So does far.
We’ll have to let our friend say what he meant by “socialist”, then, if he comes back. But you do know it does come with a lot of baggage, and there are other words to use if that baggage isn’t intended, ya know?
And yes, I do say that some guaranteed minimum health coverage is a centrist concept for the US today, so I’m glad you agree.
I’m using this one, my friend.
Look Sam the objection really isn’t to the word socialist, it’s to the snear that you (and presumably he) uses when they say it.
The fact is that there is broad, even huge popular, support for socialist medicine in this country, as there is for all other essential services. Which, coincidently are all also socialist.
It’s just that self described ‘conservatives’ use the word as a pejorative and apply it only to socilialist polices that they oppose. Police, fire, highways… all socialist in exactly the same way that hillarycare was going to be. And all enjoy broad popular support.
Republican’s have so debased the meaning of certain words that even though they are accurate, you can’t allow them to be used by republicans because they carry way to much bullshit baggage.
So you don’t get to use the word until you learn to either not say it with a snear, or begin to snear at all of the socialist things that we do. Like, for instance, the military, which is a <i>full out socialist society</i> for pity’s sake!
Socialism is a far-left idea. I was using it against this:
Her health care plan was undeniably socialistic. I don’t believe I was using the word with any kind of slant, I was using it according to it’s definition.
Tejota: Let me get this straight: Because I “snear” (sic) at socialism, you’re going to redefine socialistic policies as something other than socialism to avoid the ‘snear’?
And here I thought I was being a little over-the-top calling this newspeak. But that’s exactly what it is.
I will certainly agree that she plays good politics. I think she always has. But can you be more specific on what she’s actually done on the legislative side since taking office? What bills has she introduced and gotten thru the Senate, and how are they good for NY and the nation? I don’t follow her all that much, and am asking this out of true curiousity. You’ve said she’s earned your respect, but have only given some vague summary as to why.
I’d only add two things to Billdo’s excellent post.
First, Der Mayor choose not to run for Senate after being diagnosed with prostate cancer. His deadline (politically, not legally) came up at exactly the time he was dealing with treatment options (also, significant turmoil in his personal life). No comment there, just fleshing out the record.
Second, the OP is wrong when he avers that Mrs. Clinton has no charm. In person, in particular when she’s on the hustings, she is as warm, funny and as charming as can be.
Given the wild success that the free enterprise system has achieved in bringing affordable health care to every citizen, I don’t really care what you call the alternative. We need it.
She’s been a leader in maintaining milk subsidies and providing tax breaks for businesses staying in or relocating to upstate. And of course she was an important voice in securing the $20 billion promise for New York after the 9/11 terrorist attack. This thread is not to argue the merits of such things, of course – but it demonstrates that she was listening on her listening tour and that she’s able to bring home the pork when necessary.
However, her real success in winning respect has been in what she hasn’t done. Remember, she’s a junior Senator with her senior being of the same party. Her job, by tradition, is to be in something of a support role. Given her national profile, she’s done an outstanding job of working with Chuck Schumer and letting him be the lead. Also, many thought she’d be this terribly devisive figure – in fact, she’s worked well with (admittedly liberal) Republicans Pataki and Bloomberg.
I don’t think there’s any secret that I disagree with Mrs. Clinton philosophically on almost every issue. But as a Senator, in terms of how she should be doing her job from her political perspective, I’d have to say she’s been nearly perfect.
What Manhattan said.
Lord Ashtar, you’re still not getting it. I asked what, IYHO, government can do before you start throwing a sneering label at it instead of seriously discussing it. I take it you concede your similarly-spun misuse of “far”?
Yep, friends, “Hillarycare” would have taken away our healthcare decisions and our choice of doctors away from us and put them in the hands of distant government bureaucrats interested primarily in cost reduction. Thank God for the free market system, in which our healthcare decisions and our choice of doctors has been taken away from us and put in the hands of distant corporate bureaucrats interested primarily in cost reduction. It was certainly a narrow escape for us from the clutches of creeping socialism, wasn’t it? :rolleyes: For those of us fortunate enough to have coverage at all, that is.
As for why she still gets so much abuse from the RW yammerers, that may be due to her immunity from it. Nothing they’ve said or done has had a real negative effect on her or her political image; it’s only strengthened her. That has to be infuriating to them.
The disappointing political performance of republican first-ladies from Pat Nixon on probably also adds a bit of envy to the mix. No one ever suggested that Nancy or Barbara should run for the senate.
True, although neither of them have any real qualification for political office. Hillary is of the generation where women really could make a mark for themselves-- which she has done. And she also has the national name recognition to overcome the “Senator’s curse” should she run for pres in '08. When she does*, though, we’ll see a smear campaign from the right the likes of which we’ve never seen in modern history.
*I’m still open to anyone who wants to bet she won’t run.
Gads…I hope Lord Ashtar never finds out about Medicare and Medicaid
Personally, I’d rather see my tax money used to give every single person in the country full health coverage than, say, being awarded to Haliburton.
IMO, Hillary Clinton is an intelligent and articulate woman, who’s merely got the bad luck of being the perpetual target of the Republican Smear Machine™(C)(R)(pat.pend.) because she’s (a) smart, (b) female, and (c) not a Republican. That’s enough of a reason for me to support her – I’m just a sucker for the underdog. 
And IIRC, Hillary’s health care proposal was actually supported by most of the large HMOs in the United States – it was the smaller guys who risked getting squeezed, so they had to paint it as an “extreme socialist scheme” to derail it.
You really think so? She certainly has the rep of being left of center wrt most Dems. Perhaps that’s a legacy of her failed attempt to nationalize the health care system.
Go to Democraticunderground.com, which I think is probably the biggest left wing website that associates itself with the Democratic Party. They HATE Hillary. You’d think, “Oh, maybe it’s because of the war vote.” It’s that, but they find the time to bash her history prior to 1992. For example, she once represented Wal-Mart, which makes her essentially Satan to many lefties.
Not to mention her voting record is a rather centrist one, even if she has been associated with Hillarycare.
I’m afraid it’s you who’s not getting it. All I was arguing was adaher’s statement that Hillary wasn’t that far left, that she was in fact nearly centrist. This is not true.
I don’t recall saying that socialistic ideas were bad, I just said they were far left. If someone would like to argue that point with me rather than paint me as a right-winger (which I do not consider myself), then I’m all for it.
If it’s not true IYHO that’s she’s “nearly centrist”, perhaps you could back your statement up instead of simply repeating it, with or without invective as you choose. If you want to be taken seriously, that’s pretty much a requirement here, ya know.
So, you’re telling me that you don’t believe that socialism is not a far left idea?