As reported on CNN just now: McCain rebuttal was not air tight. On critical point, McCain said he had not done legislative favors for Paxson, or that he had written letters to FCC about Paxson. This turns out to be contradicted by McCaon's own statements in a sworn deposition, where he detailed his ties to Paxson. This is not just a sex scandal. His campaign is run by Lobbyists as well, correct?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Feb 22 2008, 01:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>To add to your comments rosenthal, McCain's position on the war requires a level of nuance that he won't be able to communicate to a substantive fraction of voters who only intermittently follow politics. For some, McCain will be pro Iraq war and Obama/Clinton will be against -- that simple. The whole "I'm for the war, but it wasn't run well. And I'm for the surge now because it is having some marked success, but have criticisms of how the war has been run in the past" requires any number of sylogisms that "I'll bring the troops home" doesn't. I also am astonishingly unimpressed with McCain's campaign's work against Obama. There are so many ways to attack Obama: taxes, immigration, portraying him (correctly or incorrectly) as a pansy on foreign policy. These are any number of issues that would attract broad support for McCain. Instead, what does McCain attack Obama on? Hope and Rhetoric. Never mind the fact that everyone wants to feel good about their country, and that Obama's rhetoric contains all kinds of biblical groundings -- which is going to continue to turn off the Evanglist base that McCain needs to get elected. Even more shocking to me was McCain's attack on Obama's foreign policy: the criticism of the Obama statement that he would bomb Pakistan if he had credible intelligence on Bin Ladin and Pakistan refused to act, (because a leader should never disclose their intentions)? That type of McCain attack on Obama is only remedying a potential Obama weakness in the eyes of the voters. Not only is it not effective, it's actually counterproductive. Up to this point, I'm not sure that McCain wouldn't be in a better position if he hadn't said anything in regards to Obama.</div> Yeah, I also think his "100 Years in Iraq" comment could really come back to bite him, since that's exactly the sort of thing you can put in a soundbite and hammer over and over again with the general public. I think the only way his stance on the war could work in his favor is if Al Quaeda attacks again between now and November. And I would think that if they were smart, they wouldn't attack, so the more dovish president would have a better chance of being elected.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Feb 22 2008, 02:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think Obama's immigration policy is substantially outside how most Americans see the issue. That's an easy target -- even if McCain has to flip-flop to make the argument.</div> I think immigration is an issue where it's hard to really peg where a lot of people stand one way or the other. It's a pretty complicated issue. I know in the Republican party, it's a fairly dividing issue. I know the people who are against it are really against it, like the pro-lifers, but I've always gotten the impression that a substantial part of the party doesn't really mind it too much, and a fair amount may even be okay with it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 22 2008, 01:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rosenthall @ Feb 21 2008, 09:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rwj @ Feb 13 2008, 12:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't pay much attention to politics but I've been a tentative conservative/republican in the past because of I prefer their economic position (less government, lower taxes) vs that of the Democratic party (more government, higher taxes). I don't see that distinction any more. Bush may have lowered taxes, but the national debt and budget deficits have shot up during his administration. Both parties want to use more money: Republicans for national defense and the military, Democrats for social programs. Given that choice, I'll opt for a Democrat.</div> Yeah. In general, I tend to think small government is better, but if you have to have big government, then I suppose you're better off with liberals, who tend to be better at it. Somewhere around 30 or 40 years ago, I think conservatives lost an ideological battle and basically decided that they would be a party that attempted to cater to societie's problems and act as a gigantic insurance company, but they've just done it in more deceptive ways. There aren't too many Barry Goldwater's left, that's for sure. In the end, I'm not sure there's a huge difference between paying for government with taxes or with deficits, the latter is just less obvious. </div> Interesting. I've been talking for a couple decades now about how the Govt. should simply be an insurance "company." Insurance is a "safety net" which is what people seem to want out of government. It'd eliminate a lot of redundant and mostly useless programs; tax money would be used to subsidize those who can't afford the most basic insurance. A govt. insurance agency would look something like the post office. Not interested in profit, just to break even. That alone would cut rates by 10% or more. If govt. offered medical malpractice insurance, we'd see lawmakers actually addressing why it costs so much - and weeding out the actually bad doctors. I don't see govt. replacing existing insurance, which means the free market can still work. Those who want Blue Cross can still buy it. I do see govt. insurance as being very basic. $30/month or thereabouts for 6 doctor visits/year and castastrophic health. But I bet people really whine about it when govt. starts to do the same things insurance companies do - like refusing to cover certain things due to costs. </div> Well, I'm not too sure that's a whole lot different than what a lot of people are trying to get right now. It's just 'social' insurance, where everyone is forced to buy in so there's more risk pooling. Your idea is interesting, since I get the impression that you imagine government working much like a private insurance company does, just not doing it for a profit. I suppose in some ways I've imagined something similar. I've wandered if it would be fair if people could select from a menu the different services they'd like from government, and then they could pay taxes into it for each program, like the Medicare and SS tax, and have those replace other tax brackets. Is that what you had in mind?
You'd still need other tax revenues for things like defense and building roads and bridges, but the funding for insurance would come almost entirely from people buying whatever services they want. It would give the govt. a vested interest in dealing with fraud, waste, and abuse of our systems. Maybe you'd actually get some good people in there who'd want to give better service for the same dollar, who'd notice that the cost goes up because of fraud or frivolous lawsuits, and figures out what to do about it.
Well in more light-hearted news, I'm glad to see Obama finally calling out Clinton in recent rebuttals. To paraphrase: Obama: "Clinton really liked me when I was 20 points down (response to her recent illogical outrage to his NAFTA/Health-care comments which he started saying long ago)." Obama: "Hillary presenting herself as co-president during (Bill) Clinton years." She cherry picks the good parts of the Clinton regime and takes credit for it, then refuses to have negative aspects brought up.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 25 2008, 09:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You'd still need other tax revenues for things like defense and building roads and bridges, but the funding for insurance would come almost entirely from people buying whatever services they want. It would give the govt. a vested interest in dealing with fraud, waste, and abuse of our systems. Maybe you'd actually get some good people in there who'd want to give better service for the same dollar, who'd notice that the cost goes up because of fraud or frivolous lawsuits, and figures out what to do about it.</div> I suppose it's just like taking some of the proposed private account system for social security to an even larger level. I've always liked the idea you're articulating, but I've read enough critics of account-based, choice-driven government programs that sometimes I wonder if they are right, even if a lot of their arguments are polemic. Personally, its always struck me as a pretty 'democratic' model of government. You can choose what types of goods and services you receive from the government, and you pay for them. If you don't pay, you don't get them. I suppose that might create the problem of adverse selection, but then again, I've never found anything particularly moral about forcing 40% of everyone to do something they're either apathetic about or opposed to for the sake of the greater good....I think it kind of defeats the purpose. I've also always thought that the guarantees people usually seek from government through the form of social safety nets are probably overpriced, and people would perceive them differently if they were more acutely aware of how much they cost.
I've found that there are two kinds of Democrats. The first kind wants govt. to be Robin Hood (steal from the rich, give to the poor). The second kind wants to see mankind sent back to the stone age (that'd be Al Gore, and other "haters" of the USA). I'm not suggesting that govt. insurance would be all that great. The idea is for govt. to be a safety net - even Reagan wanted govt. to be that. Base level insurance is meant to provide a modest sort of preventative care (doctor visits, flu shots), and to keep people from going bankrupt and losing their life savings (homes) if they get seriously ill. I picture private insurance being an add-on for more premium kinds of services. But no matter how I look at it, getting the govt. involved in non-free market ways breaks things. I want everyone to be able to afford insurance but not force them to have it. I do not want the govt. to make us a system that's inferior to what we have or otherwise (the DMV of health care systems). I don't want govt. to discourage the ingenuity that makes our pharmaceutical companies create 95% of all the new drugs in the market.
Well. Here we go: the forum will show if Hillary Clinton has any type of integrity. Though, I think we all know the answer to this one. As long as Obama keeps his cool, nothing is going to stick. Game time.
Hillary is so desperate, she threw out another unfunny flourish that some of the audience booed. SNL was Hyperbole moron, what does being asked first mean anything? Punk.
He needs to be funny. In the end people vote for who they like. Where the hells the funny. This makes me not want to vote for either of them.
His first job is to properly retort, it's not like the voters are going to fall for McCain due to his humor. In fact, Mac bombed terribly in a recent diatribe.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 26 2008, 09:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>His first job is to properly retort, it's not like the voters are going to fall for McCain due to his humor. In fact, Mac bombed terribly in a recent diatribe.</div> I disagree, 100%. That's how Bush beat Kerry. Just being funny. Making him look ridiculous in debates. People will ultimately vote for who they trust and then is indelibly connected to who they like.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Feb 26 2008, 09:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 26 2008, 09:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>His first job is to properly retort, it's not like the voters are going to fall for McCain due to his humor. In fact, Mac bombed terribly in a recent diatribe.</div> I disagree, 100%. That's how Bush beat Kerry. Just being funny. Making him look ridiculous in debates. People will ultimately vote for who they trust and then is indelibly connected to who they like. </div> Apples and Oranges.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Feb 26 2008, 10:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is so so so dark. This makes me want to vote Republican.</div> What are you talking about? You're full of negative thoughts. I don't see anything wrong with this debate. The only one offending me is Russert with his Anti-Semitic BullShit rant.
