Day: March 26, 2010
Tea-Baggers are Fervently Vague In Their Beliefs
A new Bloomberg survey finds that more than 90 percent of Tea Party backers say the U.S. is verging toward socialism, but 70 percent want a federal government that fosters job creation, but 90 percent say the country is on the wrong track and Washington can’t find solutions, but more than 80 percent say expansion of the government’s role in the economy is a high threat, but almost half say the government should do something about executive bonuses on Wall Street.
Further, tea-baggers are conflicted over whether private-enterprise elements should be introduced into government programs like Social Security and Medicare.
I’m not sensing anything like a platform or even coherence here …
“The ideas that find nearly universal agreement among Tea Party supporters are rather vague,” says J. Ann Selzer, the pollster who created the survey. “You would think any idea that involves more government action would be anathema, and that is just not the case.”
Overall, 26 percent of respondents in the poll identified themselves as Tea Party backers, while 53 percent said they weren’t and 21 percent said they weren’t sure. I can grok that — how do you know whether you support the Tea Party when you don’t know what it stands for, besides the right to protest — anything.
According to the survey, Tea Party supporters are likely to be older, white and male. Forty percent are age 55 and over, compared with 32 percent of all poll respondents; just 22 percent are under 35, 79 percent are white and 61 percent are men. Many are Christian fundamentalists, with 44 percent identifying themselves as “born-again,” compared with 33 percent of all respondents.
Here’s a closing quote from a guy who could be the Tea Party’s poster child:
“It’s just the fundamental right of people to protest,” says Victor Mondello, a 79-year-old retiree from Andover, Massachusetts.
‘Nuff said.
To Repeal Health Care Law, GOP Must Elect 26 New Senators, 112 House Members
Health-care reform is now law. The Republicans’ strategy of mortally wounding the Obama presidency by killing the bill — making defeat of the legislation the president’s Waterloo — has failed, and yet they just can’t stop lying.
Republicans’ claim now that they’ll “repeal and replace” the reforms if they win control of Congress may be their most ridiculous lie yet.
In the long list of agitprop prevarications — that reforms would create death panels, lead to rationing, constitute a government takeover, put government bureaucrats between patients and doctors, cover illegal aliens, use taxpayer funds to pay for abortions and the rest — their claim now that they’ll “repeal and replace” the reforms if they win control of Congress may be the most ridiculous yet.
A more likely scenario is that independent voters will realize that the Armageddon Republicans promised is not coming, and never was. Worse, these voters may even find there’s much to like about the tax breaks, regulations on insurance companies and other goodies coming online and so be more likely to vote for Democrats in November than they say they are now, eight months out.
If public opinion turns around, Republicans will have an even harder time getting the two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate required to override the president’s veto of their repeal legislation. But even if it doesn’t, the odds that Republicans can get to two-thirds majorities, especially in the House, lie somewhere between slim and none — and they know it.
Kevin Osborne at Citybeat Cincinnati runs the numbers:
In the House of Representatives, there currently are 253 Democrats and 178 Republicans, with four vacant seats.
In the Senate, there currently are 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans and two independents.
Because it’s highly doubtful that the GOP will convince any Democrats who supported the bill to change their votes, that means Republicans would need to win 40 House seats and 10 Senate seats in this fall’s election to gain simple majorities to pass the bill. But to repeal some of the reforms — like the individual insurance mandate — they would need 60 votes in the Senate, meaning the GOP would have to gain 19 seats.
Even then, it wouldn’t be signed into law because there’s no doubt President Obama would veto it. To override a veto, Republicans would need two-thirds of each house.
That means 67 senators and 290 House members. To achieve that goal, Republicans would need to gain 26 seats in the Senate and 112 in the House.
Pres. Obama is says he hopes Republicans pursue repeal:
“This is the reform that some folks in Washington are still hollering about, still shouting about. Now that we passed it, they’re already promising to repeal it. They’re actually going to run on a platform of repeal in November,” Obama told a loud and friendly crowd of 3,000 in the University of Iowa Field House.
“And my attitude is: Go for it.”
Current projections by Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com show Democrats holding a 54 to 46 seat margin after the elections in November. Silver gives the Republicans a 10 percent chance of taking a majority in the Senate.
However, in February, Silver said the “general consensus” is that Dems will lose as many as 40 seats, which would put them in range of a slim — but nowhere near veto-proof — majority.
Gibbs: McCain Acting Like a 6-Year-Old
The Hill has reported that White House spokesman Robert Gibbs (once again proving he deserves Trish’s undying adoration) has compared Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to a petulant child.
The sharp-tongued spokesman compared the cranky Sarah Palin co-conspirator to a child who wanted to “take his toys and go home.”
The dust up started Monday when McCain said the healthcare reform had so angered Republicans that they would not cooperate with Democrats anymore.
“There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year,” McCain said. “They have poisoned the well in what they’ve done and how they’ve done it.”
Gibbs responded today, comparing McCain to a 6-year-old.
“I find it curious that not getting your way on one thing means you’ve decided to take your toys and go home,” Gibbs said. “It doesn’t work well for my 6-year-old. I doubt it works well in the United States Senate, because we have issues that are important for his constituents and for all of America.”
Asked whether he was comparing McCain to a child, Gibbs replied: “I’m saying that I think the notion that if you don’t get what you want you’re not going to cooperate on anything else is not a whole lot different than I might hear from a 6-year-old.”
