If Democrats Desert Obama on Health Care, Obamacrats Will Desert Them
Those Democrats in Congress who are dragging their feet on health care reform need to understand one thing. If they do not stand with the President and get a solid bill passed, they will lose the voters who put them over the top in 2006 and 2008.
It's all here. It was the increase in registration and voting by young people and minorities that gave us a Democratic Congress and President Obama. If these same voters disappear from the rolls, the Republicans will be back and even the GOP-loving Blue Dogs will find themselves in the minority.
I suppose the House Blue Dogs and the Senate DINOs think that if health care fails we will blame Obama. We won't. We will blame them. Do they recall 1994? It was the Congressional majorities that disappeared but President Clinton was easily re-elected two years later.
Hopefully, the conservative Democrats in Congress understand that if Obama's health reform fails, it will be their failure and not his. And they will pay the price.
Just a word to the not so wise.
There have been reports that the Republicans have offered many ammendments to the Health Care bills before Congress and will still vote as a block against any Health Care Bill.
It is time for Obama and the Democrats to strip all those ammendments out of the bill, present the best bill for Americans that they can come up with and force both Democrats and Republicans to go on record as opposing Health Care for the citizens of these United States.
Such an approach would pay big dividends in the next election cycle by showing which Representatives and Senators have the best interests of Americans in mind and which Representatives and Senators place corporate interests and campaign contributions ahead of the interests of their constituents.
.
July 21, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you sure you want to find out?
Happy days.
July 22, 2009 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
If socialized medicine is good enough for my congressman, it's good enough for me.
End of story.
July 21, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Obama is realizing Emanuel's patting him on the poe poe and saying bipartisanship and pragmatism is the way to go hasn't worked. It never will with the zealots who constitute what passes for the GOP today.
July 21, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
If the Blue Dogs and the DINO's desert Obama it will, in large part, be Obama's fault for encouraging their half-assed, "bipartisan" bullshit for months and for failing to excoriate the Republicans on a partisan basis and thus making anything smacking of Republicanism radioactive. Instead, he naively went around the country being "above it all" and trying to get these very same dickwads to cooperate when anyone with any sense had to have known they would never do so. Now, after accomodating them as Democrats have done for decades, here at the end of the process they throw another monkey wrench in the works that threatens to scuttle the legislation entirely.
This was quite predictable and is a scenario we've seen played out hundreds of times over decades but somehow Obama thought it would work even though it never does. He played right into their hands and now they are trying to deliver the knockout blow in the name of Obama's beloved "centrism" and by claiming they are suddenly concerned about deficits and so forth.
Had the President hammered the Republicans relentlessly for their corruption and criminal behavior in the campaign and once he was in office and burying them they would not have the ability to slow down any of his legislation and they wouldn't have the sway they do over the whores who come from the Blue Dog/DLC/Centrist/Whore wing of the Democratic Party. Had he also done what was right to begin with and declared from the outset that we need some form of single payer plan instead of taking it off the table the President would be in a much better position than he is now.
July 21, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bull....Obama isn't a king or a dictator. The fault will lie with Congress and the lazy, cowardly and stupid Democrats who follow a Republican agenda in a thin attempt to protect their jobs.
I am not one of the young people MJ refers to, but I will guarantee my support to a primary challenger to every one of these cowards in their next election. My rage would know no bounds.
July 21, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll join you in opposing the rotten, corrupt Democrats who side with the Republicans and the corporate predators in the healthcare debate. But you kid yourself if you think that, as President, and the leader of the majority party in both houses that Obama's flirting with corporate, Blue Dog, DLC, "moderates" and the whole farce about bipartisanship for the first several months didn't undermine Obama's own efforts. All that stuff is garbage and only holds back the Democratic agenda. This has been true for decades, yet Obama doggedly pursued that path and remains wishy washy even now with respect to pointing the finger at the Republicans on anything including the looting of the nation during the Bush years, the corruption and the implacable 100% opposition he has met to his program since day one.
July 21, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb, our differences at the core are because I simply believe (with Obama) that the American public want an initial, sincere effort to have a bipartisan forumlation of solutions. I further believe that this same public will snap down anyone who does not do this.
I also believe that our public will support abandoning bipartisanship when one side has been shown to be insincere in effort. And I think that is exactly where the GOP is right now--exposed for the insincerity. DeMint walked right into the trap with very stupid and widely disseminated statements. Kristol also has exposed himself in exactly the same way. Steele also looked like a complete idiot.
Obama now has a free hand--and that includes using reconciliation with far few votes needed. The American public sees him as having played a fair game to this point.
My two cents....
July 21, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point and hope that Obama now acts decisively though frankly I'll believe it when I see it. He could have done so quite a while ago but instead has remained essentially passive while the forces of evil ran amok nearly unopposed and the reform bill has been more and more watered down and compromised to the point of almost not being worth doing. If they scuttle the public option what's the point of passing the rest of it? I'd rather see nothing than a bad bill born of typical Democratic lack of resolve and capitulation. I agree DeMint has made a major error but he will not be hurt at all unless Obama makes a point of hurting him and to be honest, I just don't think he has it in him.
I think people know very well that the Republicans are standing in the way, but Obama refuses to pointedly condemn them which is, quite frankly, foolish, not to mention typical behavior on the part of a DC Democrat like Obama. People hate that about Democrats and often vote against them simply because they have no confidence they will stand up even for the things they say they are for. Who can blame them? Look at how they constantly cave in on most important issues and refuse to fight for what they say they believe in. It is appalling, but it's nothing new. Obama has been in the thrall of the conventional DC wisdom which is that Democrats have to kowtow to those who are whores for the predators and to the mean old Republicans in a veritably endless snipe hunt they call seeking bipartisanship or "bipartisan compromise." His insistence on this weak approach nearly sank the stimulus bill and now the states are hurting badly because of the money for relieving state governments the "moderates" demanded be removed was, in fact, removed in order to be able to claim bipartisan support which eveyrone knows is a joke.
As to the people punishing those who have stood in the way of reform and who are undermining Obama's efforts well... I wouldn't be so sure about that. Some may be punished but it will take a lot of determined work and lots of money to successfully unseat those creeps... if at all. They will have nearly limitless funds at their disposal and they will primp and preen as being above it all and seeking "compromise" and people love to hear that crap even when it is a lie.
July 21, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree on DeMint, Kristol and Steele, but what do you do about Nelson, Lieberman, and the rest of the fellow travelers? It would be a lot easier to paint the other side as either crazy or evil if we didn't have all the Benedict Arnolds framing the lunatics as fellow moderates.
July 21, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb: How do you define the "Whore wing" of the Democratic Party? I mean, who exactly would be exempt from that subset?
July 21, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The alleged "moderates" "centrists" DLC Democrats, etc...
July 21, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bernie would be one.
July 21, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's the ones who get elected by "pandering" to the majority in this country, the people who rule the roost, moderate independents.
Check out and compare the numbers on these 3 questions in theWashington Post-ABC News poll conducted July 15-18, 2009
Blogosphere liberals/progressives are once again, for the umpteenth time, under the mistaken impression that they were the reason that Obama and the current Congress were elected and that those elected owe them something, the old mistaken spiel that the Dems are not being liberal and radical enough, don't stand for anything, blah blah blah.
Actually, liberals/progressives are still around 22% (20% in this particular poll.) And more people still don't even want to identify as Dems but prefer to be called Independents. The majority are moderate and Independent, not liberal and not Dems. Obama knows this. Nothing really has changed in this country, many independents just got fed up after the Bush years
There's a slim majority for the moderate health care plan as described in that question, 54%, with 43% opposed and 33% strongly opposed. You can see in those three questions how the independents are causing that majority. I bet if the question described a more radical plan, the approval would drop a lot. I would think Blue Dogs, etc., are having a tough time figuring what their constituency wants them to do on this, and fear being booted out if results from an eventual bill turn out too "progressive." Far more than special interest donations, I suspect the stalling tactics among Blue Dogs and similar are because they are not sure what their constituents will support and what they won't like, they need to get a better bead on all the ramifications and test them with their constituents. There's probably a madhouse of polling going on in certain districts.
July 21, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a great example of a self-defeating attitude. If you divide up the electorate into 5ths my fifth is good as any other fifth and no less worthy of representation and no less entitled to try to sell our point of view. Sheesh, the airways have been filled with the 1/5 on the right for decades and dare anyone to tell them to shut up! By not shutting up they did plenty to push the country a lot farther to the right than it needs to be.
What people mean when they define themselves as independent is all over the place. It may well include me in a few weeks as fed up as I am with your kind of defeatism. I don't like being a member of a party that begins every policy debate assuming it is already defeated and therefore must argue defensively from the right-wing agenda instead of marketing some new brand of progressivim so strongly that before long people are independently progressive in spite of themselves.
People are independent in large part because they believe government is ineffective and unequal to the task of problem solving. That is assumed to be a conservative perspective but it is also discouragement by those who have looked for government to stand up for them and found instead a heartless, disconnected, inefficient, rudderless bureaucracy. Many of these people may be desperate for healthcare but they just may believe as well that government is unequal to the task. People do not understand the health bill. I do not understand the health bill. It is not too big in ambition, a truly big bill would guarantee universal healthcare. But it's too big in bureaucratize, inexplicable to people who understand Medicare perfectly well.
We must do progressive policy but we must not do it badly. If those Blue Dogs were truly moderates instead of ego-driven obstructionists, they'd be passionate about doing the reform job well not just passionate about putting stakes in the heart of it. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well. Since when did Americans doing great things require deficit neutrality? Did we go to the moon with that kind of beancounting spirit? We've lost our heart and soul. We are still driven by fear. We do not inspire. We aim low. We fear to try the audacious, inspiring challenges. Young people come to us with ideals and we tell them they are in the wrong 20%. Give up. Don't try. You can't win.
July 21, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see anything defeatist about trying to figure out the reality of a situation, instead of demanding the equivalent of the Bushies' "believe it and preach it and it will come true." I think of it as trying to figure out what can actually be accomplished instead of demanding the whole ball and coming home with nothing.
If activists want reform to pass it is possible on that basis, of looking at and studying reality, by truly working hard to convince moderates in Blue Dog districts that they will be happy with the reform and to contact their reps and tell them they support the bill. It's just that simple. You figure that out, and you can pass reform. That's what is actually going on right now.
As to your one of your favorite larger themes, maybe it would help you if you thought of it as the country having three political parties, because that is what we actually do have--liberal, conservative, and the majority, the moderates. So much so that they have been fleeing party identification in droves over the last few decades. These people, they are not asking for a more liberal party, rather, they think Democrats are too liberal in some way shape or form and that is why some of them will not identify with it any longer. If you could make a "Blue Dog" party, I bet an awful lot of people would say that is their party.
On so many of your comments here over the years, you push the "a real liberal would win" thing. Sorry, just I don't live on the same planet as you, I don't agree. From personal evidence, I believe all the polls, they are not made up, it is not a conspiracy, real liberals amount to about 20% of this country. I believe when people say they are moderate, they mean they are not liberal and not conservative, and that they are not confused about what liberal means, and that they don't want liberal government.
Here's the thing: if you were right, we would have a liberal president and Congress, all Paul Wellstone's, but we don't. That's reality! It's so strange to me, those who think like you deny what actually exists, as if there is some giant conspiracy to fool people who are really liberals that they are not liberals. There are Blue Dogs in Congress because they win, they support policies and attitudes that the voters in their districts actually want. We have more moderates and more Independents in this country than any other category, it's just a fact, poll after poll after poll and election after election after election show you that. The current president shows you that, too. If you've read his books, you know he's a centrist moderate on almost all issues, not a liberal. And he won enough of the crucial centrist vote to win the presidency, despite the opposition's attempts to paint him as a liberal, and even more so, his centrism won enough of them to overcome the handicap of racial predjudice that still exists.
July 21, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
More spot-on commentary. Agree one hundred percent.
July 22, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Artappraisr - I basically agree with you. The only qualification I would add regarding that slim 54% majority favoring a moderate plan is that I expect at least a few percent of those opposed are single payer advocates who will support the moderate plan when it becomes the only alternative to inaction.
July 21, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry for the misspelling - artappraiser
July 21, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please, no apologies of that type, with me at least. I have typos and spelling errors in my comments all the time. On a blog post I will go back and fix them, but with only preview and no edit function on comments, it's crazy for anyone to expect perfection. Comments are conversational anyways, and we all make errors in conversation. :-)
July 21, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, the opposed would also include those who hate the idea of anything other than single payer and we don't know how many those are. Actually, I wish the poll had that breakdown, it would be interesting to know. I admit I am guessing that it isn't that many based on so many calling themselves moderate or conservative. (But at least the pollsters asked a question with some specifics on a plan, instead of the general questions like most pollsters, like "are you for Obama's health care plan?"--we should be grateful for small favors there.)
July 21, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
artappraiser
You can slice and dice the American people into all sorts of marginal segments, but the truth and what is just you can't. A true leader does not set his moral principles based on what fifth of the American people want this or that, but what is right and what is just. Then s/he uses all her might to achieve that goal. The fact that she might not succeed is irrelevant. Truth and Justice will never be marginalized but will guide humankind until the end. It is as simple as that. The alternative is to progressively negotiate yourself into lower and lower depths of Dante's inferno.
July 22, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with David Leonhardt in today's New York Times: Obama has to lead by answering the question "What's in it for me?"
As Leonhardt explains, 90% of voters have insurance, and for most of them, the cost is hidden, they think of health care as basically free already, don't know what it costs their employer. You leave many of them with the idea that reform means more is going to come out of their pocket, you're dead with this. The complexity of the issue has to be explained, what's in it for them. That's precisely what Blue Dog types have to worry about--as markg8 explained pretty specifically in this comment on on another thread, some of them need certain things in the bill or their constituents won't go along.
So the two things are not mutually exclusive--leading means convincing "dices and slices" of the electorate! In a democracy, you can't lead people where they don't want to go, you have to sell them that they want to go there.
July 22, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Besides concerns about what reform is going to cost voters, I bet another important concern for those with insurance already is: will they end up with less coverage or less benefits than they have now? I have noted that in the past, Obama's been pretty careful about that, saying things like "you'll be keeping your doctor if you like your doctor." On health care especially (i.e., "if you don't have your health, you have nothing") it's pretty unrealistic to expect people to be willing to give up something simply in order that others can have more. You have to tell them what's in it for them.
July 22, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hear hear!!!
July 21, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Five-hundred American companies (employing 61,000 lobbyists in D.C.) are working their asses off to kill whatever (and eventually politically kill whomever) would deign to vote for a health-care bill that ended up cutting into the profits of their clients.
(Since more PAC money went to Dems than Repubs in '07, even Dems are not likely to jeopardize any further largesse by going against the interests of the PACs.)
The health-insurance bureaucracy collects a hefty $350 billion/year which it's not about to give up without a fight. Corporations that provide health-insurance to their employees now deduct it as a cost. If employees were to pay tax on their health-insurance benefits as income, their employers would lose the deduction - tax wise for them a hefty loss.
I'm actually surprised that health-care is even under discussion.
July 22, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democracy does work, unfortunately it works a bit too slowly in cases like these... The modern world is real-time and we need real-time governance to go with it.
July 21, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got that right !
C
July 21, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Clinton was re-elected for the second term.
But, in typical MJ's creative approach to facts, he forgets to factor in that Clinton ran against Bob Dole at that time.
And that when Congressional majorities disappeared, Clinton was side-lined and distracted for much of his second term.
Apart from that - a thinly veiled threat and a nicely scary strawman argument.
July 21, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I rec this comment.
MJ seems to have Alzheimer's about Ross Perot too. Bill Clinton was "easily" re-elected to a second term because the Republican vote was split.
But hey, thanks for nothing, MJ!
July 21, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ seems to have Alzheimer's about Ross Perot too. Bill Clinton was "easily" re-elected to a second term because the Republican vote was split.
Maybe I have Alzheimer's too, but I can't remember whom the Republican vote was split among. There was Dole, and... fill me in.
Incidentally, even if Ross Perot's voters had unanimously voted for Dole instead, Clinton would still have won more votes than Dole - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996
July 21, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
To present his fear-mongering argument, MJ claimed that Bill Clinton was "easily" re-elected in 1996. MJ's thesis seems to be that voters "punished" the Democrats in Congress in '94 by switching their votes to Republicans, yet they unconflictedly re-elected Clinton in '96. That's simply not what happened, nor does MJ prove that it did happen.
The '94 midterms reflected a rebellion within the Republican Party (not within the Democratic Party). That rebellious shift was still in progress during the 1996 primaries and election (which I shorthanded by using the word "split," although I probably shouldn't have used shorthand).
Old-school Dole was not a strong early leader for the Republicans: He was seriously challenged (and, it can be argued, damaged) by "rebels" Buchanan and Forbes. Dole lost significant ground for his general election campaign by having to spend so much during the primary fights. Clinton was meanwhile able to raise buckets of money during the primaries. Even so, Dole did quite well in the general.
Besides ignoring the Republican turmoil and upheaval (which took years), MJ seems to forget that Gingrich was not as popular in '96 as he is now:
In the '96 election, Perot siphoned off votes from both Clinton and Dole. Clinton won re-election decisively enough, but not enough for Gore to hold on to.
Not only is MJ's historical memory off, his prediction that younger and minority voters will harm the Democratic majorities in Congress over healthcare—thereby disabling President Obama's future effectiveness to get anything done—is baseless.
July 22, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
He was elected to a first term for the same reason. Without Perot we would have had Papa Bush for a second term and who knows what afterward.
I take it even a step further in thinking that 1980 was the tipping point because Ted Kennedy couldn't stand a true progressive democrat in the White House for a second term and gave us Ronald Reagan instead.
We have not had true liberals or true conservatives in charge of either party for nearly 30 years now.
July 22, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm down with your assessment, jason. ;-)
July 22, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who can we unseat first? Lieberman is definitely target Numero Uno...
July 21, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
-Democrats pushing for health care reform got serious jolts last week from critics who warned that their proposed legislation would 'do little to slow spiraling health care costs'. A group of conservative Democrats vowed that they would join Republicans-
Blue Dogs Rake in the Dollars from the Health Care Industry ... The 20 Blue Dogs have taken a combined $6,849,273 from various segments of the health care industry, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics
Thank You !
July 22, 2009 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The atmosphere at the grassroots level is very different now than it was in 1994.
Back then, all the little old ladies in tennis shoes and the fellows at the Rotary Club were running around chanting, "We have the best healthcare in the world," "Socialized medicine," "They all get healthcare," and so forth.
They're strangely silent now, apologetic, defensive, mumbling.
A second point: it's not just the Democrats that would walk away from a healtcare failure with a black eye - it would be the entire government. If healthcare doesn't pass, I, for one, am going fishing. Which means, among other things, that I won't be supporting the troops or whatever.
July 22, 2009 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me compliment everyone commenting previously in this thread for an outstanding discussion about not just health care, but the often conflicted elements of democracy itself.
I can personally see both 'sides' of this debate: One must proceed from a set of defined first principles, and one must also be canny enough and realistic enough to maneuver the practical minefields that inevitably stand in the way of ANY substantive change. One must know both HOW and WHEN to either play the lion, or play the fox.
I'm normally a moderately conservative Democrat - I believe generally in balancing the budget, moving slowly and incrementally toward 'progress' (I DO believe in that, which is how I know I'm not a Republican), a monitered and generally balanced free-market, monitered and generally balanced free-trade, powerful and occasionally agressive national defense, and a whole bushel of other sometimes-contradictory things that some on this board would support, and others would not. There are other areas where I just don't claim to KNOW the answer, and I remain available to be convinced. On the whole, I'm an unreconstructed Clinton Democrat, and I won't allow myself to be pigeonholed into someone else's convenient idea of what it means to be a Democrat.
That said, this particular Health Care matter feels a bit different to me: This has been a half-century in the building, it is a matter of vital national interest (a domestic equivalent to National Security, in my opinion), and we are closer at this moment than we are likely to be in any near-term future to actually making a truly substantive START to getting something truly constructive DONE about it.
This is the moment for the LION: We must fix on our objective in terms primarily of what is RIGHT (that's REAL reform, for those who need reminding), we must move lesser considerations (ie, budgets, re-election, etc)farther back in the line, and we must attack as if our lives depended upon it. If we lose, so be it - some rare things are worth risking EVERYTHING, and I think this is one of those times.
July 22, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, your list of political attributes would be more appropriate to what old school conservatives had in mind.
If we could get more democrats to join the republican party who have this sort of pragmatic progressive core then changing the two party system into something more representative of the country might be possible. Either way, both parties need much more grassroots participation in this and other debates along with a drastic increase in turnout for the primaries.
As long as incumbent keep getting a free pass from voters, we will continue to get one-dimensional solutions to complex and systemic problems.
July 22, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
There may be something to that. As I think about it, my first Democratic presidential vote was for Dukakis in 1988, and I have voted Democratic ever since. My first 3 votes were Nixon, Nixon, Ford, and I deliberately sat out 1980.
Republicans basically lost me at Reagan: I thought he was a bit simplistic, appealed to a mean-spirited side of America, and was too self-consciously and grandstandingly 'patriotic' in the jingoistic sense that many have taken that word to mean. I also began to notice that I just really didn't very much like some of the kinds of people who seemed to like him so much. I don't know, that's just me.
The problem for the GOP (from my perspective) is that it has simply gotten worse from there. I hear and see too many things that are just foreign to my conception of the world: Poorly thought-out, stale bromides that seem to argue for the impossible: A return to the past (which ,from someone who has seen quite a bit of it, wasn't always all that great anyway).
America to me is and always has been a country of the FUTURE, and I'll give my support to whichever party seems to me to best accept and represent that idea.
July 22, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why the primaries are so vitally important. That is where the future is decided.
I am continuing on my Don Quixote quest to transform the current GOP through the weight of new numbers and 16% average turnout in the primaries. There is always at least one old school conservative in the primary that a republican voter can support.
If the democratic party started doing the same thing we might have ourselves a movement.
July 22, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: Coalition-building is a major part of what every president needs to do in order to succeed in accomplishing his agenda.
If President Obama fails to achieve his health-care goals, then saying: "Nyah, Nyah, we'll vote Democrats out of Congress" will not change the fact that his goals haven't been met. Us vs. Them mentalities such as you display in this post seldom achieve anything; cooperation and compromise are much more likely to have an impact.
July 22, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep - Wyden is one of my senators, and I've supported him since he was running for Congress the 1st time. But if he continues to push for his plan over and advocate for delay, I'm supporting whoever will challenge him in the primary. I hope it's Steve Novick, because he is fearless.
July 22, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
[[If these same voters disappear from the rolls, the Republicans will be back and even the GOP-loving Blue Dogs will find themselves in the minority.]]
Actually, a lot of them may find themselves out of a job. Because if there's one thing voters have clear, dating at least to the 1980s, it's that if you give them a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time.
July 22, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
voters have MADE clear ...
July 22, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink