The Substance Thing
hippiemom
Posts: 3,326
Surprise, surprise ... Hillary is vague and evasive.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 6, 2007
The New York Times
Two presidential elections ago, the conventional wisdom said that George W. Bush was a likable, honest fellow. But those of us who actually analyzed what he was saying about policy came to a different conclusion — namely, that he was irresponsible and deeply dishonest. His numbers didn’t add up, and in his speeches he simply lied about the content of his own proposals.
In the fifth year of the disastrous war Mr. Bush started on false pretenses, it’s clear who was right. What a candidate says about policy, not the supposedly revealing personal anecdotes political reporters love to dwell on, is the best way to judge his or her character.
So what are the current presidential candidates saying about policy, and what does it tell us about them?
Well, none of the leading Republican candidates have said anything substantive about policy. Go through their speeches and campaign materials and you’ll see a lot of posturing, especially about how tough they are on terrorists — but nothing at all about what they actually plan to do.
In fact, I suspect that the real reason most of the Republicans are ducking a YouTube debate is that they’re afraid they would be asked questions about policy, rather than being invited to compare themselves to Ronald Reagan.
But didn’t Rudy Giuliani just announce a health care plan? No, he vaguely described a tax cut proposal that he says would do something good for health care. (Most experts disagree.) But he offered no specifics about how the plan would work, how much it would cost or how he would pay for it.
As Ezra Klein of The American Prospect has pointed out, in the speech announcing his “plan” — and since no policy document has been released, the speech is all we have to go on — Mr. Giuliani never uttered the word “uninsured.” He did, however, repeatedly denounce “socialized medicine” or some variant thereof.
The entire G.O.P. field, then, fails the substance test.
There is, by contrast, a lot of substance on the Democratic side, with John Edwards forcing the pace. Most notably, in February, Mr. Edwards transformed the whole health care debate with a plan that offers a politically and fiscally plausible path to universal health insurance.
Whatever the fate of the Edwards candidacy, Mr. Edwards will deserve a lot of the credit if and when we do get universal care in this country.
Mr. Edwards has also offered a detailed, sensible plan for tax reform, and some serious antipoverty initiatives.
Four months after the Edwards health care plan was announced, Barack Obama followed with a broadly similar but somewhat less comprehensive plan. Like Mr. Edwards, Mr. Obama has also announced a serious plan to fight poverty.
Hillary Clinton, however, has been evasive. She conveys the impression that there’s not much difference between her policy positions and those of the other candidates — but she’s offered few specifics. In particular, unlike Mr. Edwards or Mr. Obama, she hasn’t announced a specific universal care plan, or explicitly committed herself to paying for health reform by letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire.
For those who believe that the time for universal care has come, this lack of specifics is disturbing. In fact, what Mrs. Clinton said about health care in February’s Democratic debate suggested a notable lack of urgency: “Well, I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term.”
On Saturday, at the YearlyKos Convention in Chicago, she sounded more forceful: “Universal health care will be my highest domestic priority as president.” But does this represent a real change in position? It’s hard to know, since she has said nothing about how she would cover the uninsured.
And even if you believe Mrs. Clinton’s contention that her positions could never be influenced by lobbyists’ money — a remark that drew boos and hisses from the Chicago crowd — there’s reason to worry about the big contributions she receives from the insurance and drug industries. Are they simply betting on the front-runner, or are they also backing the Democratic candidate least likely to hurt their profits?
All of the leading Democratic candidates are articulate and impressive. It’s easy to imagine any of them as president. But after what happened in 2000, it worries me that Mrs. Clinton is showing an almost Republican aversion to talking about substance.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 6, 2007
The New York Times
Two presidential elections ago, the conventional wisdom said that George W. Bush was a likable, honest fellow. But those of us who actually analyzed what he was saying about policy came to a different conclusion — namely, that he was irresponsible and deeply dishonest. His numbers didn’t add up, and in his speeches he simply lied about the content of his own proposals.
In the fifth year of the disastrous war Mr. Bush started on false pretenses, it’s clear who was right. What a candidate says about policy, not the supposedly revealing personal anecdotes political reporters love to dwell on, is the best way to judge his or her character.
So what are the current presidential candidates saying about policy, and what does it tell us about them?
Well, none of the leading Republican candidates have said anything substantive about policy. Go through their speeches and campaign materials and you’ll see a lot of posturing, especially about how tough they are on terrorists — but nothing at all about what they actually plan to do.
In fact, I suspect that the real reason most of the Republicans are ducking a YouTube debate is that they’re afraid they would be asked questions about policy, rather than being invited to compare themselves to Ronald Reagan.
But didn’t Rudy Giuliani just announce a health care plan? No, he vaguely described a tax cut proposal that he says would do something good for health care. (Most experts disagree.) But he offered no specifics about how the plan would work, how much it would cost or how he would pay for it.
As Ezra Klein of The American Prospect has pointed out, in the speech announcing his “plan” — and since no policy document has been released, the speech is all we have to go on — Mr. Giuliani never uttered the word “uninsured.” He did, however, repeatedly denounce “socialized medicine” or some variant thereof.
The entire G.O.P. field, then, fails the substance test.
There is, by contrast, a lot of substance on the Democratic side, with John Edwards forcing the pace. Most notably, in February, Mr. Edwards transformed the whole health care debate with a plan that offers a politically and fiscally plausible path to universal health insurance.
Whatever the fate of the Edwards candidacy, Mr. Edwards will deserve a lot of the credit if and when we do get universal care in this country.
Mr. Edwards has also offered a detailed, sensible plan for tax reform, and some serious antipoverty initiatives.
Four months after the Edwards health care plan was announced, Barack Obama followed with a broadly similar but somewhat less comprehensive plan. Like Mr. Edwards, Mr. Obama has also announced a serious plan to fight poverty.
Hillary Clinton, however, has been evasive. She conveys the impression that there’s not much difference between her policy positions and those of the other candidates — but she’s offered few specifics. In particular, unlike Mr. Edwards or Mr. Obama, she hasn’t announced a specific universal care plan, or explicitly committed herself to paying for health reform by letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire.
For those who believe that the time for universal care has come, this lack of specifics is disturbing. In fact, what Mrs. Clinton said about health care in February’s Democratic debate suggested a notable lack of urgency: “Well, I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term.”
On Saturday, at the YearlyKos Convention in Chicago, she sounded more forceful: “Universal health care will be my highest domestic priority as president.” But does this represent a real change in position? It’s hard to know, since she has said nothing about how she would cover the uninsured.
And even if you believe Mrs. Clinton’s contention that her positions could never be influenced by lobbyists’ money — a remark that drew boos and hisses from the Chicago crowd — there’s reason to worry about the big contributions she receives from the insurance and drug industries. Are they simply betting on the front-runner, or are they also backing the Democratic candidate least likely to hurt their profits?
All of the leading Democratic candidates are articulate and impressive. It’s easy to imagine any of them as president. But after what happened in 2000, it worries me that Mrs. Clinton is showing an almost Republican aversion to talking about substance.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
This thing about Hillary, I agree with the author of the article: She doesn't provide us with any policies. She is very wonky when it comes to detailing what's wrong with America these days (although she conveniently forgets that quite a number of these things were generated during her husband's time in the White House -- NAFTA, anyone?)....but she really hasn't come out with any clear details about what she's going to do to fix things. "When I'm President, I will end this war." "When I'm President, I will take care of our intrastructure." "When I'm President....". That doesn't cut it.
Barack Obama didn't make up the "Bush-Cheney Lite" tag....others have been stating that about Hillary for quite some time now.
Do we really need 20+ years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?
I don't think so.
Isn't this so true. So many politicians just talk about issues, and give their opinions, but rarely ever say what they plan on doing about anything.
We just trust that they will do the right thing, as long as they talk about popular opinions and ideas...talk about lip service.
I think they all get off far too easy in this area.
It should be made a universal rule. If politicians bring up an issue, they need to immediately provide the back end of the argument and talk about what they plan on doing about it. Otherwise it's a complete waste of our time listening to it.
Maybe that's the only way to put a lid on some of the propaganda being blown around.
Accountability...there's a concept!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I saw an interview today. I was at the gym and I realized too late she was on. She sounded pretty forceful (I was surprised, so maybe Krugman is on to something...) and she did commit to let the Bush tax cuts expire.
I liked her today. I think the interview was on MSNBC?
...so she'll let the tax cuts expire. I'm so happy now.
Let's vote for someone who will cut the tax cuts PRONTO, thank you very much, and not on their expiration date.
Oh, and Hillary is very good at sounding forceful. She must get some practice at home with Bill, I'm sure.
I don't mean to be mean, but Hillary is just....Hillary Clinton. A former First Lady who feels she got enough experience as First Lady to be President. Well, let's all vote Nancy Reagan and Rosalyn Carter into the White House, based on their experience, too. Oh...yes, Hillary is a member of the Senate now, let us not forget. But what has she done in the Senate lately, either?
I prefer my next President be someone who doesn't EXPECT it so much. I prefer to break the 20+ year cycle of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.
That is my number one reason for not voting for her as president. I don't really mind her personally, and I voted for her in the senate in '06, but I will not vote for her for president.
We've seen what shady business dealings, and special interest networks have done to the Bush administration and even the Clinton administration... I want someone new in there, not someone who has all of the network of powerful friends lined up already, waiting for their continued piece of the pie.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I like this response best.
DC needs to be dismantled.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.