Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 251 To 260 Of 839 Comments
SS:
I think you're making the point that the Democrats were very divided by race. Which was why LBJ was so courageous: he knew he was splitting his own party and he was doing it for good reasons.
The GOP votes shows that back in those halcyon days the party was one of tolerance. Of course what happened next is that the GOP moved quickly to exploit the Democratic split with their Southern Strategy.
In other words, LBJ took political risks to do what was right; the GOP exploited his heroism by doing what was wrong. Since that time the GOP has been the party of race-baiting and white resentment and the Democrats have been the party of civil rights.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 15.10.2009 @ 08:14
Jackson:
The left-wing initially claimed we needed more troops and then raised hell about the surge. Rumsfeld correctly decided that the Democrats would not accept commitment of more troops, particularly under his leadership. His departure was a requisite to the troop build up.
What a bullshit rewrite of history.
Rumsfeld was an absolute incompetent. Mr. Bush was too stupid and too stubborn to accept that fact.
The two political names most closely identified with pushing for more troops early are probably Mr. McCain -- hated by you right-wingers -- and Joe Lieberman, who is a Democrat.
I was pushing for more troops long before either because it was painfully clear within weeks of the invasion that we were undermanned. And as I did that I had a constant chorus of loud-mouthed right-wing chest-thumpers like you telling me I was a defeatist and a pansy and an ignoramus.
And you want to try to pin that on Democrats? You're full of it. Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush created the losing strategy in Iraq and they were given EVERY soldier, weapon and dollar they asked for. They stuck with that losing strategy, and only reversed course AFTER suffering a huge mid-term election beating. In other words, genius, it was AFTER Democrats increased their power that the surge occurred and only because it finally dawned on the idiot leaders of the GOP that they would suffer politically for the disaster they were creating.
And as an early advocate of more force in Iraq, and a supporter of the surge, let me educate you: the surge wasn't a victory, it was a holding action to stave off utter defeat. What we have now in Iraq is not in any way, shape or form a victory. It's just the best we could salvage from a stupidly botched occupation run by Republicans who cared more about putting party apparatchiks in positions of authority than they did about winning.
The last minute surge in Iraq, and indeed the entire poorly-prepared Iraq war, is a major reason we are up against a wall in Afghanistan today. Mr. Bush refused to increase the size of the military which was a mistake of historic proportions. We were and are undermanned to fight two wars.
We are in trouble in Afghanistan today for the same reason we are still in trouble in Iraq: Mr. Bush was incompetent. And now, just as with the economic mess, it falls to Democrats to try and fix the screw-up left behind by the previous administration. An effort we are undertaking with zero help from the GOP.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 14.10.2009 @ 20:53
SHOULD THE PRESIDENT DECLINE THE PEACE PRIZE?
I'm going to pick one nit: your reference to domestic US politics.
One of the downsides of being the world's only superpower, the pre-eminent economic, diplomatic, cultural and military power, is that we don't have purely domestic politics. The Dutch have purely domestic politics, we have some intermediate form, some quasi-world politics.
I don't think Augustus or Charlemagne or Napoleon or for that matter Disraeli could have claimed with a straight face that there was a clear line between what was domestic and what was of international interest.
What we do has enormous impact on the rest of the world and it's hardly surprising or even wrong that they would attempt to pacify or guide or entice the 800 pound gorilla.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 9.10.2009 @ 11:16
OBAMA WELL DESERVES PEACE PRIZE - AFTER COMMITTEE LOWERS THE BAR
I support Obama as you know. And I think this is nuts. It's like giving a promising young officer a Medal of Honor because he performed competently on his first patrol.
I have read several Obama supporters say pretty much the same thing. It's not an issue to go off the deep end as some righties are predictably doing. But I am glad to see honesty and thoughtfulness from both right and left on this issue.
Some talk that he should turn it down because of Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think so. This is, even if many Americans don't think so, a singular honor and he should be congratulated that the world thinks this highly of him. Why they do troubles me as you know.
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 9.10.2009 @ 07:46
INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATISM ISN'T DEAD: WOULD YOU BUY A USED CAR FROM A LIBERAL? (PART II)
Who in f--k's name is talking about forcing medical care on people?
Only Republicans do that, and then only if your name is Schiavo.
Jesus H. And we wonder why the conversation goes nowhere.
Yes, Mannning: the federal government is going to force you to stay on life support forever . . . forever . . . forever . . . Because, um. . . Um . . .
It's like trying to talk to the crazy guy who pushes a shopping cart around muttering about the CIA.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 8.10.2009 @ 19:22
Mannning:
You don't want the government anywhere near you. So I assume you'll reject Medicare coverage?
How about our veterans? They get government medical care right to the end. Is it "diabolical" to have the government pay for sick and dying ex-soldiers? My father the career soldier doesn't seem to think so.
I suspect that you have never objected to government-supplied medical care for veterans. If as you say it is necessarily "diabolical" don't you think our soldiers deserve better? Isn't it time to cut these old soldiers off and force them to go shopping for coverage in the free market?
Dude, you are not showing much intellectual consistency or logic on this topic. The sum of all you have to say is this: Government = Bad. A rather extreme statement for which you offer no proof.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 8.10.2009 @ 08:04
Mannning:
I've offered you nothing but logic. You've not even directly addressed any of my points. You can't, of course, because they are simple statements of fact.
You are operating from a visceral dislike and distrust of government. But you offer no support for your emotions. Because you have none to offer. Just pure reaction, emotion, ideology.
Your emotions, however formed, and however justified you may feel they are, are not facts or logic or arguments. They're just restatements of your mind-set, your particular prejudices.
Your privilege obviously. But be careful about imagining yourself to be a rational actor. And consider that your emotions are not just irrational (by definition they are) but simply wrong.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 7.10.2009 @ 22:32
Manning:
I prefer government, because your case makes no sense.
If the government enters into this decision via their healthcare programs, will they support the decisions of the patient, the doctor or the relatives? Suppose the patient wants to remain on the tubes; the doctors agree that they can maintain him on the tubes; and the relatives also agree. Does the government agree also?
The government has zero motive for trying to end coverage. As we've all observed, the government has little difficulty spending money -- even when they don't have it. The government has no need to make a profit, the insurer does. So it is quite clearly the insurer who has a motive for cutting off or limiting or interfering with your health care decisions: the more they interfere, the more profit they make.
You've just successfully proven my point: when I'm 80 the government will still want my vote and the votes of my friends and relations. So they "profit" by acceding to my wishes.
But when I'm 80 I'll represent nothing but a drain on insurers whose motive is necessarily profit and who would, quite clearly, profit from denying me coverage.
Sorry, but the logic is air tight.
The only mystery is why Republican voters -- who despite being slow, must be able to perform this same reasoning -- choose to side with insurers. You don't suppose it has anything to do with insurers spending a lot of money to spread lies, do you?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 7.10.2009 @ 14:41
Mannning:
It's not solely a question of efficiency. It's a question of motivation as well.
The core motivator of government is re-election, a continuation in power. I suspect you'll agree.
The core motivator of business is profit. I suspect you'll argree with this as well.
Lots of voters without health insurance, or denied care is antithetical to the government's core motivation. Dead voters don't vote so much. And the relatives of dead voters have a tendency to vote out anyone they hold responsible.
But dead policyholders are wonderful for business so long as they die early. There is a very clear motive for insurance companies to collect premiums all through a person's healthy years and then abandon them as soon as they begin to require service. Again, this isn't controversial, it's simple logic.
Thus far, unarguable.
So if we grant that private insurers are more efficient, but grant also that their profit is maximized by minimizing our health care, precisely how is their efficiency a good thing?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 7.10.2009 @ 12:24
Chuck:
I think you point to the essential disconnect: most people don't deal with insurers, their employer does. Which is why talking to most people about insurance companies is like talking to a virgin about sex. They are utterly clueless. They have literally no idea what they're talking about.
But the employer-provided model is dying and more and more people will soon enough be dealing with insurers directly, and then they will be very quickly disabused of their little free market fantasies.
I'd love to see someone do a poll on this. Because I suspect the percentage of self-employed people who favor a government plan is far greater than the number of cubicle workers who feel the same.
Here's the quick test: anyone who rants about government imposing rationing as though this were something new is either clueless or a liar.
To put it in the starkest possible terms: a policy holder who dies at 50 is very profitable for private insurers. That's a big win for them. One who lives to be 80 is a money-loser. Worshippers at the altar of the free market should think long and hard about that fact.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 7.10.2009 @ 11:04
