects contributions from all of its citizens and a negative society that accepts them as victims and allows them to be lazy when they are otherwise capable.
The progressive is blindly allegiant to the party regardless of what is wrong or right. Those on the center right spectrum default to being content to being small "c" conservative and be left alone to pursue success and failure but to generally contribute and leave their fellow man to do the same. Those on the left meanwhile are always trying to control and limit the lives or their fellow man and to create outcomes that never materialize. And as a result, we all lose.
Free cell phones and all of the other ridicuous bloat they symbolize are wrong regardless of the President in office. But only those of us on the center - right have the guts to admit that and a whole lot of other bloat that could be cleaned up to make a better society for us all.
And again, if you are talking about the continuance of bad programs, why did this President just continue wire tapping if it was wrong under the last President?
Both parties are terrible, but at least on the center - right there is a possibility of a more civil and value oriented society where contribution is expected instead of the apathy of further descent to sloth and hedonism.
Posted by: Leftover on January 6, 2013 02:40 PMIt's no fantasy. When you have conservatives that cheer when it is proposed that people without health insurance should die from lack of treatment, they might as well be proposing that the poor be lined up and shot.
But only those of us on the center - right have the guts to admit that and a whole lot of other bloat that could be cleaned up to make a better society for us all.
Guts? Hardly. The problem with the "center-right", as you've defined it, is that they are all for getting rid of social programs (or standing in the way of civil rights), until they are the ones impacted. Conservatives that depend on Medicare and Social Security are hardly going to preach about "entitlement reform", conservative agri-business interests aren't going to protest farm subsidies, and conservative politicians are going to protest the earmarks that go to other people's districts. "Bloat", to the "center-right", is defined as "money that does not benefit me".
In fact, I would say that many in the "center-right" are the worst type of cowards -- they are willing to talk the talk, but will never walk the walk when it comes to something that will negatively impact them.
Both parties are terrible, but at least on the center - right there is a possibility of a more civil and value oriented society where contribution is expected instead of the apathy of further descent to sloth and hedonism.
Please... "sloth and hedonism"? "Value-oriented society"? I'm amused that you think the "center-right" somehow has a monopoly on this. Some of the hardest working people I know are liberals, and others are conservatives. I've never yet been able to see a correlation between dedication and partisan leanings, and it's amusing that you think that there is a connection.
(And trust me... if you think that the right doesn't have a big share of hedonists, you're seriously deluding yourself.)
Posted by: demokid on January 6, 2013 05:27 PMShow us video of a group of conservatives cheering when it is proposed that people die from lack of treatment. Do you even understand how hospitals work? If a poor, rich or middle class person is knocked unconscious in a serious car crash they get whisked to a hospital and treated. Only a very partisan fool would make such a ridiculous statement.
For the less ridiculous who read this blog, enjoy this article about Democratic Underground commenters discovering their first paycheck of 2013 is a lot less than they expected! They thought the tax was only going to be for those greedy rich people.
Pass this on to your Democrat friends and then ask them as the article suggests, who they voted for in November. The looks will be priceless.
Posted by: Leftover on January 7, 2013 06:18 AMGeez, that wasn't even a hard one... look at the 2012 Republican debates, for one.
For the less ridiculous who read this blog, enjoy this article about Democratic Underground commenters discovering their first paycheck of 2013 is a lot less than they expected! They thought the tax was only going to be for those greedy rich people.
Of course, this was the expiration of a payroll tax holiday that the Republicans voted AGAINST.
Pass this on to your Democrat friends and then ask them as the article suggests, who they voted for in November. The looks will be priceless.
And of course, if your Democrat friends are aware of what's going on, it'll just make you look like an idiot.
Posted by: demokid on January 7, 2013 12:29 PMYou are the worst kind of coward. You took a debate response where Ron Paul said that a person has to make their own choices in a free society and turned it in to Republicans cheering for people to die. It never occurred to you, because you do not understand freedom, that those cheering were cheering for the right to make their own choices for better or worse.
Ironically, you probably support assisted suicide and abortion.