Democrats: Electoral Mandate?

Reaganite Republican thinks Democrat's "electoral mandate" is doomed.

It increasingly appears that the contentious Obamacare debate has evolved into a legislative and PR debacle that could promptly incinerate the Democrats' massive electoral mandate.

I'm sure what electoral mandate they had. There's no doubt they're in control. But given the way politicking is carried out today, does being elected equate to some type of mandate to do specific things? Given Obama's declining poll numbers, I'd suggest it does not. He either concealed, or flat-out lied about what he would do during the campaign.

Now that America is getting a taste of it, including with all the ramifications, they seem to be beginning to spit it out.

For better or worse, we do have a participatory democracy. The Founders saw to that with the Bill of Rights and, specifically, the First Amendment. Obama can moan about rambunctious town halls and even heated rhetoric all he wants, in the end, there's is little he can do to silence it.

If we suffer more from anything right now, it's the media's willingness to not accurately depict what much of the dissension is all about. It isn't about his race. It's about his racing toward a cliff with America in tow.

But New Media doesn't play by the old media rules. Do and say what they will, they are not going to shut America up. And, basically, I do agree with Reaganite Republican. If things continue on as they are going now, what America is going to say to the Democrats is, Get Out!!  

Comments

[Barbara]

The implied arrogance that the GOP will be the benefactors of such anger is what got us here to begin with. I am far from a "Ron Paulian" and all that implies in a negative mass media twisted thing. What I am is an American with zero guilt with unending pride. I will hire ( vote ) for anyone who has same values.
Anyone else, to be vulgar, you can kiss my ass the little letter after your name
means squat.

[Reaganite Republican]

I agree with your point Dan, the seemingly-impressive "mandate" now appears hollow- and much of it based upon a campaign that was vague and disingenuous, coupled to a perfect (freak) storm.

Obama's evaporating support amongst independents bears this out- moderates must feel pretty used by a guy who pretended to be something that he's not -reasonable, bipartisan, moderate, post racial- in order to basically steal their votes... so they're not likely to be in the mood to take any more crap sandwiches from this administration come September.

Is Obama just hubristic and delusional? The Left was frothing at the mouth re. the prospect of an Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate, could be- But maybe they largely don't care, as so many others have observed; the Left might just ram-through as many difficult-to-reverse programs as possible... until the country truly freaks-out. Trouble for them is, that seems to be occuring a lot earlier than they anticipated-

[mark l.]

"Charlie Cook: Dem situation has 'slipped completely out of control'..."
[drudge]

the weird thing about the article is that he is saying the dems could lose 20 seats, and he thinks the sky is falling.
it was considered a standard, until 02, that the sitting prez in his second year would lose about that many.

20 seats and the sky is falling? something about cook's 'panic' doesn't smell right.

i think there is a potential for a 60+ seat swing, with a 34 seat seat swing very doable.

[mark l.]

glancing over at rcp, three headlines caught me...

Time for Obama to Fight - Eleanor Clift, Newsweek
Don't Risk Your Base, Mr. President - Joan Walsh, Salon
Long Live the Death of Bipartisanship - The New Republic

won't bother reading their content, to get the idea that the libs have no clue on how to hold a majority together. They think that being a liberal majority of a majority democrat party makes them bigger than they really are.

had bush posted poll numbers like this on the introduction of 'the idea' of our invasion into Iraq, the plan would have been scrubbed before they could have unrolled the maps.

never has a political party pushed such a massive plan with so little broad support, and yet his 'supporters' are telling him, "invade". Kennedy's brush with the bay of pigs is starting to come to mind...

he sat, looked around, and asked if anyone was against, or had reservations about a cuba invasion. nary a peep...

can't wait for a lib to write, "you are ruining OUR presidency".

[mark l.]

dare I call the phenomenom of the liberal media goading the prez to pursue healthcare, rather blindly, "the Bray of Pigs"?

[mark l.]

i look at the US cancer rate survival over the UK, 20% nominal, and look at the number of cancer deaths in the US 560k.

20% fewer lives saved means, 112k lives needlessly(?) lost, a year. let's punch in the 10 year number...

1.12 million lives lost, with a price tag of a trillion dollar 'investment' over 10 years.

There are worse things than Iraq, and the dems are blindly pursuuing them, with the media cheering them on, suggesting the outrage is manufactured. Death panels? the wh is about to kill 1 million americans over the next 10 years. They should call this healthcare plan the "final solution".

[Nishner]

Cherry-picking stats doesn't give you any sense of the overall efficiency of the health care system. It's the old blind men and the elephant story. The US is better in some things, worse in others.

And you still have to look at the overall cost of the system compared to what's delivered. You know, one of those cost - benefit analysis.

By the way, it looks like fewer people actually die from cancer in Great Britain than the US.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/08/democrats-electoral-mandate.html#comments

eath from cancer (most recent) by country
# 9 United States: 321.9 deaths per 100,000 people
# 16 United Kingdom: 253.5 deaths per 100,000 people

[mark l.]

"Cherry-picking stats doesn't give you any sense of the overall efficiency of the health care system."

coming from you...

I could solve your cancer problem tomorrow.
Test welfare recipients for nicotine, cancel their checks until they test negative.

but since you offer the stat, you could bump the number of deaths from cancer up to 386 deaths per 100k, upon copying the nhc.
thanks.

*****************

Generic Congressional Ballot
Republicans Now Ahead By Five on Generic Ballot

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

this is like watching the Titanic, with the captain being told that there is an icerberg in the way, declaring, "we are making great speed".

keep digging nish, keep digging.

[syn]

Nishner

Cherry-picking stats or not, the fact reminds you could spend one hundred-trillion-gazallion dollars on health care however, at the end of the day, it will do absolutely nothing to prevent death.

The question is, do you really want government 'death panels' deciding the terms and conditions of your own death?

Consider this, paranoid hypochondria has always been an affliction suffered by predominantly affluent secularist who are of the belief that humanism has the capacity to manipulate matters of life and death with finely tuned laws controlling human behavior; the problem with this approach is that it ignores an important phenomenon experienced outside of secular humanism.

This phenomenon is called MIRACLES.

More often than not, I believe God's Miracles reminds us all that though our bodies may be frail, our souls are strong in spirit.

[syn]

Pardon me that's *remains* not *reminds*

[Nishner]

"I could solve your cancer problem tomorrow.
Test welfare recipients for nicotine, cancel their checks until they test negative."

Still an idiot.

"The question is, do you really want government 'death panels' deciding the terms and conditions of your own death?

There aren't any death panels. Anyone that believes that crap is, uh, gullible.

[syn]

"Test welfare recipients for nicotine, cancel their checks until they test negative."

My father devoted his life to well-being, preventive health care and absolutely abhorred smokers and smoking yet was diagnosed with Stage 4 small cell lung cancer, dying at the age of 69 just three month after diagnosis. He had bi-yearly medical checkups, by the way. Beverly Sills (world famous opera singer and non-smoker) also died of small-cell lung cancer.

My point is, even if smoking were never invented humans beings would still face death no matter how many laws are in place, how much emotional blackmail is imposed or no matter how much money is spent.

[rrpjr]

"there's is little he can do to silence it."

We'll see. There is much he will do to TRY, in ways no one has ever tried before. As in audacity. If he is a true leftist, as I believe he is, silencing others is job number one, and there is not a scintilla of honest compromise or conciliation in his body.

[mark l.]

while you are around, nish, explain this non-sequiter.

[we spend too much, relative to the modern world, on healthcare, but we need to put a trillion into this new plan.]

[mark l.]

"My father devoted his life to well-being, preventive health care and absolutely abhorred smokers and smoking yet was diagnosed with Stage 4 small cell lung cancer"

ditto on my mom.

the good news is that she was a cancer survivor for over 20 years, from a previous bout with breast cancer. the thought of going to a 44% survival rate freaks me out, but to nish, makes good economic sense.

[Lala]

In his own words. Why does he need ethicists?

From a New York Times interview (via Kaus): (lifted from HotAir)

LEONHARDT: And it’s going to be hard for people who don’t have the option of paying for it.
THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
LEONHARDT: So how do you - how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

[Philip McDaniel]

As the Roman fleet commander said, "We keep you alive to serve this ship."

This administration and their cohorts in the Congress want you alive and productive to produce for them. It is government not 'by the people, for the people' but government over the people. I see the 10 year deficit is now estimated to go to 9 trillion. The only way we can keep costs down is to eliminate the crippled, deformed, chronically ill and elderly. Make no mistake about it this is a Marxist takeover.

It is time to start talking impeachment at the very least.

[mark l.]

"My point is, even if smoking were never invented humans beings would still face death no matter how many laws are in place, how much emotional blackmail is imposed or no matter how much money is spent."

true that this only 'cures' some cancer.

the problem i have is that my taxes(i accounted for 4 cash for clunkers rebates with my return this year) is being given to people that create a condition with the money they are given, so that i can inherit more expesne in the future. my tax money is an investment against my country.

everytime I see a welfare recipient walk out with a pack of kools, or parliments, i think to myself...i bought those for him and if he gets cancer, I get to pay for that as well.

[mark l.]

the final insult of my investment?

nish shows up to complain about life expectancy. if he wants to play god, and make people live longer, I'm all for turning him lose upon welfare recipients. he can give them nutrition, smoking cessation clases, and advise on birth control.

they in turn could beat him thoroughly upon his head. then i'd feel better about my taxes.

[North Dallas Thirty]

That is because, mark, at its basis, this is not a debate about "health care". That is merely a convenient wording for "government takeover of 17% of the nation's GDP".

Barack Obama is practically orgasmic at the thought of having literally trillions of more dollars being sent to him every year so that he can dole it out to his welfare pets like Bob and Nishner, who will then obediently vote for their Obamamessiah, both of blind ideological loyalty and the fact that dissent means being cut off from the funds.

It is no coincidence that the group most likely to vote against Obama -- senior citizens -- is having the health insurance for which they have been forced to pay premiums from each and every paycheck they receive for the past forty years taken away from them, with the argument being that they cost too much and are too unproductive.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Meanwhile, Obama's and the Obama Party's "mandate" was based upon that on which they ran:

– Tax cuts
– Spending cuts
– Personal responsibility for morality
– Reducing abortions
– Against mandates for health insurance
– Prosecuting those who don’t pay taxes and should
- Government pork
- Government corruption

But, once he got into office:

– Tax increases
– Spending increases
– Claiming those who opposed government programs were immoral
– Government funding and promotion of abortions
– Mandates to buy health insurance
– Appointing those who don’t pay their taxes and should to Cabinet and key advisory positions
- Massive pork-laden spending bills
- Massive corruption (Rangel, Friends of Angelo, Cold Cash Jefferson, Kevin Johnson, etc.)

In short, Obama is acting like what he is, which is a person who has never been held accountable for anything that he says or does, regardless of how contradictory, because of his skin color.

The Obama Party's "mandate" was in essence a reiteration of conservative values. However, since the Obama Party has demonstrated that it flat-out lied to the American public, that "mandate" is vanishing on the order of sugar thrown into a campfire.

[Fishner]

You're passing off fishy disinformation again, Nishner.

Anyone interested in seeing accurate information can download the source Excel spreadsheet directly from OECD Health page at http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,2340,en_2649_34631_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html

In that spreadsheet, on the "Cancer, Population" worksheet, we see:

2004 Malignant neoplasms Deaths per 100 000 population (standardised rates):
United Kingdom: 175.7
United States: 159.8

[mark l.]

fishner...

you dare counter a nishner statistic with one that is inconsistent with his belief? we already have enough people on anti-depressants, you might finish the nish off.

nishner solution?
go to bed, say his prayers to obama, and pretend it never happened. if you don't think denial doesn't work for him, you haven't considered how far in life he has come, reading the liberal bible.

fortunately they never got to writing about the "economic apocalypse"...its all flowers and children dancing in the street in the years of the messiah.

[crosspatch]

The Democrats won a lot of seats, but they won many of them by very slim margins of victory. Their "mandate" doesn't have a lot of depth. Now the "kool-aid" drinkers of either side really don't matter as much as where the independent voters and how energized people are about an issue to vote. What we have going in to 2010 is a Democratic party that is being abandoned wholesale by the independent voters and issues like health care and cap and tax that are creating a sense of urgency that the Democrats must be taken out of Congress before they screw up the entire country. The absolutely astronomical budget deficits aren't helping the Democrats either.

People were upset with the Republicans and wanted to "send a message" in 2008. Independents either stayed home or voted Democrat more than usual. The Republicans just stayed home more than usual. There was also no real burning issue that drove people to the polls aside from the African American community seeing their chance at having someone with African heritage as President. Ok, now we have been there, done that. There's not much driving that segment of the electorate to the polls in 2010.

Things are way different now for the GOP. People are energized. The independents are abandoning the Democrats. Republicans are likely to vote in droves in an off-year election. The Democrats are seen as digging us deeper into a hole and the more they try to "fix" things, the worse things become. California has record unemployment. Michigan is a mess at all levels. Texas is weathering the storm better than most. "Progressive" policies are making things worse, not better. 2010 could signal a sea change. People might not be so eager to vote a party out of office to "send a message" if the party being voted in is likely to cost them their job.