| 0 |
Subject: 2008 candidates
Posted by: Perm Dude
- [2343587] Wed, Nov 03, 2004, 19:43
C'mon people. Here's a chance to be a Nostradamus. Both parties will nominate someone new in (by my count) about 25 months or so. Guesses:
Republicans
George Voinovich: Moderate Ohio Senator, very popular, would help gain Ohio for the Republicans.
Democrats
Obama: Will be on everyone's watch list, but will probably sit out 2008.
Will add more later... |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. [Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 464 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 11:32
|
This from someone who proudly declared Giuliani to be his man.
|
| 465 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 12:24
|
Mith, what's your take on Zen wanting to hop back in time to take care of the Giuliani family?
I know you like to dig at me, that's fine, but what about what your buddy said?
Is Giuliani an anti-Semite, a racist against Muslims, educate me please. BTW, I'm waffling on him (not a full flip/flop yet) because Romney and Huckabee have really impressed me.
I'm watching the Obama on Religion video from his own site so the time stamp on this is going to be late. I'm going to comment as I watch...
Alan Keyes criticizing Obama for not being a "true Christian" is laughable. One could argue that Alan Keyes is not a "true Christian" because he's a Catholic; not that I would, but one could.
Keyes does make a point about Obama's stance on abortion.
If he has submitted himself to God's Will as he said around the 15:15 mark, why is he pro-abortion? If he wants to be everyone's President, that's fine, but you can't say you submit to God's Will and then be for abortion.
He seems to have a real problem with Robertson and Falwell (the religious extreme) on a general basis. That really isn't tolerance or being a uniter.
He is right about the problems of the world being caused by man.
He talked about the morality of the estate tax around 24:45. I counter, what is the morality of taking something that wasn't yours to begin with?
At 33:00 he talks about the Pledge of Allegiance and he makes a good point that saying "Under God" isn't going to indoctrinate you. I don't think the Pledge is a threat to anyone either.
He is a good speaker.
|
| 466 | Perm Dude
ID: 51111428 Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 12:37
|
what is the morality of taking something that wasn't yours to begin with?
Man, I laughed out loud at this one. You know that you are talking about money that wasn't theirs, right?
Your anti-Catholic comment has no place here. No argument can be made that Catholics aren't Christians. None. Citing Keyes as any source will get you into that kind of trouble, Boxman.
|
| 467 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 13:17
|
Man, I laughed out loud at this one. You know that you are talking about money that wasn't theirs, right?
Are you saying it belongs more to the gov't than it does to the heir of the estate? You are the one that is laughable.
My alleged anti-Catholic comment was followed with not that I would, but one could. Maybe next time you ought to hold off on the knee jerk response and read a posting.
|
| 468 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 13:20
|
PD: What is your take on Zen's comment of If I had a time machine, I'd go back to Italy and convince the Giuliani clan not to come to America and I'd be willing to take extreme measures.?
|
| 469 | Perm Dude
ID: 51111428 Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 13:21
|
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Keep in mind what is actually being talked about. You sound like you have no idea what the estate tax actually is.
As for your comment: You ever hear the term weasel words? How about this: "Some say Michael Vick is just a dumb nigger. I wouldn't say that, but some could." Is that better? No?
Even bringing it up as though someone else could make the argument is wrong. Simply wrong. When you say the argument can be made, you give it your own validity.
|
| 470 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 13:29
|
I'm not saying Obama is a bigot, but I AM saying that he is not this great religious uniter you claim.
First: Where/when did I say Obama was a RELIGIOUS uniter? I said, he could work with both sides of the aisle.
Second: It wouldnt hurt you in the least, to set aside your blinders and read those other links I provided and to truly digest the info/links MITH put forth.
All was done afterall, in response to your request for "proof".
|
| 471 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 15:10
|
PD: So you have no comment on what Zen said? OK.
Sarge: with the ability to reach acrosds the aisle and to a greater or lesser degree, work with multiple ideologies to hammer out some solutions.
There.
It wouldnt hurt you in the least, to set aside your blinders and read those other links I provided and to truly digest the info/links MITH put forth.
When a far left wing person as yourself tells me that links used as proof are biased, I won't waste my time. I genuinely read the other link and Mith's posting along with watching a near 40 minute speech from Obama's site. If that isn't enough, then too bad.
|
| 472 | walk
ID: 4711118 Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 15:24
|
Rich: Who Fears Obama?
|
| 473 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 15:38
|
So ideologies equates absolutely to religion? I was referring, to far left, left, moderate, right and far right political ideologies Box. This is afterall, a discussion of political candidates the for office of President. (An assumption I apparently gave you too much credit for being able to distinguish, apart from a theological discussion.)
Thanks for the acknowledgement, that the only biased sites you read, are those with a right tilt to them.
|
| 474 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 15:45
|
One final question...the site "Republicans for Obama"...why would you choose NOT to read it? The bias I spoke of, is from the title. You apparently, dont care to admit how members of your own party, could possibly be open-minded and intellectually honest enough to support of member of that "other" party. Worry not, nobody here is going to mistakenly lump you into that group.
|
| 475 | Seattle Zen
ID: 529121611 Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 16:09
|
Boxxy - Mith, what's your take on Zen... PD: What is your take on Zen's comment...
You remind me of my younger sister crying, "I'm telling Mom." You make me laugh :)
|
| 476 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 16:58
|
Actually Zen I'm proving my point quite well that you guys are just a click around here and lack any objectivity whatsoever. But go ahead and keep laughing because you guys are the real joke.
|
| 477 | Perm Dude
ID: 51111428 Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 17:51
|
No comment at all, Box. Too many other fires to put out to worry about the fantasy of time travel.
|
| 478 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 18:16
|
...and lack any objectivity whatsoever.
Between you, Jag and J-Bar (who no longer needs feel slighted), we have clear evidence of what is wrong with the Right today. To whit: "If its Republican, its good. If it aint, it aint." That simple minded, erroneous concept, seems to be what drives the three of you.
|
| 479 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 08:13
|
Boxman
what's your take on Zen wanting to hop back in time to take care of the Giuliani family?
Jag recently told us that he is writing a book about liberals' inability to know hyperbole and facetiousness when they see it. Why is it that I'm able to see those traits in Zen's post but not you?
Since it was important enough for you to ask, I'll answer your question: you can rest assured - if Zen has developed a working a flex capacitor and attatched it to a Delorean in his garage with plans to violate the space-time continuum and commit a murder in the past, I do not support him in this endeavor. I promise I will be first in line to criticize him. OK?
Is Giuliani an anti-Semite, a racist against Muslims, educate me please.
? This question is from even further out in left field, at least from you. I'll humor you here as well: no.
I'm waffling on [Giuliani] (not a full flip/flop yet)
Changing your mind about who to vote for is not a flip flop. Flip flopping is when politicians abandon their stated positions because they think it will help them get elected.
Pols who do this display a distinct lack of character - they brazenly admit to the world that attaining the office they currently run for is more important to them than their own principles and therefore cannot IMO be trusted to stick with their stated ideals.
There's nothing wrong with voters who do this, and its especially admirable when they recognize negative traits in previously preferred candidates that they didn't see earlier. Its too bad that your stated reason for waivering on Giuliani is that other candidates have impressed you and nothing to do with any disappointment for Giuliani.
I don't expect most people outside of NYC to know what that scumbag is about but here you've had the benefit of reading about the corruption, seen first hand the way he speaks to people and had it laid out in front of you how his greatest strength, his 9/11 record, which he shamelessly brandishes like an academy award, is a sham.
I do have a feeling that you've come around on Giuliani but prefer not give liberal posters here the satisfaction of admitting that you might have been wrong on that man.
because Romney and Huckabee have really impressed me.
This does make sense as you strike me as a front-runner type so at this stage I imagine you'd see supporting Thompson as just too risky. Of course shifting your support from Giuliani to Romney and Huckabee strengthens the notion of you as a front-runner. At this stage of the campaign I don't think rooting for the front runner is the healthiest approach for the process but unfortnately this does seem to be the way that most Americans choose which candidate to get behind. I can easily point to the left's almost unyielding support for Hillary Clinton, at least until very recently.
That said, I'd expect you to be impressed by Huckabee. I think he works with many of your stated political priorities more closely than any of the other candidates, except possibly for Thompson.
Romney, on the other hand, is the epitome of the classic flip-flopper. He's not the scum that Giuliani is but has made it clear that he will say anything at all to get elected, including showing us that his previously stated principles of abortion and gun control (positions I'd expect you to take very seriously if your own principles weren't crompromised by your front-runner tendencies) and taxes and immigration were all meaningless. He is 10X the flip-flopper than the right made John Kerry out to be in 2004. If you think that candidate lacked character...
|
| 480 | Seattle Zen
ID: 529121611 Wed, Dec 05, 2007, 21:41
|
I think MITH himself penned this one.
|
| 481 | Perm Dude
ID: 30114068 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 11:11
|
As usual, it is only the underdog Christian politicians that are humble
I'm not sure if he is saying that Jesus is manipulating the poll data, or that Jesus wants Huckabee to win (talk about an endorsement!).
|
| 482 | walk
ID: 7952415 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 11:34
|
I saw an excerpt from the 2004 Republican Nantional convenstion when Romney gave his speech saying, against Kerry, (paraphrasing) "Americans don't want 57 flavors." How would he describe himself? I was watching this interesting documentary about the 2004 presidential campaign and the focus on the state of Ohio. It was quite interesting. The conservatives made a great marketing issue of Kerry's "flip-flopping." I wonder if the other republican candidates will do the same to Mitt, or if Mitt gets the nomination, if the Dems will start their aggressive "flip-flopper" campaign...? The flip-flopping marketing strategy apparently really made a difference. I remember Bill Maher saying: "What's wrong with changing your mind? That means you actually, listen, think and are open to new ideas and revising your thoughts...This is a sign of intelligence. I did not know that was something we did not want in our leader." Of course, this is a matter of degree, and Romney's position changes are somewhat 180s, but I sure wish the anti-campaigns were based on real issues and qualities, not the one's most likely to resonate with the least informed, least intelligent masses. I guess that's what we have in our country. Ramble-rant over.
|
| 483 | J-Bar
ID: 310172921 Thu, Dec 06, 2007, 13:44
|
thanks Sarge I appreciate the shout out. I really feel that your interjecting your own erroneous opinion when it comes to my support (and from the previous posts you may have actually voted for more republicans than i have). in my case (the only one that i can speak to) republican or democrat is irrelevant, positions and beliefs that most mirror my own with a big dollop of integrity is what i tend to vote for. for the record- very few if any fit my criteria yet- but i will agree with you (and have learned from past mistakes) that electability does play a role in the decision. "Let the Primaries Begin"
|
| 484 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 08:39
|
Mitt Romney makes me sick with his wearing his "believer" patch prominently on his chest. Apparently he has the same effect on David Brooks, with whom I don't often agree:
When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.
The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious. I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press.
The second casualty of the faith war is theology itself. In rallying the armies of faith against their supposed enemies, Romney waved away any theological distinctions among them with the brush of his hand. In this calculus, the faithful become a tribe, marked by ethnic pride, a shared sense of victimization and all the other markers of identity politics.
In Romney’s account, faith ends up as wishy-washy as the most New Age-y secularism. In arguing that the faithful are brothers in a common struggle, Romney insisted that all religions share an equal devotion to all good things. Really? Then why not choose the one with the prettiest buildings?
In order to build a voting majority of the faithful, Romney covered over different and difficult conceptions of the Almighty. When he spoke of God yesterday, he spoke of a bland, smiley-faced God who is the author of liberty and the founder of freedom. There was no hint of Lincoln’s God or Reinhold Niebuhr’s God or the religion most people know — the religion that imposes restraints upon on the passions, appetites and sinfulness of human beings. He wants God in the public square, but then insists that theological differences are anodyne and politically irrelevant.
Romney’s job yesterday was to unite social conservatives behind him. If he succeeded, he did it in two ways. He asked people to rally around the best traditions of America’s civic religion. He also asked people to submerge their religious convictions for the sake of solidarity in a culture war without end.
Kleiman makes an excellent point as well:
Rabbi Joshua, whom Mitt Romney believes to be the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind, had a phrase for that sort of public religiosity. He called it praying on the streetcorners, to be seen of men, and instructed his followers to behave otherwise.
|
| 485 | walk
ID: 7952415 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 09:05
|
Right on, bili. Gives this atheist/agnostic, whateverthefcukIamIdunnobutIdon'tbelieveingod, the willies.
|
| 486 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 09:12
|
Interestingly, if Baldwin is still out there, Mitt's probably giving him more willies than both of us.
Baldwin has long complained of the homogenization of faith. I wonder if he expected it from a conservative Mormon?
|
| 487 | walk
ID: 7952415 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 09:28
|
And I think it was homogenization of milk that was the real issue.
I think it'll be interesting to see how this plays out with the rise of Huckabee (aka, "the rapist-releaser") as he's the god-boy being a peacher and all. NY Times had a big article on how Huckabee's preaching is intertwined with his campaigning and such.
Hukabee's Pulpit Preps him for Race
|
| 488 | walk
ID: 7952415 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 09:31
|
Actually, Huckabee's an ordained baptist minister. I bet everyone knew that but I wanted to post again with semi-impressive reading comprehension.
|
| 489 | walk
ID: 7952415 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 09:52
|
HUffPost and Huckabee and Release of Serial Rapist Dumond
This story broke two days ago and I've been following it, and it's getting now more play and more MSM. Huffington herself responds to Huckabee himself in a nice blog. It's intense. I don't know how Huckabee is going to escape this scrutiny and the potential attacks. It's too early for the Dems to seize on this, and I dunno if the other republican candidates will seize on it, but it's very damning. The consequences, the Clinton-connection, and now the lack of ownership by Huckabee look pretty bad. The original HuffPost piece was long, and detailed with documentation and research. Huckabee's response is counter his image; attack the messenger, not his charming side. I wonder how this will play out.
Original Story
|
| 490 | walk
ID: 7952415 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 09:56
|
I mean, in fairness to Huckabee, at this point, it's a "he said vs. they said" thing, but man, the cumulative stuff in the "they said" piece looks pretty bad when you add it all up.
|
| 491 | walk
ID: 7952415 Fri, Dec 07, 2007, 16:04
|
NY Times Editorial on Separation of Church & State
I agree with this editorial mucho.
|
| 492 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418 Wed, Dec 12, 2007, 11:34
|
|
| 493 | walk
ID: 7952415 Thu, Dec 13, 2007, 12:45
|
NY Times, Cohen: American & European Zeitgeist
|
| 494 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 481181610 Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 11:56
|
Here's an interesting political factchecking site: Politifact.com
Example:
"It's just outrageous that under President Bush, the National Institutes of Health have been basically decreased in funding." Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, October 30th, 2007 in Philadelphia, Pa.
NIH funding is up under Bush At a Democratic debate in Philadelphia, Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked what she would do as president to fight cancer. As part of her answer, she said, "It's just outrageous that under President Bush, the National Institutes of Health have been basically decreased in funding. We are on the brink of so many medical breakthroughs, and I will once again fund that research."
Her claim about the funding of NIH is not accurate, no matter how you slice the numbers.
Regardless of which years you choose to compare, or whether the numbers are adjusted for inflation, funding went up.
In non-inflation-adjusted dollars, funding increased. Bush requested $28.9 billion dollars in net budget authority for fiscal 2008 (the year that began Oct. 1, 2007), and the agency received an estimated $28.6 billion in fiscal 2007. Either of these numbers is greater than when Bush came into office -- $20.6 billion in fiscal 2001, the last year for which Clinton presided over the congressional budgeting process, or $17.8 billion in fiscal 2000, the last full fiscal year Clinton was in office.
The numbers tell the same tale for net outlays, with an estimated $28.1 billion in fiscal 2007 compared with $17.3 billion and $15.4 billion for fiscal 2001 and 2000, respectively.
The increases aren't as large when the numbers are adjusted for inflation. But they still went up.
In response to an inquiry from PolitiFact, the Clinton campaign provided two newspaper stories that said the NIH budget had been flat since 2003. We acknowledge that is accurate, but we still find funding has gone up during Bush's presidency. We find her statement to be False.
-------------------------------------------------
Speaking of factchecking...
Al Gore did not win an Oscar.
The Academy of Motion Picture Art And Sciences reveals that Davis Guggenheim has his name on the statuette.
An Inconvenient Truth Lawrence Bender/Laurie David Production; Paramount Classics and Participant Productions. 2006 (79th) * DOCUMENTARY (Feature) -- Davis Guggenheim * MUSIC (Original Song) -- "I Need to Wake Up," Music and Lyric by Melissa Etheridge Only three persons named Gore have been nominated.
Christopher Gore {d. May 18, 1988} 1980 (53rd) WRITING (Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen) -- Fame
Lesley Gore 1980 (53rd) MUSIC (Original Song) -- "Out Here On My Own" from Fame [Music by Michael Gore; Lyric by Lesley Gore]
Michael Gore 1980 (53rd) * MUSIC (Original Score) -- Fame [statuette] * MUSIC (Original Song) -- "Fame" from Fame [Music by Michael Gore; Lyric by Dean Pitchford] [statuette] MUSIC (Original Song) -- "Out Here On My Own" from Fame [Music by Michael Gore; Lyric by Lesley Gore] 1983 (56th) MUSIC (Original Score) -- Terms of Endearment
The only Gore to have won an Oscar is Michael Gore, twice for his music in the movie Fame in 1980. (Original Score and Original Song)
|
| 495 | Perm Dude
ID: 81139157 Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 12:35
|
Good find on that first one, Wilmer. Another fact check site is all to the good.
I am not aware of people saying that Al Gore won an Oscar, but maybe I'm in the wrong circles! It has always been cited as An Inconvenience Truth winning the Oscar from what I've seen. I do see that many on the Right are calling this "Algore's movie" and so on, but he only starred in it.
|
| 496 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 481181610 Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 16:33
|
Some examples of the media's mythmaking.
After Gore Wins Emmy Media Falsely Claim He Also Won Oscar (Newsbusters.org)
So he wasn't elected president. Big deal. How many other presidential candidates have an Emmy and an Oscar to brag about? -- Associated Press
Six months after grabbing Oscar glory for his eco-documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," former Vice President Al Gore collected an Emmy Award on Sunday for his fledgling youth-oriented cable network, Current TV. -- Reuters
Former vice-president Al Gore can add Emmy- award winner to his already very diverse resume. He has already won an Oscar, been the Grammy's and as of last week Spain gave him the country's equivalent of the Nobel Prize for his efforts to build environmental awareness around the world. No other major politician has two Hollywood awards like this - Reagan and Schwarzenegger only ever received Golden Globes. -- Hollywood Today
-------------------------------------------------
NPR
And former Vice President Al Gore now has an Oscar. Does that give him fresh clout?
-------------------------------------------------
Telegraph (UK)
Just after Gore won an Oscar for his global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth - in which he asked American households to cut their use of electricity - the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research took a look at Al's energy bills.
Telegraph (UK)
Mr Gore, President Bill Clinton's deputy, has said he wants to concentrate on publicising the need to combat climate change, a case made in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, which won him an Oscar this year. (Thanks nerveclinic. 174)
|
| 497 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 16:53
|
OK Wilmer but you're splitting hairs.
Perhaps he wasn't the person named on the statue, perhaps he wasn't the literal "winner" but he did narrate and have a big hand in an Oscar winning documentary.
He certainly had a big part in the success of the documentary that won the Oscar. It's not like a film where they break out the best actor part.
You're really splitting hairs.
But heck I never saw the thing and probably wouldn't enjoy it, so don't take my comments too seriously.
|
| 498 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 481181610 Sun, Dec 16, 2007, 20:11
|
I can understand the blurry "Oscar glory" and "brag about" (the documentary that earned Davis Guggenheim the Oscar).
And yes, Gore had a big part in the documentary's success.
But, Gore being pregnant or not is not splitting hairs. ;)
Phrases like "won an Oscar" and "has an Oscar" show that the media is, at the least, lazy and/or incompetent, and at the most accusatory, intentful - for a profession that pledges accuracy.
Society of Professional Journalists -- Code of Ethics
Preamble Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.
Seek Truth and Report It Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
...
International GfK survey on how far people trust a number of different professional groups (GFK.co.yu -- Growth from Knowledge)
Nuremberg, August 3, 2007 – In Europe and the USA, doctors and teachers are regarded as the most trustworthy professionals. The public are generally least likely to trust politicians and top managers, which applies also in Germany. These are the findings of the GfK Trust Index 2007 survey of 18 countries carried out by GfK Custom Research.
With average figures of 3.2 and 3.1, doctors and teachers scored highest in all countries on the Trust Index scale of 1 “very untrustworthy” to 4 “very trustworthy”. Next are the police and army, each with a score of 2.9, followed by the clergy with 2.7, lawyers with 2.4 and journalists with an index value of 2.2. Respondents found politicians to be the least trustworthy group, giving them a trust index of only 1.7. With an index value of only 2.1, top managers of major companies did not score much higher.
...
There is a chart on the GFK site link.
|
| 499 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Tue, Dec 18, 2007, 16:02
|
NY Times David Brooks on Obama
I think another conservative blogger, Andrew Sullivan, also like Obama. Interesting take from Brooks here, who is conservative.
|
| 500 | biliruben
ID: 5610442715 Tue, Dec 18, 2007, 18:37
|
Kleiman has been an unabashed Obama supporter. Here's an article along the same vein as Brooks, discussing Krugman's negative article (Krugman's a Hillaryophile).
I generally enjoy and agree with Krugman when he sticks to economics. I don't really like his overly-strident political stances, and I think he misses the mark and misreads Obama here.
I love the possibilities of Obama. An extremely intelligent, thoughtful man, who appears to able to give as well as he gets. His upside, in my opinion, is huge.
That said, when discussing specific proposals, the issue that is the most important to me, and in my wheelhouse, is health care. I agree with Krugman that we absolutely cannot make health insurance optional. Obama want to make it optional, so I am now leaning towards Edwards, purely on that key issue.
I'm struggling with this. I am generally very optimistic, and am willing to, and even prefer to take risks to the up-side. This makes really like Obama. His potential for sweeping change and improvement is huge. But then there is healthcare...
|
| 501 | Perm Dude
ID: 11162110 Fri, Dec 21, 2007, 22:23
|
Obama doesn't want to make health care optional per se. He just doesn't want to force health care on those who don't want it. Jay has a good compare/contrast here, I think
The health care crisis doesn't revolve around those who want to opt out of the system. The health care crisis is about those people who want to opt in but can't, or can only opt in by making huge sacrifices elsewhere. We need to keep our eyes on the prize here: Affordable health care for those who want it is the goal. Not some never-to-be-obtained standard of "universal = everyone must buy in."
Krugman (and Clinton) believes that the whole scheme needs to force those who don't want insurance to buy in, in order to make the whole thing affordable for the government. Politically this is a stupid, stupid move. And it doesn't make much more sense economically either. The goal is to cover everyone who wants affordable insurance, and by reversing the Bush tax cuts we'll be able to make that goal.
Finally, a President Hillary Clinton proposing a far-reaching health care initiative which forces those who don't want to buy insurance to do so is just the recipe for a Republican relapse.
In the meantime, Clinton's whole "I'm the electable candidate" argument just went out the window.
|
| 502 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Sat, Dec 22, 2007, 08:23
|
Krugman (and Clinton) believes that the whole scheme needs to force those who don't want insurance to buy in, in order to make the whole thing affordable for the government. Politically this is a stupid, stupid move. And it doesn't make much more sense economically either.
It also can't work! In every state in which this has been attempted (including MA under Mitt Romney's plan - which is very similar to Hillary's plan and some say whcih her's is actually based on) they have failed to get any significant percentage of uninsure to sign up after years of implimentation. In fact, in most cases, years after implimentation there are many more uninsured than when the plan first took effect.
|
| 503 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723 Sat, Dec 22, 2007, 10:00
|
Never to be obtained? Just send everyone an insurance card. Done.
|
| 504 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Dec 22, 2007, 10:51
|
They still have to pay for their insurance. Sure, call them insured the day they receive the card if you want but the reason the plan needs everyone involved is that it needs the whole population paying their premiums in order to stay afloat.
|
| 505 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723 Sat, Dec 22, 2007, 11:00
|
Well, of course. I was commenting on PD's statement. If we are going to "keep our eye on the prize", and don't mind using tax revenues to fund it anyway, then why not just insure everyone. That's the prize I have my eye on. Once everyone's in the system, then we can fiddle with how to most fairly pay for it.
As soon as you let anyone opt out, it gets much more expensive. You need those who would choose to opt-out to subsidize the expensive folks: mainly the elderly. Those who would now choose to opt-out are eventually going to be elderly too, and so they are essentially subsidizing their future selves.
This is frustrating because the single-payer system that makes the most sense, both for quality of care as well as costs, isn't politically palatable.
|
| 506 | Perm Dude
ID: 3211292211 Sat, Dec 22, 2007, 12:44
|
then why not just insure everyone Because thar's not the goal, and will end up killing reform. It is political suicide, and (like last time) is certain to fail and put off real reforms for many years.
Krugman is right that having those people who don't want insurance overpaying for it will make it easier to pay for those who truky need & want insurance (to which I add: "No kidding.") But Krugman is wrong that this is the only way to insure those who need it and can't get it. Let's take care of those folks first.
I swear: Liberals sometimes seem more proud of their political failures that actual movement toward their stated goals.
|
| 507 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723 Sat, Dec 22, 2007, 13:54
|
Because it's a crappy goal, and it will actually move backwards; sabotaging real reform.
We have the mandate, now all we need is the political will.
Sometimes liberals can be such pussies, not using strength when they have it.
|
| 508 | Seattle Zen
ID: 529121611 Mon, Dec 24, 2007, 18:34
|
Giuliani has jumped the shark, few people actually like him, he is making a huge gamble by ignoring Iowa and NH, and running on his record as NYC mayor is a HUGE mistake!
Some of Mr. Giuliani’s advisers are frustrated at the extent to which his decision not to compete aggressively in Iowa has pushed him to the side of the stage at a moment when the political world’s attention is focused on the caucuses there that will kick off the election season in less than two weeks.
Mr. Giuliani’s initial campaign theme, built around his record as mayor of New York, has given way to a new one: “Tested. Ready. Now.” But its introduction, in a speech last Saturday in Tampa, drew little attention on a day when most of the other Republican and Democratic presidential candidates were grabbing the spotlight in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Compounding his problems, Mr. Giuliani drew the kind of attention last week that a candidate with declining national poll numbers and a history of treatment for prostate cancer would just as soon avoid after he abruptly entered the hospital in St. Louis and stayed there overnight.
His prostate saved him from a humiliating loss to Hillary Clinton back in 2002. Maybe it will save him from further humiliation on a national scale.
His advisers say that a recent run of negative news reports, focusing on an extramarital affair and his association with Bernard Kerik, the disgraced former police commissioner that Mr. Giuliani recommended as homeland security secretary, is beginning to take a toll.
Ya think? Well, the whole "security detail for his mistress paid for by stealing from obscure city departments" story stemmed that tide :)
Just QUIT already!
|
| 509 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418 Fri, Dec 28, 2007, 14:26
|
In 2002, the drug maker, Purdue Pharma of Stamford, Conn., hired Mr. Giuliani and his consulting firm, Giuliani Partners, to help stem the controversy about OxyContin. Among Mr. Giuliani’s missions was the job of convincing public officials that they could trust Purdue because they could trust him.
This story is pretty damning. Giuliani repeatedly used his star power to mollify government critics of Purdue, delaying the government from imposing needed controls upon their distribution of OxyCotin.
As a celebrity, Mr. Giuliani helped the company win several public relations battles, playing a role in an effort by Purdue to persuade an influential Pennsylvania congressman, Curt Weldon, not to blame it for OxyContin abuse.
Despite these efforts, Purdue suffered a crushing defeat in May at the hands of Mr. Brownlee when the company and three top executives pleaded guilty to criminal charges.
There's more:
By the time of the 2004 settlement, it appeared that Purdue, with Mr. Giuliani’s help, had averted any significant damage. As the tide was turning, the drug maker’s top lawyer, Howard R. Udell, gave credit to Mr. Giuliani.
“We believe that government officials are more comfortable knowing that Giuliani is advising Purdue Pharma,” Mr. Udell said in a promotional brochure put out by Giuliani Partners. “It is clear to us, and we hope it is clear to the government, that Giuliani would not take an assignment with a company that he felt was acting in an improper way.”
I guess I could see how business-centric Republicans devoid of morals might appreciate a guy making a buck, but no one else.
|
| 510 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923 Fri, Dec 28, 2007, 14:35
|
Anyone with the obscenely poor judgment to get into bed with the murdeous drug dealers at Purdue over Oxycotin does not need to be in a position of public trust.
|
| 511 | Perm Dude
ID: 5803649 Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 14:22
|
Charles Peters on Obama's legislative record and experience
|
| 512 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 09:10
|
Huckabee and Faith (hat tip: Sam Smith):December 31, 2007 ARKADELPHIA, ARK. -- Five days after the tornado tore through the state, this city of 10,000 lay in ruins. The cyclone destroyed an office building, a bank, a pharmacy and 70 other businesses. The electricity was out. The National Guard patrolled the streets. Six people were dead.
In Little Rock, GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee was reviewing a disaster insurance measure that he intended to support when he became troubled: The bill, drawing on centuries-old legal terminology, referred to natural disasters as "acts of God."
In a time of emergency, Huckabee would hold up the measure for more than three weeks to press his personal objection that the Almighty could not be blamed for the region's loss. In the process, he drew damaging headlines and created new strains in his relations with the state's legislature, the General Assembly.
If voters want to know how his faith would influence his presidency, "the best way to look at it is how I served as a governor," Huckabee said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I didn't ever propose a bill that we would remove the Capitol dome of Arkansas and replace it with a steeple. You know, we didn't do tent revivals on the grounds of the Capitol. But my faith is important to me."
Huckabee's tenure as governor, 1996 to 2007, shows that his faith sometimes created political burdens for him, turning minor issues into public controversies and exacerbating tensions with other state leaders.
Huckabee at times seemed too biblical even for fellow believer-politicians in the Bible Belt. In the "acts of God" dispute, there is no indication that anyone was harmed by the delay, but some felt that the governor's religiosity, as politically expressed, came close to pettiness.
" 'Petty' is the best word to describe him," said Dennis R. Young, a state representative at the time who sponsored the relief measure and had been an early Huckabee supporter. "In these kinds of things, he'd make mountains out of molehills."
Huckabee, 52, has argued that his pastoral background helped him get some things done. He helped create a nonprofit foundation to enlist churches in moving families off welfare. After Hurricane Katrina hit neighboring Louisiana, his connections to ministers around the state hastened the opening of dozens of church camps to evacuees.
He cited God in explaining his special outreach efforts to African Americans. He invoked the Christian notion of stewardship -- that " 'the earth is the Lord's,' and that we are not its owners, merely its caretakers" -- in promoting a tax increase to fund parks and conservation.
And by his account, his faith deeply influenced his policies on abortion. Under Huckabee, the state banned late-term abortion procedures and unsuccessfully challenged a federal rule requiring Medicaid coverage of abortions for rape victims.
"When I became governor of Arkansas in 1996," he later wrote, "I recognized the same moral authority -- God's authority -- that I did as a pastor. . . . I not only want to know Him, I want others to be able to see Him through the decisions I make and by the way I make them."
In time, there was a backlash. In 1998, the Arkansas Times, an alternative weekly, ran a political cartoon of the state Capitol covered with a revival tent. Critics referred to Huckabee dismissively as the "Rev.-Gov."
And his judgment was strongly questioned after he publicly signaled an interest in granting clemency to a convicted rapist, Wayne DuMond, who had said he found religion in prison. Though it was the state parole board that opened the prison door, some board members said Huckabee had pressured them to release DuMond. DuMond was later convicted of killing a woman after his parole. Huckabee has denied applying pressure.
|
| 513 | CJ Leader
ID: 499271021 Sun, Jan 13, 2008, 23:26
|
OKAY Needs some help in Understanding this Michigan Primary. I m going to Place a vote AGAIST McCain....and I am leaning to vote for Romney or the Huck. Like I said it is really a vote against McCain. I like the guy but his immigration, and against lower taxes disgust me and I do not trust he will reverse course once elected as he now claims in recent debates.
Now I understand Democrats in Michigan can vote and skew the registered Republican voters. Meaning Democrats could vote for McCain?
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|