Throw in the usual drivel from DLS and another thread gets trashed.

Seems to me that he often includes data and contributes more than you do. His comments also seem more moderate and he has been willing to criticize Republicans and Conservatives. more oft than I've seen you criticise Liberals or Democrats.

Perhaps I'm biased, very likely, but thats the way i honestly see it. Prove me wrong though and show me where you have recently been critical of democrats for something other than not being progressive enough.

Nearly 80 percent of Americans agree that “government investments in education, infrastructure, and science are necessary to ensure America's long-term economic growth.

If I had to give a yes or no answer at gunpoint I'd say I was supportive. But I find this to be too broad a generalization. For example I support government investments in the Center for Disease control and in stem cell research I do not support government healthcare until the government can do so at no extra cost to those who don't opt in and can run it better than they have run medicare and medicaid (and the post office for that matter).

For education I also think that those who opt out or do not make use of public schools should not be paying for them. Additionally I believe that the States should be running this and not the federal government. Educational funding on the national level is not something I see as a power granted by the US Constitution. I'd be much better with it if a Constitutional amendment was passed giving the federal government this power, with the consent of the governed rather than it just assuming it has it.

Infrastructure, absolutely. Roads communications lines, shipping, etc. are all a valid and required role of the national government.

Science, again it depends on the specific projects. Obama extending support for Landstadt (I think I spelled it right???) for example is something I greatly approve of. Spending federal money to study the Grizzley Bear paternity seems quite wasteful.

Thats why I think figures on approval for huge categories of spending tend to be very bad polling and reveal almost nothing about what the public really thinks.

In case you haven't noticed, none of the threads stay on the topic defined in the article. It only takes about 6 – 7 comments to run a thread down a rabbit hole. If you and I discuss this in detail, we'll demonstrate how this rabbit hole occurs.

Throw in the usual drivel from DLS and another thread gets trashed.

It could be low-IQ or ordinary-stooping stuff, could be following Obama's race-card radical stunt over Gates that offended the intelligent public (especially after it encouraged radicals to spew all kinds of related garbage about institutional white racism, sexism, etc, in addition to its being a “teachable moment” officially — [gag[).

Except now that in order to pay in part for the current expansion of the fed health care for others, Obama and other Dems want to simply raid Medicare, while making vague, unbelieveable (to those with an IQ above room temperature, at least) promises about magically ending “waste, fraud, and abuse” (which they should have done before expanding FedCare to others, though nobody with an IQ above room temperature took their earlier statements about the need for entitlement reform seriously to begin with) and vague references to making health care “smarter” (a word they've misused in other ways already) and more cost-effective, reviving concerns based on decades of politics and previous acts that leads the same seniors to worry they will be sacrificed (and at the extreme, their lives and health threatened) in order to pay for this sloppy, stupidly rushed entitlement enlargement.

Leave it up to these lib Demmies to dig their own holes well before the 2010 elections. (And how will their mischief with the Census come back to hurt them next year?)

Nearly 80 percent of Americans agree that “government investments in education, infrastructure, and science are necessary to ensure America's long-term economic growth.” Overall, the unanimity of opinion found on this issue is rare, showing that conservatives are out of step with the rest of the country in opposing new government investments. More than two in three Americans agree that “government has a responsibility to provide financial support for the poor, the sick, and the elderly,” while 15 percent are neutral and another 15 percent disagree. Democrats remain almost unanimously supportive, and independents lean strongly toward this progressive position. A slim majority of Republicans similarly agree.

While conservative elites have long held government regulation as an impediment to economic growth, nearly three in four Americans disagree, believing instead that “government regulations are necessary to keep businesses in check and protect workers and consumers.” Once again, there is surprising partisan and ideological harmony among Americans, with agreement topping 60 percent among both Republicans and conservatives. Seventy-six percent of Americans also agree with the president's argument that “America's economic future requires a transformation away from oil, gas, and coal to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar,” with 12 percent neutral and just 11 percent who say such a transformation is not needed. A major pillar of Obama's economic vision, and the key to his cost-containment strategies, is ensuring affordable health coverage for all Americans. Nearly 65 percent of Americans are on board with this goal, including 44 percent who strongly agree that “the federal government should guarantee affordable health coverage for every American.”

Might I ask if you have some polling data or something else to back that claim?

It's been posted here several times today and I'm (and hopefully no one) wastes anymore time responding to your constant regression into non sequitur.

Dunno, why are SC conservatives so darned racist?

Now, granted I don't know this was directed at Joe Wilson, but given its timing I gotta wonder if someone just played the race card on him on this very blog. If it was directed at Wilson, I wonder what basis for racism the poster will assert? because he was critical of a black President over a political statement? Is disagrement with a black man suddenly enough to get a racist label? Then again maybe the remark wasn't instended as a reference to Joe Wilson, but I'd love a clarification by the poster of it.

Speak for yourself! Not too long ago you posted, apparently with a perfectly straight face, that everything was going great with the economy or with the stimulus, and that whatever problems were of concern at the time were a problem inherited from Bush [rolling eyes].

The lib Dems have gone crazy this year, the smarter public increasingly objects, the Dems have been so bad they're now fracturing among themselves, Obama himself has suffered due to his own poor lib behavior at times as well as by association with the kids in Congress, and this speech he gave was for damage control and some recovery. It took work by me to extract the essential elements from the many piles of garbage that were in his speech. That his essential elements constitute something better than we've seen from the rest of the Dems this year on health care and reaches the public in a better way makes his speech a success (correctly rating something in the fifties on a scale of 100, as I wrote earlier). Now it's up to the Dems to reach at least a tenuous compromise between the Blue Dogs and the “progressive” kiddies. It may be with a derivative of the House bill (3200) or the Baucus bill in the Senate. The GOP has been kept out of action by the Dems. That one of them made a momentarily ass of himself last night is no big deal, any more than holding up signs or waving their bills the Dems are ignoring, town hall-style. The hype on here and elsewhere over Wilson, which is degrading in and of itself, is being made into a much bigger, and worse, issue. What eventually is sought by the Dems in the weeks to come will have to be subject to critical examination even more than Obama's defect-ridden damage-control speech, as we move on. That's how the real world is these days.

The bottom feeding and hype about Wilson's shouting has already spawned more wretched excess.

and the vast majority of the people in this country do support the welfare state

Might I ask if you have some polling data or something else to back that claim? If so will you please share. Additionally I'd be interested in the degree of support among those who actually pay taxes and not end up getting more from the welfare state than they pay in.

Kennedy did want health care reform, and the vast majority of the people in this country do support the welfare state.

“This, at least, is better than what the lib Dems have done or said so far this year on this issue.”
This is what they've been saying all along. This tepid pre-compromised position was defined during last year's primary. You should pay better attention.

Distilling the few meaningful, presumably honest statements from his speech reveals:

* He wants to provide insurance promptly (true insurance vs. comprehensive care, not said) to some;

* He wants the public option (rigged “competitive” replacement of private sector) for everybody;

* He wants employers to remain providers of insurance (no portability), or to pay when the dump it;

* He wants individuals to have insurance and pay for it, as in Massachusetts.

This, at least, is better than what the lib Dems have done or said so far this year on this issue.

Now the question is: Will the kiddies' House bill be taken to the Senate and tamed, or will the Baucus Senate bill be taken and subjected to “improvements” by the lib Dem kiddies in the House?