« Old School | Main | Femibloggate »

February 05, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834517f4f69e200d835165a4269e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Edwards' Health Plan:

Comments

Greg Kuperberg

Hi Dylan. I think that I agree with Ronald Reagan more than I agree with you. Not about health care itself, that is, because I agree with you that the real solution is to extend Medicare to everyone.

I agree with Reagan's 11th commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican." Or rather, I think that Reagan's advice is not entirely wrong by any means if you happen to be a Demcrat and you replace "Republican" by "Democrat". I won't call it completely correct, but I would say that there is a line between criticizing John Edwards and trashing him. I don't think that now is the time to trash him, since he could be the eventual nominee.

Let's say that Edwards is dishonest and has bad judgment. I do not know to what extent that is true; I can say that his old trial lawyer career and his populist persona both rub me the wrong way. But let's say that it's completely true. Even so, the executive isn't just run by one person. If Edwards became president, it would still open a lot of doors to a lot of Democrats to do many progressive things. Edwards himself would surely be better than likely Republicans on the two most important issues: Getting out of Iraq and ending the run on the budget on behalf of the top 1% of taxpayers.

Minipundit

Hi Greg; long time no comment war (oh, how I miss those). I suppose my response would be to say that I don't write this blog to be "useful." I write it to express my opinions. One of which is that John Edwards is a charlatan and a threat to each and every impoverished person in the Third World. I think the 11th commandment's a good thing too - for politicians. But I'm not Zell Miller. I don't give major convention speeches or go on talk shows. My opposition to Edwards will not substantially reduce his chances of winning the White House if he is nominated.
Moreover, while those two issues are important, you forget another important one (I'll forget my trade obsession for now): Iran. And Edwards has signalled that he just might be game for a military strike. I don't want to elect someone who will repeat the last four years with a bigger and more antagonistic country.

Greg Kuperberg

I write it to express my opinions.

I have the feeling that it would be prudent to temper your opinion about Edwards. It's hard for me to fully justify since I'm not sure of your objectives, but one way or another, I think that you're coming on too strong.

From the point of view of Edwards' chances of winning, few people have much unilateral influence on that. But I do vote --- maybe I'm not always sure why --- and a popular blog is more influential than just one vote.

From the point of view of your own study of politics, generally speaking too-strong opinions can get in the way of enlightenment. Many people spend too much time disagreeing with wrong-minded leaders and not enough time figuring out how to get what they want. Or if not what they want themselves, they don't think about how good ideas ever break through political deadlock.

Moreover, even though I am no fan of Edwards, some of what you say is surely speculative or even unfair. Everyone from Obama to Cheney has an incentive to talk tough about Iran. No one, again from Obama to Cheney, has an incentive to actually attack Iran. (At least not a rational incentive!) I don't see why Edwards is more likely to bomb Iran than any other Democrat.

Minipundit

I have the feeling that it would be prudent to temper your opinion about Edwards. It's hard for me to fully justify since I'm not sure of your objectives, but one way or another, I think that you're coming on too strong.
Edwards is very strong in Iowa and Nevada. If he does well in those two caucuses, the nomination could follow fairly easily, especially as he seems to have the South locked up. There is a very good chance that he'll be the nominee, and that scares the bloody daylights out of me. He would be the first protectionist president since Hoover, and would do terrible harm as a consequence, not just to the American economy but to the poor worldwide. That's something that one should feel strongly about.

From the point of view of Edwards' chances of winning, few people have much unilateral influence on that. But I do vote --- maybe I'm not always sure why --- and a popular blog is more influential than just one vote.
Mine is not a popular blog.

From the point of view of your own study of politics, generally speaking too-strong opinions can get in the way of enlightenment. Many people spend too much time disagreeing with wrong-minded leaders and not enough time figuring out how to get what they want. Or if not what they want themselves, they don't think about how good ideas ever break through political deadlock.
Oh, I've figured out how to get what I want: Barack Obama. And I've figured out what would prevent me from getting what I want on my main issue (internatonal trade): John Edwards.

Moreover, even though I am no fan of Edwards, some of what you say is surely speculative or even unfair. Everyone from Obama to Cheney has an incentive to talk tough about Iran. No one, again from Obama to Cheney, has an incentive to actually attack Iran. (At least not a rational incentive!) I don't see why Edwards is more likely to bomb Iran than any other Democrat.
Yes, but no one, from Edwards to Cheney, had a rational incentive to attack Iraq in 2002. But Cheney did, and Edwards voted for it. You severely overestimate the rationality of the American decisionmaking elite.

Greg Kuperberg

Krugman has a new article on Edwards' health plan. He likes it, and he claims that neither Clinton nor Obama deliver specifics.

Minipundit

Obama and Hillary will release their plans soon enough. Obama hasn't even officially announced yet. People are always complaining that the process is going too fast; wouldn't releasing a plan in February of the year before the election be considered "fast"?

Greg Kuperberg

People are always complaining that the process is going too fast; wouldn't releasing a plan in February of the year before the election be considered "fast"?

If it's too soon for his health plan, why isn't it too soon for you to endorse him? I think that you're jumping the gun, especially in moving from liking Obama to bashing his Democratic opponents.

Minipundit

I never said it was too soon for a health plan. I said that the conventional wisdom - that it is too soon to announce - would say that it is too soon to announce a helath plan.
I object strenuously to your characterization of my anti-Edwards posts as hatchet jobs motivated by a desire to help Obama. I am not a political operative. My strong dislike of Edwards has little to do with my admiration and respect for Obama.

Greg Kuperberg

My strong dislike of Edwards has little to do with my admiration and respect for Obama.

At the level of your conscious intentions, I believe you. Even so, it is easier to believe such a thing about oneself than for it to actually be true. There are many oily figures in politics, even quite a few running for president, but you have spent more time on Edwards than on the Republicans. Now, I don't mean to say that you have any hidden agenda in doing this. All I am saying is that it is easy to go overboard at this early stage.

You have to admit that if Edwards were elected president, he would come with a lot of positives, no matter how much he personally rubs you the wrong way. After all, you said that you liked McEwan and Marcotte, right? And his health plan is not as comprimised as it first seems, according to a highly distinguished, Democrat-leaning economist.

Minipundit

At the level of your conscious intentions, I believe you. Even so, it is easier to believe such a thing about oneself than for it to actually be true. There are many oily figures in politics, even quite a few running for president, but you have spent more time on Edwards than on the Republicans. Now, I don't mean to say that you have any hidden agenda in doing this. All I am saying is that it is easy to go overboard at this early stage.
One problem is that the Republicans practically attack themselves. They self-distruct with more efficiency than landmines. McCain is the flagbearer for the least popular military initiative since the invasion of Cambodia, Giuliani is on his third wife (after his second cousin and a woman he cheated on while in office) and would certainly provoke the strongest third-party candidacy since Wallace if he were to be nominated, and Romney, well, I don't need to elaborate on Romney.
The problem with Edwards is that a lot of people I respect - bloggers, friends, conventional writers - like him, a lot. He has the upper hand in Iowa and Nevada and has an excellent chance at seizing the nomination. Which would be very, very bad.

You have to admit that if Edwards were elected president, he would come with a lot of positives, no matter how much he personally rubs you the wrong way. After all, you said that you liked McEwan and Marcotte, right? And his health plan is not as comprimised as it first seems, according to a highly distinguished, Democrat-leaning economist.
Exactly my point. Good, good people are being seduced by a bad, bad candidate. Take Krugman. Krugman is by far the most eloquent writer in support of globalization. And he's sympathetic to Edwards, you has called globalization "sick" and "unhealthy." That's bad.

Greg Kuperberg

One problem is that the Republicans practically attack themselves.

I don't agree with their platform any more than you do, but this pronouncement sounds arrogant to me. The Republicans are capable politicians and it will take a lot of work to defeat them. They are also influential, despite the war in Iraq. Some of them are both intelligent and honest, and the only real fault that I have with them is their party baggage. (Well, relatively honest, as politicians of either party go. I don't see how you can be president if you "cannot tell a lie".)

Good, good people are being seduced by a bad, bad candidate.

Doesn't it suggest that he may not be all that bad?

Krugman is by far the most eloquent writer in support of globalization. And he's sympathetic to Edwards, who has called globalization "sick" and "unhealthy." That's bad.

Krugman is nobody's fool and I'm sure that he has no illusions about Edwards. He praised the man's health care plan, and for all I know he could be right. Krugman may also have meant, by implication, that Edwards' stance on health care is more consequential than his stance on globalization. For all I know, he could be right about that too. And I say that even though I personally do not like Edwards' style at all.

Besides, didn't you say that you think of the Democrats as "we" and not "they"? If so, then that is not consistent with your rejection of "the 11th commandment". That is, if you accept the Democrats as your tribe, then you accept some responsibility for their success, even if it is only a tiny fraction. Now, I don't think that you should opt to bear this responsibility, nor even that wanting to be a Democrat necessarily substantively makes you one. But if the Democrats really were "we" for you, then that would beg some respect for Edwards as a viable candidate.

Hero

So many health care stores are available here at Couponalbum.com with all the best offers...!!!!

The comments to this entry are closed.