Generally speaking, would you favor smaller government with fewer services or larger government with more services? Fifty-eight percent of those polled by The Washington Post recently claimed they preferred smaller government with fewer services, with only 38 percent favoring a larger government with more services (and, yes, it is a terrific struggle not to place ironic quotations marks around the word "services"). This is the highest number for the "smaller government" category since 2002. And a full year into President Barack Obama's term, most polls and state elections tell us that the electorate is walking—maybe sprinting?—back from the progressive economic policies that now dominate Washington. Some Democrats believed grousing about (the fully imagined) wild and unregulated days of the Bush years would be sufficient to pass sweeping top-down economic controls. Yet for all the presidential election-time happy talk, Americans have this sturdy historical aversion to "fundamental" reorganizations of their society. Still other Democrats convinced themselves that surging opposition to their big plans was fabricated, paid for by insurance companies or oil companies or some other reprehensible profit-motivated boogeyman they'd conjured up. They overestimated their mandate and underestimated the electorate. Many more Democrats continue to convince themselves that the party's problem is flawed candidates or poorly communicated messages, as White House spokesman Robert Gibbs conceded this week—because, presumably, the idea of socializing medicine is too nuanced and intellectually rigorous for the average voter to digest. Hardly. The predicament Democrats face is the opposite. Too many voters appreciate exactly what health care legislation entails. This is why Congress conducts clandestine negotiations on legislation and trashes promises of transparency. This is why leading Democrats have embraced procedural tricks and senatorial bribery—and now the possibility of "reconciliation"—so they can adjust health care reform and pass it with a 51-vote majority. You're gonna get it whether you want it or not. That's what happens when these Democrats lose a debate. According to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, only 33 percent of the public believes the health reform effort is a "good" idea, whereas 46 percent considers it a "bad" idea—with 55 percent disapproving of Obama on health care. What's most striking about this poll is that opposition to Obama's plan has increased 20 percentage points since April—coinciding, not surprisingly, with the president's big push to convince us that it's needed. The more people learn, apparently, the less they like. Now, I am under no grand illusions about democracy. The electorate can be mercurial and irrational—as nearly every election proves. Nor do I believe any ethical politician should abandon his core values simply because polls tell him it would be expedient. I say, keep fighting, Mr. President. Those of us who believe in capitalism need you. But the fact is we have one party controlling both houses of Congress—with historically impressive margins. We have an opposition political party Americans have lost confidence in. We have endured a frightening downturn that allowed the far left to advance a menu of stunning regulatory intrusions that normally would be non-starters. Finally, we have a charismatic and articulate president who, armed with a nearly national landslide, was given the stage to make his pitch on health care reform. If, with all that, the progressives cannot convince voters that the central cause of their movement is necessary, then it is not a messaging problem or a leadership problem, and it is not a Republican problem; it is an idea problem—a terrible idea problem. link
I think once you sit them down and explain what 'Services' they get . . . I suspect a few minds may change. So . . since this is your thread Which 'services' do you feel you can do without? Rocket River
There's no cred here. If you're going to divide the issue in democrat versus republican, then you have to analyze the immense growth of the federal government, federal debt, and federal spending under the last three Republican administrations as part of the discussion. Compare that to the Democratic administrations. There are strong similarities, and there are some notable differences. Otherwise, there's just another partisan article. Meh. We're knee-deep in those. Democrats are misjudging the American people, yes, but it's not about Americans embracing Republican supposed cornerstones which they the don't really pursue when in power. The misjudging is the people's (un)willingness to swallow convoluted messages instead of pithy, simple messages.
I think this is the problem. It annoys me to no end what a bunch of flip-floppers Americans are. Most wanted to invade Iraq, then they saw what it meant and said we never should have done it. They vote in Obama who's promising to reform healthcare, and then they say we should scrap the whole thing. Think first, pick something, and go with it.
<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc32773b" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640"><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=34962501&width=420&height=245"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="opaque" /><embed name="msnbc32773b" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=34962501&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="opaque" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
thanks, pgabs... but what is a onemogin? I am so behind the lingo curve. There's a chance you meant "once again," but I don't deserve that sort of qualifier.
Silly liberals, thinking the American peope and Republican Congressman/Senators would keep an open mind instead of simply floating ideologies (some extreme). Shame on you!
personally, im in favor of limited government and fiscal responsibility. neither party has given us that, but if forced to chose sides i would be whomever is against the republicans. i could never in good conscience be associated w/ that party in any way. i think for any republican or bush supporter to be upset about larger government and deficit spending is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. where was the outcry when bush tripled the size of the federal government? where was the outcry when bush spent more than all previous presidents combined (in a mere 4 years). imo, what obama has done has only exacerbated the problem, but again, bush supporters and republicans have no right to complain now.
Agreed but as I am sure you are well aware spending money on non stimulating activities like wars, nuclear arms, and tax cuts for the rich is a okay to go into debt in fact "deficits don't matter" in those cases. However if you try to give tax cuts to the middle class, create some jobs, build some infrastructure, and reform healthcare suddenly everyone is a fiscl conservative and a deficit hawk. I'd like to know what Obama has done to suddenly make the king of debt? The deficit is blowing up because of loss of tax revenues moreso than new spending. Now that the Cons are applauding themselves for destroying the attempt at healthcare reform, arey the suggesting that healthcare is fine the way it is? Their plan was a joke that got one days worth of press and looked like something a high schooler put together the night before just to get some partial credit.
They did not misjudge. They ****ed up. As usual, the democrats could not band together to get a damn thing of worth done. And, again - as usual, they got penalized for it. I'm beginning to think that voting for anything outside of local elections is a complete waste of time.
Poll: Mass. Voters Protested Against Weak Wall Street, Health Care Policies Massachusetts voters who backed Barack Obama in the presidential election a year ago and either switched support to Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown or simply stayed home, said in a poll conducted after the election Tuesday night that if Democrats enact tougher policies on Wall Street, they'll be more likely to come back to the party in the next election. A majority of Obama voters who switched to Brown said that "Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street." A full 95 percent said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote. In a somewhat paradoxical finding, a plurality of voters who switched to the Republican -- 37 percent -- said that Democrats were not being "hard enough" in challenging Republican policies. It would be hard to find a clearer indication, it seems, that Tuesday's vote was cast in protest. The poll also upends the conventional understanding of health care's role in the election. A plurality of people who switched -- 48 -- or didn't vote -- 43 -- said that they opposed the Senate health care bill. But the poll dug deeper and asked people why they opposed it. Among those Brown voters, 23 percent thought it went "too far" -- but 36 percent thought it didn't go far enough and 41 percent said they weren't sure why they opposed it. Among voters who stayed home and opposed health care, a full 53 percent said they opposed the Senate bill because it didn't go far enough; 39 percent weren't sure and only eight percent thought it went too far.
