Democrats & Liberals: Archives

My assessment closely parallels his. However he and I would differ greatly on the subject of whether all of this means flight from party voting in 2006. I don’t see it happening sufficiently to make a large difference in the 2006 elections. I think we will see a few house seats move to Democrats and perhaps a Senate seat, but, voters have not yet been shaken sufficiently to cause them to depart from their party vote. That takes grassroots economic problems.

And while those economic problems are definitely coming (IMF reports global slowdown in growth due to oil prices just this morning), the American voters aren’t feeling it yet en masse. And they are likely not going to until the end of 2006 or early 2007 when higher interest rates, higher inflation, and higher taxes at state and local levels all come to roost.

More Pension plan bankruptcies, more exported high paying jobs, and an Asian Flu pandemic that shuts transportation down in this just-in-time-delivery marketplace, may all be contributors to Americans feeling the pinch pain in another 14 to 16 months. Perhaps too late for the 2006 elections the way the news on the progress in Iraq came too late for the 2004 elections.

David, I agree with you that grassroots economic problems may indeed by the clinching catalyst to see real GOP voter defections in 2006. At the same time, I feel that some of those grassroots problems have already manifested themselves — and that more and more Americans (including Repubs) are being “shaken sufficiently,” to use your words, and are now questioning their party loyalty as a result.

Yes, things can unfortunately always get worse, so you might be right in believeing that there isn’t yet a sufficient amount of economic pain to oust a majority of Republicans in 2006. But make no mistake, the average American is already experiencing a good amount of financial pain, and the hardhsips show no signs of abating. The 3 most obvious examples include:

>>Runaway oil and gasoline prices.

>> Health care premiums that have increased 41% on avergae over the past three years.

>> A 2.4% rise in personal income during these past six months, but a 2.9% rise in inflation during the same time frame.

Unless things get better, which would be a miracle given the arrogance of this administration, more Repubs than not may indeed be expelled from Congress after 2006.

I would not look for healthcare/prescription drug costs to ease any time soon based on the fact that the first Vioxx case went against Merck in the amount of 253 million dollars.

Media induced toxic stupidity will prevent major political changes until a large percent of the “political” population realizes that the media is as corrupt as the corporately sponsored un-American neo-fascist cult it is now serving.

steve smith:

Why am I not surprised that you find a $253 Million penalty for a Company that did a cost/benefit analysis and decided that it would be cheaper NOT to tell people their product was dangerous?

I am not surprised over the $253 million as I am sure the appeal will reduce the amount. The thing is that this was the FIRST case of likely thousands to follow.

The GOP faces more risk because it is more exposed. It is too early to predict next year’s races, but we can say this. Most Senate and House races are decided based on local issues. This is especially true in a year when we are not electing a President.

The big national variable will be the strength of the party organization. Here the Republicans are better off. This will compensate for some of the risk, but not eliminate it. The GOP might lose some seats for particular or local reasons mentioned by many analysts, but it will not be enough to change either house. This is really inside baseball. Don’t read too much into it.

About the Merck trial…
Remember it was heard in Texas and the Repubs put into place a safety net for companies like Merc. The max penalty a person can get is 250k. From $253,000,000 to $250,000. That is the price of a ‘conservative agenda’ being accepted and passed. Barring any kind of federal appeals decision, this case will go down as a $250,000 headache for Merck… which, by the way, they havbe lots of aspirin for…

Steve B, I think there may be a Grandfather clause in play on this verdict allowing the full amount of the verdict to stand due to the case having been litigated prior to the new law. I certainly hope that is the case.

The GOP might lose some seats for particular or local reasons mentioned by many analysts, but it will not be enough to change either house.

I wouldn’t put money on the Dems picking up more than 3-4 of seats in the Senate and maybe ten in the House, but whatever pickup they get WILL be for largely national reasons. People simply don’t trust the Republicans to run the country anymore. (They don’t completely trust the Dems either, but at the moment they aren’t on the hot seat.) Even if the Dems only gain 2-3 seats in the Senate, however, it will be enough to alter the balance of power. People like Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chaffee will have a lot of power. Likewise, even a modest House gain could change the legislative outlook.

Given the neocons’ track record of stealing
elections by hook or crook, why would anyone
believe that the repubs. will lose any seats
in Congress in 2006? Just wondering.

I am all for someone being reasonably compensated for the death of a loved one due to a prescription drug issue.

250 million is absolutely ridiculous. The husband is not coming back to join the living. The drug company will not really suffer any losses because they will raise the price of other drugs to adjust for the lawsuit losses.

Everyone will then complain that the cost of drugs is too high.

The GOP won’t lose any serious power unless the Dems are able to turn the next election into a national referendum on the Republican’s record on the war, the economy, and the middle class. The Contract with America was brilliant because it did just that. The Dems need something similar but may lack the leadership or imagination to make it happen. There’s a reason that an independent like Kinky Friedman could be competitive in the governor’s race in a Republican stronghold like Texas. It says a lot - not much of it good - about both parties.

Steve Smith, if they pass the cost on to consumers, consumers will buy other brands from other companies, which are cheaper because they don’t seek to deceive their consumers. Competition is a wonderful thing. Unless you want to make the argument that there is no competition among drug companies, and that their oligopoliy constitutes the power of monopoly, in which case we need some anti-trust investigators out of the Justice dept. to investigate, eh?

250 million is absolutely ridiculous.

steve, IIRC, she only got 2.5 million for the murder of her husband. The rest was “punitive” damages meant to punish Merck - and hopefully convince them not to sell anymore defective drugs. Frankly, 250 mil is chump change for those guys, so I doubt it will have the desired effect. It should have been bigger.

And Woody, the GOP was in the same trouble last November. But some good old name calling and spinning took care of that. Or maybe it was Cheney, telling Americans that terrorists would cut their heads off if they voted for Kerry. And I know Catholic priests were telling their flocks that if they voted for Kerry they couldn’t receive communion anymore. For the GOP, where there’s a will, there’s a way, right?

250 million is absolutely ridiculous. The husband is not coming back to join the living.

Ms Schwamp

— How rich do these grieving family members need
— to be?

How can you put a price on life?? Then answer is that you make it as painful to take life as possible. Then people will stop running balance listings to see if they can afford to kill 1 out 100 or 1 out of 10,000.

We have the power to show our government that we will not fall into the partisan traps that have been set in recent years. We need to stop voting for particular parties and focus on the credibility of the candidates. The parties will not be able to claim strongholds that they can ignore or use spin and attack ads to manipulate voters. We have the power to kill the political careers of those who engage in or condone this types of politics.
We need leaders not men and women who care only for their own net worth and the wealth of their friends. We have suffered enough with candidates from both parties who gain office due to wealthy backers(Who will need to get repaid)and powerful friends(Who will request an increase of power during that candidates time in office). Let’s ignore both parties rhetoric and escape partisan politics so that we take control of our government and hold it accountable.

Punitive damages are meant to punish the victimizer more than to reward the victim. They are meant to send a message to others who think they might get away with what Merck did.

They also enable lawyers representing victims decide whether the potential reward justifies the huge cost and risk of going to war with a company with deep pockets and its own army of lawyers.

The uncertainty about the business exposure that the company’s actions might create is one of the most important reasons for allowing high, even ruinous punitive damages.

Whether or not this award stands, Merck faces a few thousand similar lawsuits. Some of these are overseas where the Republican Right doesn’t control the quality - or equality - of justice.

Even though later juries tend not to award the same high damages that early juries award, Merck now faces huge, largely incalculable business risks. I have heard estimates of over $30 Billion over the next several years. If they WERE calculable, the company could, as it is claimed here, build in a predictable reserve against litigation losses. It could also keep doing what Ford did with the Pinto, i.e. build the low, predictable cost of wrongful death awards into its prices. Now it cannot.

One more point: companies don’t kill people, company executives kill people. But executives think they can escape the consequences of their actions through indemnification insurance - fronted by the company, but ultimately paid for by shareholders and customers.

Maybe we should start questioning large damage awards against companies, and start demanding large damage awards against the personal assets of the executives who make criminal decisions.

Maybe we should allow insurance companies who pay out large damage awards to recover from the executives who cause these losses.

Maybe we should allow shareholders to directly sue company executives who allow criminal negligence to take place and therey damage shareholder value.

—-
We have the power to show our government that we will not fall into the partisan traps that have been set in recent years. We need to stop voting for particular parties and focus on the credibility of the candidates. The parties will not be able to claim strongholds that they can ignore or use spin and attack ads to manipulate voters. We have the power to kill the political careers of those who engage in or condone this types of politics.
—-

I would love to engage this sort of voter intelligence… but how do we start it? As one friend told me during the last elections (discussing a local Judge’s race) “I hate it when they don’t put what party they are with on their posters.” I think there’s a huge amount of momentum heading against us.

Bush Job Approval Ratings
8/22/05 Approve Disapprove Undecided
Overall 36% 58% 6%
Economy 33% 62% 8%

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

Unless the President wags the dog, those numbers look like backlash in 2006 if they stay near those levels. At the very least, no coattails means the Pres. won’t be out campaigning for GOP candidates.

Combine that with more anti-incumbent votes, and who knows?

Robert Benjamin,
I like those ideas. I’ve posted before that I think a good idea would be to prohibit insurance companies from paying punitive damages. That way, the insurance cost is less, which benefits those who don’t make mistakes (and those who buy from them), the punishment is actually felt by those who caused the problem, and I think it is much more likely to cause changes in policy if someone can be held personally responsible.

Tony,

If we keep fighting for wholesale changes in our government and base our claims for the need for these changes, for all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, we will meet with less resistance to the idea.
When the elections draw near we should triple our efforts to post factual information on every candidate that has an impact on the Federal government. We should call on others to do the same.
We need to call foul when candidates resort to attack ads. We need to call foul when the other party retaliates. We need to have less structured(Packed full of supporters only)Town Hall meetings and debates and educate voters as to the uselessness of having them otherwise.
The media should have the right to ask any candidate to answer any relevant question and we should point out when they don’t.
We point out both parties weaknesses and let the best candidate emerge. If we can sway voters to look at alternatives to the big two we have done something. If we can convince some of the Republicans and Democrats to embrace a moderate approach to the issues that are really important and the solutions to them during elections we’ve done something.
Look at how long it took some of them to figure out that Kerry and Bush both sucked.
They were too busy fighting over party differences to see that.
I’d rather vote for someone who I feel will lead us and accept public service for what it is, than vote for the person who sucks the least.
I bet others feel the same way.

I def. agree that people running for office should be looked at in a singular nature… no party bias. I find it amazing that Delay is in the middle of being investigated for illegal travels, and then out of the wood work, everyone on both sides of the isle start processing back dated travel reports. NO NO NO NO NO! We should all be up in arms that our elected officials have been this corrupt. How can we try an convict Delay when our guys are doing it as well. I do not like Delay, but I’m furious that I was mislead by the ones I did vote for. (I know there is party bias in that last sentence…)

Yet what we hear is “Well, your guys did it, so why shouldn’t our guys be able to do the same?” It’s like trying to determine who’s at fault when one of my kids breaks something… blah blah blah blah blah.

By the way, I think there is a good chance the Dems could pick up several governorships: New York, Florida (Jeb isn’t running), Ohio, my own state of Arkansas, maybe even California. Alas, governorships don’t “add up” in any meaningful way, but a much larger chunk of the US population could find itself under a Blue governor in 2007.

With a pandering usurper as president, the responsibility for the catastrophic unhinging of the U.S.A. rests solely on the backs of the legal-to-vote U.S. population. How a fucking Conneticut-born, Yale cheerleader could be re-branded as a Texas cowboy is your own damn fault.
This fucking shaved monkey, who brags about not reading newspapers and parades about in his own born-again, vitriolic, ignorant, yet passionate conservative cloak, is the most dire mistake you mofo’s have ever made. Reaping the whirlwind comes to mind.
I myself have often fantasized about having my youthful indiscretions lasting till my forties. I 2 wanted 2 b a cowboy when I was 10. Then again my father wasn’t the president yhat was the son of a nazi collaborator. Meritocracy? guffaw