Home > Uncategorized > Gore in ’08?

Gore in ’08?

Al Gore has certainly been in the news lately and John Ashbaugh drops by tonight at 5 to discuss the Man Who Would be President. Here’s the first half of a recent essay from The Nation about Mr. Gore.

So I invite your comments about Al Gore and whether or not he should run in ’08.

Gore Wins the Norwegian Primary
by John Nichols

Having now won the Norwegian Primary, it is reasonable to ask why Al
Gore would want to slog his way through the snows of New Hampshire.

But the inconvenient truth is that never has the man who might yet
be president needed to more seriously consider his personal legacy–
not to mention the small matter of his potential to make the world
anew–than now.

There is, after all, the matter of the open space at the end of what
is now the most remarkable resume of anyone seeking – or considering
seeking – the presidency.

Let’s review.

This is how Al Gore’s resumé reads as of this morning:

Son of a great senator.

Harvard graduate, with honors.

Vietnam veteran.

Award-winning investigative journalist.

Congressman.

Senator.

Vice President.

Winner of the popular vote for President of the United States.

Best-selling author.

Environmental activist.

Academy Award winner.

And, now, Nobel Peace Prize winner–he shares the prize with the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change–for “their efforts to
build up and disseminate greater knowledge about manmade climate
change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed
to counteract such change.”

As resumés go, that is one for the top of the pile.

But it begs the question: Shouldn’t a man who has gotten this far be
thinking about how to finish the journey?

And isn’t the last stop the Oval Office?

To think that Gore is not pondering these questions today would
be absurd.

Of course, the former vice president says, “The climate crisis is not
a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of
humanity.”

No doubt about that.

But Gore cannot feign ignorance of his own “political issue.” When he
appeared in San Francisco on the eve of Friday morning’s
announcement, at a fundraising event for California Senator Barbara
Boxer, the man of the hour tried to deliver an earnest address about
climate change. But when he concluded his remarks, the crowd burst
into chants of “Run Al Run!”

That message echoed the full-page ad that was placed by the
burgeoning “Draft Gore for President” movement in the front section
of Wednesday’s New York Times. The advertisement bluntly suggested
that the announced contenders for the Democratic presidential
nomination lack Gore’s “vision, standing in the world, and
political courage” — not just with regard to climate change, but
in his outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq, his defenses of
civil liberties and his advocacy for a renewed commitment to
science and reason.

“There are times for politicians and times for heroes. America and
the Earth need a hero right now,” read the Draft Gore movement’s
open letter to the soon-to-be Nobel man. “Please rise to this
challenge, or you and millions of us will live forever wondering
what might have been.”

Now, that’s pressure. But it is a velvet grip in which the peace
prize winner finds himself.

Al Gore has arrived at the point that most politicians can only
imagine in their wildest dreams. The entire world is asking him to be
not merely a candidate but an ecological–not to mention, ideological
–savior. And there is simply no question that he is viable. In fact,
he is more viable than he has ever been.

Can Gore resist? Probably.

Should he resist? Probably not.

Sure, it will be said that Gore can do more to address climate change
as a private citizen. But no one who as been so close to the
presidency as he will miss the point that the most powerful official
on the planet has some sway in matters involving the planet.

Advertisements
  1. realist
    October 16, 2007 at 6:32 pm

    Dream on! You libs are too much!
    Gore will never run! Not a chance, not even slim!

    The guy is a has been, all washed up.
    The Nobel prize has become a political football and literally means nothiong on the world court anymore…after all they gave to the father of all terrorists! If I was Gore I would have thrown it back in their faces! What a huge insult to a normal person, but then we know radical libs are not normal.
    You are stuck with the three stooges. And when your party picks one you just watch what happens.
    Conservative will shread them to peices…most conservatives hope it’s Hellery! We would so love to watch her melt in a pool of sludge went confronted with her own historical past & present. Oh this is gonna be sooo fun! Go hellery Go!
    B. Hussein Obama is a child, and would even make a lousy VP, and the breck girl is washed up as well.
    All 3 are unelecatble! fatally flawed!
    You can hope in one hand about Gore and poop in the other and see which one fills up the fastest!
    Nice try Dave. How bout we talk about your congress have an 10% approval rating…hahahaha!
    The libs got busted at their own game! The public ain’t buyin the BS anymore.

  2. Thomas W
    October 16, 2007 at 7:27 pm

    Dear Realist;
    I’ve looked at the candidates from both sides of the political spectrum and the one thing that I see is that there is not a real standout on either side. Having said that, and after reading your diatribe of hate and invective, I have decided that they all have one thing in common. they are definitely more intelligent, and emotionally mature than you are. Your post is filled with hate and hysterical posturing. Unfortunately because you may not have intended it that way, you have now come out sounding like the late Adolph Hitler (I’m old enough to remember him and have heard him). He used similar methods to slander anyone not agreeing with him and his positions. Your post is filled with such hate and anger, it must be a real effort for you to even get out of bed in the morning. After reviewing all of the candidates on both sides, perhaps the idea of Al Gore running isn’t such a bad idea after all.

  3. Marilyn
    October 16, 2007 at 8:57 pm

    I think Gore can do a better job outside the presidential office. He will have more freedom and the time to tackle the really important issues. After all, the office of the presidency is only a symbolic one; real power in government rests with the lobbyists and their cronies in Congress. I think it is also unfair to “draft” him although it is a significant gesture that is a testament to the importance of what he is doing for the benefit of the planet.

    I have been wondering what George W. Bush will be doing after “retiring.” Will he go on to make a difference in the lives of people through mindful and just work or will he be relegated to the dustbins of obscurity? He is a very dangerous man because he is driven by a black and white ideology. His morality only extends to his immediate circle of rich friends and to hell with others, including the American people. The following should have been clear to people when he said it at a presidential debate dinner in New York in October 2000:

    “This is an impressive crowd – the haves and the have-mores,” quipped the GOP standard-bearer. “Some people call you the elites; I call you my base.”

    I will tell you what. He probably will not be invited on speaking engagements like some other ex presidents are. He probably will not even write a book (well maybe “My Pet Goat: The Sequel.” But he would have to look up “sequel” first).

    There are those people who grace this earth with gentle footsteps and who leave their mark on humanity by their good deeds and spirit of conciliation. Sometimes they do it later in life, but that is the nature of human beings. They have the wisdom of their years of experience and moral growth. Those people are remembered by those they touched and they will have inspired future generations.

    Then there are those who trample their way into the hearts of people in the pursuit of power and through the exercise of greed. Those people will be forgotten, but their cruel deeds will always be remembered.

    I think the fact that Gore did not contest the the results of the 2000 presidential elections (a decision I thought was unwise) did enable him to pursue other avenues that are important to all human beings. His degree of education and knowledge, his articulate presentations, his humility, and his tireless pursuit of a vital cause have all come to bear fruit.

    It is one of the fitting ironies of life: Quick fame brought about by the misfortune of others will lead to a very quick fall. There are many who will reach notoriety only when there is misery in the world, and they are usually the cause of it. Their wealth is a direct result of the suffering of people. Their businesses are built on such suffering or their official positions are reinforced by the people causing the suffering.

    Al Gore is definitely not among such people; and when Blackwater and CACI are gone and when George Bush is gone and as people all over the world curse their violent legacies, the world will be reaping the benefits of the tireless hours by Gore and people like him who do prove that violence is not the only way to make a decent living in this world, but that improving the quality of life of ALL people can work wonders.

    Maybe if we start valuing life more than we value death, people would not be making millions by killing others, but by engaging in activities that save their lives and improve their health.

    But that requires a big shift in thinking for many and Al Gore has helped facilitate that shift.

  4. amused republican
    October 17, 2007 at 2:36 am

    Why don’t you libs just dust off Jimmy Carter and run him for president? he’s an activist, he’s a failure to solve problems; he hates Bush, and he has actually won the presidency, unlike Al Gore that DID lose in 2000. Sure, Jimmy Carter’s addled mind might be a detriment to his serving, but his mumblings and rantings are no different than any other lib. he has the added bonus of actually having another term’s worth of eligability, unlike Bill Clinton that requires his skirt to get him back in the white house.

    yeah, al, run, please. Your hypocracy will make you very very easy to beat.

  5. insulted realist
    October 17, 2007 at 3:45 am

    Well let’s see…Let’s list all of Thomas W’s insults and personal attacks on me:
    1)they are definitely more intelligent, and emotionally mature than you
    2)you have now come out sounding like the late Adolph Hitler
    3)He used similar methods to slander
    4)it must be a real effort for you to even get out of bed in the morning

    And there you have it. At least 4 personal attacks or insults. It’s easy too! All ya need to be is a Dave suck-up groupie and insult and attack conservative bloggers and you get published!
    And people say AlGore is a hypocrate…He could take lessons from Dave who swears no personal attacks or insults will be allowed. He goes on to say that you must stick to the topic. Thomas did not stick to the topic, he tried in vane to discredit what I said with personal attacks.
    Ahhh! Ya gotta love the radical left! No integrity whatsoever!
    Flip-flopping hypocrasy is the name of their game. And that game is on here in full swing.
    You saw it with your own eyes. I posted to the topic with an opinion and argument.
    Thomasw slandered and attacked me.
    So when Dave says no personal attack or insults and he let’s this get posted by tommy the sidekick, what do you think he is doing about censoring posts? You got it! he doesn’t post them.
    Try sticking to the topic, I did, and you just didn’t like what I said, so rather than debating it or developing an opposite point you decided to just attack and insult me cuz you knew it would get published.

  6. The Real Realist
    October 17, 2007 at 9:12 am

    insulted realist: (Oxymoron? or just moron?) Wow, you really know how to “zing ’em” in there. I’m sure that Tom is smarting from your witty reply. A couple of questions for you: Does your computer have a spell checker? Do you know how to use it? Do you even care? I am amused at the infantile use of nicknames and purposefully misspelled names as a means of insult; Hellery, using Barack Obama’s middle name Hussein and the clincher, calling former U.S. Senator John Edwards “the breck girl” ; nice going, sounds like you listen to Rush quite a bit.

    I have to say I am a little surprised that you didn’t slur Al Gore’s name with the insipid “Algore” that some on the right like to fling about. Did you see the political cartoon in the Tribune today? Uncle Sam was at a crossroads with two signs: Iraq Mess, or Nobel Peace Prize were the two choices. But you probably won’t get it. And as far as my comments being insulting to you; can I get away with the line Rush uses: “Just kidding folks”?

  7. Chuck from Atascadero
    October 17, 2007 at 4:44 pm

    Gore won’t run; nor should he. Unfortunately his time has passed, but at least he has found some kind of personal redemption with the Nobel Peace Prize, Oscar, popularity, etc. I am happy for him on that level.

    Let’s face it: history will be more kind to Al Gore than to George W. Bush, fair or unfair. Gore has no one to blame but himself for what happened in 2000. He should have been able to win that, but he made key and costly mistakes. Bur we have a “new” Gore now and people seem to embrace him. It’s a shame he wasn’t that way in 2000.

  8. Thomas W
    October 17, 2007 at 5:12 pm

    Dear insulted realist;
    I’m sorry that you took what I meant as a critical analysis of your comments as personal slander. Perhaps I should have couched it differently. When I wrote that I admit I was incensed at the way you were maligning the demo’s, which, by the way I am not, and I would have gone after you if you had maligned the candidates on the Republican ticket in the same way. All of these people have put their lives on hold to serve our country. We may not agree with their views or the way they have chosen to express them, but they have the right to speak without being attacked with vicious and disparaging slang names. I merely pointed out that this was the same techniques that Hitler used to villify and demean his opponents. I don’t apologize for my comments because I don’t think you will understand the points I’m trying to make. And after all, did I not say that perhaps it would be a good thing that Mr Gore should run. I didn’t claim to be supporting him nor have I decided whom I’d like to support yet. It’s too early in the campaign to make that decision. I don’t even dislike President Bush, I just feel that he has made some terrible mistakes that has led this country down the wrong path.
    I felt that I was “on subject” and was only trying to point out to you that, perhaps, you should temper your remarks with intelligent reasoning and not use so much invective.
    Tom

  9. Jim of AG
    October 17, 2007 at 7:58 pm

    Hindsight is always 20/20, Dave. Given the choice the voters had in 2000, they made the right choice. This may be a different Al Gore, but he remains the water boy for Bill & Hillary.

  10. Downtown Bob
    October 18, 2007 at 4:01 am

    jim of ag said: Given the choice the voters had in 2000, they made the right choice. Um, Jim, in Dave’s original post the point was made that Al Gore won the popular vote. Yes, we did make the right choice, unfortunately for the world, the right choice didn’t have the five to four backing of the Supreme Court to put him in office instead of the disaster we have had for the past six and three quarter years. As for Chuck of Atascadero’s point about Gore having “no one to blame but himself”, what could he have done differently when the Supreme Court ordered Florida to stop recounting the votes?
    The whole point of the speculation is that Al Gore has matured into a statesman and, on every point he has been totally correct. The last point is the one that pushes the far right into such a lather when ever Al Gore’s name comes up. Should he run for President in ’08? Definitely. Would he win? By such a huge margin that there would no manner in which the Republican opponent could possibly cause the reversal that happened in 2000.

  11. John Ashbaugh
    October 18, 2007 at 5:22 am

    These are the web sites I promised when I appeared on the show yesterday:

    Al Gore’s web site: http://www.algore.com
    (duh-h-h)

    Alliance for Climate Protection (practical ideas for reducing your own contribution to greenhouse gas emissions): http://www.climateprotect.org

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch

    Stop Global Warming – An organization of political leaders, celebrities, musicians, and “just plain people” working to stop global warming: http://www.Stopglobalwarming.org

    Climate Crisis – A web site devoted to dissiminating Gore’s slide show and the film, An Inconvenient Truth: http://www.climatecrisis.org

    As a side note, Al Gore was attending an event with Barbara Boxer when he received the news from Oslo, and there’s a neat video of him with Senator Boxer at her web site at http://www.barbaraboxer.com.

    For those who would like to thank Al Gore for his work on this issue and congratulate him on the Nobel Peace Prize, try http://ga6.org/campaign/gore_thankyou_october.

    John Nichols’ article in The Nation about Al Gore and the prospects of (and need for) his presidential campaign: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=242088

    Paul Krugman: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&em&ex=1192593600&en=da7b1a47329aacb0&ei=5087&oref=slogin

    Draft Al Gore (California): http://www.california4gore.com

  12. Dave Congalton
    October 18, 2007 at 5:23 am

    Thanks, John for the links. You did a great job yesterday. Always appreciate your support of Hometown Radio.

  13. civics teacher
    October 18, 2007 at 1:42 pm

    Bob,
    Did you miss the section in Grade school where they covered presidential elections?
    If so you need to know that getting a few more popular votes doesn’t meab squat if you don’t win the electoral votes needed.
    Simply stated the candidate with the highest number of electoral votes wins.
    here is some information that may help you understand the process and why it was set up by THE US CONSTITUTION! Something some Americans still hold near and dear.
    Here ya go…Hope this helps.
    ****************
    Every four years, on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November, millions of U.S. citizens go to local voting booths to elect, among other officials, the next president and vice president of their country. Their votes will be recorded and counted, and winners will be declared.

    “But the results of the popular vote are not guaranteed to stand because the Electoral College has not cast its vote.”

    The Electoral College is a mechanism of presidential elections that was created by the framers of the “U.S. Constitution” as a compromise for the presidential election process. At the time, some politicians believed a purely popular election was too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in “Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.”

    Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators plus the number of its U.S. representatives. Currently, the Electoral College includes 538 electors, 535 for the total number of congressional members, and three who represent Washington, D.C., as allowed by the 23rd Amendment. On the Monday following the second Wednesday in December, the electors of each state meet in their respective state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president. These votes are then sealed and sent to the president of the Senate, who on January 6th opens and reads the votes in the presence of both houses of Congress. The winner is sworn into office at noon on January 20th.

    Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. Some states have laws that require electors to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote, while other electors are bound by pledges to a specific political party. However, “there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people’s decision, and there is no federal law or Constitutional provision against it.”

    In most presidential elections, a candidate who wins the popular vote will also receive the majority of the electoral votes, but this is not always the case. There have been four presidents who have won an election with fewer popular votes than their opponent but more electoral votes.

    FOUR BOB! FOUR!

    Here are the four elections when the candidate who led the popular vote did not win the office:

    1824: John Quincy Adams received more than 38,000 fewer votes than Andrew Jackson, but neither candidate won a majority of the Electoral College. Adams was awarded the presidency when the election was thrown to the House of Representatives.

    1876: Nearly unanimous support from small states gave Rutherford B. Hayes a one-vote margin in the Electoral College, despite the fact that he lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden by 264,000 votes. Hayes carried five out of the six smallest states (excluding Delaware). These five states plus Colorado gave Hayes 22 electoral votes with only 109,000 popular votes. At the time, Colorado had been just been admitted to the Union and decided to appoint electors instead of holding elections. So, Hayes won Colorado’s three electoral votes with zero popular votes. It was the only time in U.S. history that small state support has decided an election.

    1888: Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland, but won the electoral vote by 65. In this instance, some say the Electoral College worked the way it is designed to work by preventing a candidate from winning an election based on support from one region of the country. The South overwhelmingly supported Cleveland, and he won by more than 425,000 votes in six southern states. However, in the rest of the country he lost by more than 300,000 votes.

    2000: Al Gore had over half a million votes more than George W. Bush, with 50,992,335 votes to Bush’s 50,455,156. But after recount controversy in Florida and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Bush was awarded the state by 537 popular votes. Like most states, Florida has a “winner takes all” rule. This means that the candidate who wins the state by popular vote also gets all of the state’s electoral votes. Bush became president with 271 electoral votes.

    Today, a candidate must receive 270 of the 538 votes to win the election, so George W. Bush won the 2000 election by one electoral vote. In cases where no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the decision is thrown to the House of Representatives by virtue of the 12th Amendment. The House then selects the president by majority vote with each state delegation receiving one vote to cast for the three candidates who received the most electoral votes.

  14. outraged American
    October 19, 2007 at 1:44 am

    here is what is wrong with the democratic far left today!

    Pete Stark (D) California said today…(Quote)

    “You don’t have money to fund the war or children,” he said. “But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.”

    many moderate dems with a few brains slammed this idiot within minutes of this luntic’s rantings.

    The radical leftists stalinist socialist MoveOn’ers are way beyond the pale and at this point are 100% out of control! This is an outrage!

    I dare anyone here to defend this insanity!

  15. Pete Stark/nutjob,loser.org
    October 19, 2007 at 3:15 am

    I was taken out of context!

  16. Downtown Bob
    October 19, 2007 at 7:04 am

    “civics teacher”: Once again, read the original post from Dave that started this thread: “Winner of the popular vote for President of the United States. Now, what I typed: Um, Jim, in Dave’s original post the point was made that Al Gore won the popular vote. Yes, we did make the right choice, unfortunately for the world, the right choice didn’t have the five to four backing of the Supreme Court to put him in office instead of the disaster we have had for the past six and three quarter years. Your very own long winded “cut ‘n paste” winds up with this paragraph: But after recount controversy in Florida and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Bush was awarded the state by 537 popular votes. Even your own cut ‘n paste states that Bush was awarded the vote total; no where does it say that he earned that vote tally. The “controversy” in Florida? Should they be allowed to continue to recount the votes? The United States Supreme Court in a very partisan manner voted by a 5 to 4 margin to rule against Florida being able to continue to recount the votes, thus “awarding” the vote tally, the electoral votes that came with the popular votes, and by direct extension, the Presidency to George W. Bush. You, and probably all on the right will cling to your belief that George Bush “won” the vote in 2000; I, and a good many on the left firmly believe that George Bush did not “win”, but was “awarded” the Presidency because his “trial lawyer” argued that to continue to recount the Florida votes would cause George W. Bush to suffer “irreparable harm”. Nearly seven years later, the world has suffered “irreparable harm” from President George W. Bush.

  17. was stark drunk?
    October 19, 2007 at 1:32 pm

    Was Pete Stark drunk? or high?

    I’d like to think that Representative Fortney “Pete” Stark (D-California) was drunk, trashed out of his little gourd. He accused the White House of lying and of not finding enough money to spend on “children,” re: the Dem SCHIP scheme. But he sees Republicans finding the money to spend in Iraq, and he spits that the war’s supporters have a purpose:

    Stark blathered:
    “You’re going to spend it [SCHIP money] to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.”

    “Pete” Stark is a sick man. Is that the kind of gutter cynicism which appeals to his owners on the fringe left, no doubt, but it sounds more like the depraved rant of a dime store mullah discussing a “Zionist entity.”

    Pathetic.

    One hopes he was drunk and had no clue what he was saying. Or maybe that his staffers had been working on legislation having to do with hemp for making ropes and fueling automobiles. This sort of jihadist talk should not come from a sand and sober representative in the United States government.

  18. Rich from Paso
    October 19, 2007 at 10:42 pm

    Here we go again, Bob. There were three recounts of the four counties Gore didn’t win. How is it fair that Gore gets a recount in only four counties and not recount the rest of the state? How is it fair that the canvassing board kept changing the definition of what a vote was (i.e. “pregnant chads”, “hanging chads”, “dimpled chads”, “undervotes”, etc)? And is it fair that our military serving overseas had their ballots thrown out even though they did vote, just didn’t sign the ballot or it arrived one day late, or some other administrative error? Yes, the 2000 election was the messiest election we have ever had, but Bush won won that election according to the New York Times, USA Today and the Miami Herald, all of whom conducted their own recounts. Face the facts: Democrats wrote the election laws, democrats developed the “butterfly ballot”, democrats signed up all those old-folks that thought they were voting for Gore when they voted for Buchanon, Democrats were the ones that conducted the first two recounts and Gore still didn’t win. Democrats created the 2000 Florida mess. This is problem of your parties’ making. This fantasy that you hold on to that Gore somehow either should of won or did win but whos win was stolen from in 2000 is a delusion that feeds you dementia on this topic. The fact that Gore received more popular votes is an irrelevant statistic akin to RBI and ERA in baseball: they don’t determine the final outcome. And speaking of final outcome: the supreme court did not “select” Bush to be president, they did prevent the Florida Supreme Court from ignoring their state law on how a vote and recount should take place when the FL Supreme court ordered a third recount. The FL supreme court, in a totally partisan manner, completely disregarded the law. Harris certified the vote, as was the Democrat written law, when she did. Gore lost that that point. The US supreme court forced the FL Supreme court to obey the law.

    Funny how Democrats will pick and choose which laws they will obey and when.

  19. Downtown Bob
    October 20, 2007 at 6:51 am

    Rich, once again I believe we are at an impasse; you will find all of the “facts” you can to back up your assertions, as I have done before. I am not going to go into it again, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I will agree that the 2000 election was the “messiest” election we ever had had, but Ohio wasn’t much “cleaner”. We have discussed here before about election reform and I think we can agree that no elections should ever have the taint of uncertainty again.

    outraged American: You “dared” anyone to defend the remarks by Rep. Pete Stark; okay. Has Congress ever had a real debate about the funding for the Iraqi occupation? Has there ever been a serious discussion about where all of this money is coming from? No, there has been no discussion like this at all. Democrats have been labeled “tax and spend” for many years; currently Republican leadership is operating in a “borrow and spend” manner; Bush cuts taxes, we get attacked, he cuts taxes some more, he invades Iraq, cuts taxes some more and all the while our government is literally throwing money away in Iraq (remember the missing 8.8 billion dollars?) As for the remark about “blowing up innocent people…”, that does happen in a war zone. “No Child Left Behind”; a means to dumb down enough kids so that college isn’t a good option, so joining the military is a “good” option? And as far as “… send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.”; Do you remember the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association Dinner in 2004? President Bush had a slide show of himself wandering around the Oval office looking under the furniture for “WMDs”, all the while he was smirking and giggling about how humorous he was being WHILE OUR SOLDIERS IN IRAQ WERE DYING! If that does not qualify as “being amused” at the death and destruction going on in Iraq, tell me please, what else would you call it?
    The Republicans are “outraged” by the comments by Rep. Stark, and some Democrats are apparently “horrified”; I say that Rep. Stark spoke “an inconvenient truth“.

  20. Anonymous
    October 20, 2007 at 6:28 pm

    Bob,
    Thank you! Your kind of thinking will wear very thing on social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and national security conservatives in both parties!
    Your MoveOn thinking is in fact split your party and will win the white house again for a republican.
    You will have to wait 13 months to see how right I am. But it will be well worth the wait!
    By the way…how is “your” congress doing? Are they at 9% yet? Bush is up 6 points. It may not be saying much but it’s one hellava trend to buck.
    And Iraq is going great these days…even those in the middle of your oarty are linning up with Bush!
    Ah it’s good to be a republican these days! It’s gonna be a great 13 months watching the brain diseased MoveOn’ers destroy a political party. I only wonder who or what will replace the socialist radical MoveOn lefties!

  21. the ghosts of christmas past
    October 21, 2007 at 4:24 am

    Hey everybody! Guess what? Bobby Jindal, a Republican, will be the next Governor of Louisiana. So much for George Bush getting singular blame for Hurricane Katrina. I say that because voters cited Kathleen Blanco and the state democrat’s crappy response to the hurricane at the state level. This portends well for Republicans and very bad for Democrats if they can’t make Katrina stick in the governor’s race.

  22. Downtown Bob
    October 21, 2007 at 5:24 am

    anonymouse: Bush is up 6 points? In whose poll is that, Fox News maybe? I saw his approval rating the other day was at 24 percent (that was the same that Richard Nixon had right before he resigned). It is refreshing to see how the White House “spun” the veto of the s-chip bill as a “Victory” – wtf? Denying health care to children is “victory”? So much for “compassionate conservatism”. I am curious as to who it is you think will be the Republican candidate; Rudy, with his three marriages, abortion rights stance and his record of trying to control access to handguns while mayor of NYC? Mitt with his Mormon faith that most of the religious right can’t stomach? Fred Thompson who can’t seem to get his script right yet? Mike Hucklebee, Ron Paul or John McCain? A Republican White House in 2008? Not likely. My prediction? A Democratic President, a larger number of both House and Senate members being Democratic and the Republican party split by the religious right, the “Neo-Cons” and the libertarian fiscal conservatives all fighting each other for “relevance”. As for the “far left” aka “the radical Move On left” (your language); a progressive agenda will emerge to start the healing of the wounds caused by the Bush Administration to our country. Let’s compare notes in November of 2008 and see who is closer to reality then.

  23. Rich from Paso
    October 21, 2007 at 10:14 am

    Bob, I have no problem with Rudy’s three marriages. I have no problem with his socially liberal views. Rudy is a law-and-order guy that is only pro-abortion because that is the law of the land, but he says he would seek to lower abortion rates. And for handgun control, perfectly understandable for the mayor of the largest, most F&^ked up city in America at the time (thank you, David Dinkins- D NY) to seek any and all means to lower the death rate in his city, which led America and the world as the most violent city. See? Once again, when the proper context is applied, it makes sense. Another thing about Rudy I like is he will stop illegals coming across the southern border, violating our laws. He will stop terrorists overseas that are ending American liberty as they end American lives. There is a lot of positives about Rudy… a lot more than hillary, Barak or any of the other “progressives”. Progressives in the modern sense equals regression in every sense. There is nothing inspiring and uplifting about convincing millions of people that they are incapable of taking care of themselves and need governement crutches to get around on. How can the Nanny State provide anyone the drive and desire to excel? If everything is provided to you then nothing has value; someone will give you more if you demand it enough, even if you purposefully misused or abused the thing in the first place. There will be no “healing” of America if a Democrat is elected president. There will be healing if a conservative, even Rudy, is elected president to repudiate many, not all, of the government largess that Bush gave away during his two terms.

  24. Willian in SM
    October 21, 2007 at 3:59 pm

    Dave, I normally think you try to be informed and even understand your comments. However, in this case, you are sadly misinformed or purposely deceptive in your characterization of Algore as an honest person with a good background, especially the comment of being the son of a great Senator. Without the profanity I felt compelled to use last week, I will resubmit to you the true facts about Aglore and his racist father that you sadly consider a great senator.

    Following is by R.D. Davis

    A New Visions Commentary paper published May 1999 by The National Center for Public Policy Research. Reprints permitted provided source is credited.

    It is easy to control the minds of a people. All one has to do is change history by lying about the past. This is exactly what has happened with the legacy of former Democratic U.S. Senator Al Gore, Sr. of Tennessee – the father of our current vice president – and his mythical “support” of civil rights.

    In a recent speech to the NAACP, Vice President Gore said his father lost his Senate seat because he supported civil rights legislation. Fellow black Americans, let me set history straight. Al Gore, Sr., together with the rest of the southern Democrats, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Congressional Quarterly reported that, in the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as opposed to 80% of Republicans (138 for, 38 against). In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Act while 82% of Republicans did (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrats voted against the Act.

    In his remarks upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their “overwhelming majority.” He did not offer similar praise to his own Democratic Party. Moreover, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, an Illinois Republican, collaborated with the White House and the Senate leadership of both parties to draft acceptable compromise amendments to end the southern Democrats’ filibuster of the Act. It was Dirksen who often took to the Senate floor to declare, “This is an idea whose time has come. It will not be denied.” Dirksen’s greatest triumph earned him the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award, presented by then-NAACP Chairman Roy Wilkins, for his remarkable civil rights leadership.

    Inform yourself, so you can learn for yourself about this important historical event. All official records about the Civil Rights Act can be found in the June 1964 issues of Congressional Quarterly.

    Al Gore, Sr. did not stop at simply voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, Congressional Quarterly reported that Gore attempted to send the Act to the Senate Judiciary Committee with an amendment to say “in defiance of a court desegregation order, federal funds could not be held from any school districts.” Gore sought to take the teeth out of the Act in the event it passed.

    Ostensibly, Senator Gore was “elated” at the idea of young Al, Jr. going to school with black children. In reality, however, the future vice president attended an elite private school.

    In the end, the Gore Amendment was defeated by a vote of 74-25. Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, one of President Bill Clinton’s political mentors, was among the 23 southern Democratic senators and only one Republican voting with Gore for this racist amendment.

    Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the Civil Rights Act because he was afraid the nation would be transformed into a “police state” as a result of some of its provisions. He did not want to throw out the proverbial “baby with the bath water.” History, of course, labeled Goldwater a racist even though he voted against the Gore Amendment – an amendment devised to continue school segregation. If anyone in the Senate should be tagged as a racist, it should be those voting for the Gore Amendment. Why didn’t history record Al Gore, Sr. and the other southern Democrats as racists?

    At least civil rights activist Andrew Young was forthcoming about this oversight in his book An Easy Burden. Young wrote, “The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans… who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South.” Young noted that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower. Young admitted, “These judges are among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement.”

    History tends to unilaterally and falsely depict Republicans as racists when southern Democrats truly deserved this title. We now have southern Democrats as both President and Vice President. That would never be the case without the power of the lie and the liberal news media to alter people’s impressions.

    Lies can enslave men, but the truth shall set them free. I challenge you, the reader, to take the time to research the facts about our past in publications like Congressional Quarterly and An Easy Burden. Once you educate yourself, you can no longer be deceived by the fabulists. No longer will you be “gored” by a lie.

    Secondly, Algore took millions of Chinese dollars much like the Hsu problem that Clinton is currently involved with from a group of Monks that have taken a vow of poverty. Do you think he was either too dumb to know he was taking dirty money or too corrupt and thought we were too dumb to find out he took dirty money.

    If you like the “Do as I say and not as I do” Algore, then go for it. If you like corruption, have at it. If you consider a man who wanted to deny all people of color to be put in their place, call the man a great senator. But I believe you need to consider the facts.

    Will

  25. it's about time
    October 21, 2007 at 4:24 pm

    Downtown Bob said…
    anonymouse: “anony-mouse”

    You see? Do you?

    Bob & Dave are flaming MoveOn socialists that claim to stand for civility. Yet when a blogger addresses Bob’s comments by calling him “Bob”, he responds with his curt lil “mouse” statement. They can’t help themselves. Their hate and brain washing by the radical socialist left leaves them like the Manchurian candidate…incapable of acting independently with their own thoughts. They are the robots of the radical left…the puppets so to speak.

    It is beyond their ability to think freely. They only have the “diseased brain” syndrome of those on the “radical socialist MoveOn secular progressive far left”.

    Bob & Dave never address the issue of their congress approaching single digit approval by once again banging the drum of blame and hate Bush tactics. It’s Bush’s fault we can get our jobs done.
    What they fail to realize is that ALL Americans are fed up with federal entitlements of the radical socialistic programs like this SCHP debaucle!

    Not one person on America wants to subsidize a family of 4 making over $90,000 a year by giving them free healthcare! Not One!
    The SCHP bill that the radical socialists put forward is unacceptable to all Americans…thus the veto and thus the inability to muster enough votes to over turn the veto! Ain’t gonna happen! Never!

    These subsidies of families at 400-600-900% of the poverty level are not going to see dime one! The vast majority of them has the options at work to sigh up for health care but would rather you and I pay the cost so they can have the boat and a 52″ plasma! Read my lips…IT AIN”T GONNA HAPPEN! Drop it! It’s dead! Social welfare for the rich will never happen in America!

    And as for Bob’s diatibal attacks on our President, know this:
    1) His approval ratings are heading up while your congress is plummeting!
    2) The surge is working well, and deaths are way down by even 50+% in most areas!
    3) Moderate democrats and Republicans are lining up behind Bush’s plan to keep Iran from:
    a) Sending more weapons and bombs into Iraq
    b) Developing a nuclear bomb with which they would start world war lll without batting an eye!

    America is lining up with the Bush policies. They now see that he has been on the right course all along.
    First and foremost Americans want to be safe!
    And after 40+ years of talking to Iran it has produced nothing. And Why? Because ISLAMO-FACSISTS will never negotiate and Americans now see that. You can talk to those islamo-nazis all you want…it will do no good! They want you dead and will do whatever it takes to make that happen.
    Well President Bush has drawn a line in their sand! And Americans can see why this is necessary and they will support him.
    Attack Iran’s military centers and demolish all nuclear facilities. At the same time we need to take this war across the border to keep the IED’s out of Iraq! It is our duty as freedom loving Americans to want freedom and safety for the women, the children and yes, even the gays in these countries from being systematically stoned to death or beheaded! That’s what America does! It protects the weak from the oppressive!
    So yak all the MoveOn and media matters talking points you want Bob. Bloggers here and Americans on either side of the isle now see the destruction your ilk is causing and will no longer put up with it.
    So it’s back to standing strong as American against oppression, terrorism and federal subsidies for the limousine liberal types.
    America is strong once again thanks to the brave, courageous and intelligent leadership of our President and democrats who have now seen the light and are running from your destructive fringe divisive socialistic, radical far left politics.
    You stand alone Bob. You are out in the cold. You have lost.

  26. Dave Congalton
    October 23, 2007 at 3:44 am

    Someone tried to post an “Essay by Jay Leno” about all the pathetic negativity in our culture. I sensed right away that Leno had nothing to do with this drivel.

    Sure enough, if you go to that great web site at
    http://www.snopes.com, they immediately debunk the link to Leno. It was actually written by conservative Craig Smith and then rewritten as it was sent around the Internet.

  27. Downtown Bob
    October 23, 2007 at 7:57 am

    To “it’s about time”: Yes, anonymouse. If you want to make comments here and not be able to be addressed directly, then you are, IMO, an anonymous “mouse” scampering around “hiding” from a direct confrontation. Now, you may want to avoid publicly announcing your true identity here, like I do, for any number of reasons, that is your business. But I don’t understand why some here chose not to have a regular identity, unless they (you) are just not sure of your views or what you state here.
    As for your “diseased brain” comments, I chose to not even give you the satisfaction of a dignified response.
    What they fail to realize is that ALL Americans are fed up with federal entitlements of the radical socialistic programs like this SCHP debacle! Um, no, that is not the reality of the situation. Proof? Click the link and see. Sixty one percent thought that Congress should have overridden Bush’s veto. If you really want to judge whether or not America doesn’t want social programs or government “help”, try asking the numerous recipients of social security to give back their monthly payments. How many of those who are benefitting from government programs actually vote against their own best interests by continuing to vote Republican? As for the schip program, where do you get your “facts” that anyone is suggesting that this healthcare insurance is “free”? Some of the eligible who receive coverage don’t pay (at the poverty line or close) but most of the others do pay, based on their ability to pay.
    As for “America lining up with Bush’s policies”; once again, what reality do you live in? Proof? Again? Sixty seven percent disapprove of President Bush’s handling of Iraq. You seem to be blinded to reality based on your political “belief”, not “facts”. Oh well. Enjoy your own “reality”.
    William in SM: If you want to attack Al Gore, fine, do so for what you believe he has done, or not done, not the actions of his father.
    Rich: Rudy’s three marriages are okay with you, good. Are you okay with how marriage #2 ended? You know, the one where he announced on t.v. that he was getting a divorce from her, before he told her? You are okay with him locating the command center in the WTC, when that was the last building that was attacked before? (1993) A command center that was “within walking distance to City Hall; a command center that doubled as a “love nest” for what has turned out to be wife #3. And one of my favorite Rudy facts; his blaming the deaths of the firefighters caught in the WTC not on the obsolete radios they had, but on the firefighters themselves! Link here to a thirteen minute video; Rich, please, watch this video and then tell me that you think Rudy Guilani is the best man for the job as President of the USofA.
    As for a “nanny state”; you must be referring to the push for a nationalized, single payer universal healthcare plan; the implementation of which would make our country more competitive, free larger and mid-sized employers from the burden of providing healthcare insurance, and allow workers to move to jobs that they can be more productive at with no fear of losing their healthcare insurance.

  28. Anonymous
    October 23, 2007 at 1:49 pm

    OK Bob, I will take your dare! You reveal your true identity and I will reveal mine.
    “Downtown Bob” is nothing more than an nicname, as is anonymous.
    If I called myself “downtown anonymous” it’s no differant than you by picking a general first name.
    So go ahead Bob…Reveal your true indentity. And I will also.
    Fair challange since you brought it up…Let’s see who will step up od retreat in some lefty diatribe.
    Ready…set…REVEAL!
    The next move is yours.
    We all wait your honesty, and openess.

  29. Rich from Paso
    October 23, 2007 at 7:41 pm

    Yes, I am fine with how #2 ended. My brother’s marriage ended much, much worse than being told on TV. As for the command center thing: did you know that 9/11 was going to go down as it did? If you did, you are a criminal for not stopping it. Fact is that no one could have predicted the exact method and target for the terrorists. Rudy may have been trying to eliminate the truck bomb method of attack by positioning the command center at the target. I have seen the video and it just seems too politically motivated to be accepted on face value.

    Single payer universal healthcare will utterly destroy the American way of life. Let me put it to you this way: would you let George Bush manage your healthcare needs given the handling of the Iraq War and katrina relief? Ask yourself that question because Democrats will never not be defeated for the presidency even if universal healthcare is enacted. I don’t want Hillary Clinton administering my healthcare needs than you want George W. Bush administering yours.

  30. Downtown Bob
    October 24, 2007 at 8:30 am

    anonymouse: What I said was: Now, you may want to avoid publicly announcing your true identity here, like I do, for any number of reasons, that is your business. The point isn’t that I want to know your true identity; I want to be able to direct my points or address your points directly to you, not throw out a response to anyone who comments anonymousely. If you are still so afraid to go to google and sign up for your own identity, or if you don’t think you can figure out how to do it, fine. In the meantime, my commenting here as DowntownBob is all you need to know about me, period. If you feel the need to continue to call me a chicken for not putting my full name up here, go ahead, make yourself feel better.
    Rich: Okay, so the fact that Rudy announced on t.v. that he was divorcing wife number two before he had told her in person is okay with you, fine. Just don’t give me and sanctimonious bs about Republicans having “higher morals” than Democrats. Your response to his putting his command center at the very site where an attack came eight years before seems to go against your military expertise. Would you really have put the command center there? What about the charge that he was using the place as a “love nest” with wife #3 while he was married to wife #2?
    As for the video I linked to in my last comment being “too political”; that is the reason you will discount it? Wow, you must drink the kool-aid by the gallon.
    As for me “trusting” George W. Bush to administer a national single payer universal healthcare plan; I would not trust President Bush to administer a band-aid on an open wound, much less any single area of federal government. When you put competent professionals in place to run a program, a department, a branch of government, you will get professional results. When you allow people to administer government who believe that government is “the problem”, you will get results like this incompetent administration has had: No military aircraft on patrol during 9/11; “Healthy Skies” which allows more pollution, “Healthy Forests” which allows more clear cutting and pollution of nearby streams and lakes, “No Child Left Behind” which has led to a “dumbing down” of our schools as the teachers have to teach to the test, and not having the time to teach school children how to “think”, the feeble FEMA response in the Gulf, the invasion of Iraq, where our country has spent more than it took to rebuild Japan after WWII (including two cities we nuked)in adjusted dollars, has taken more time than it took to win WWII, and too many other bad results relating directly from the incompetence of a Republican administration with a Republican Congress. Any Democrat that gets elected as President will bring back a “professional” response to the operation of our federal government, and yes, I would trust them to appoint competent persons to administer a national healthcare program. Please note the difference between a healthcare insurance program and a healthcare “system”; a single payer system does not replace our healthcare system, just the insurance part of it. And if that destroys the healthcare insurance industry, I am okay with that.

  31. Rich from Paso
    October 24, 2007 at 11:29 pm

    Bob, you captured for all to see the problem with liberal “leadership”. When I tell you that government bureaucrats and elected representatives of questionable competence will be in charge of your medical decisions, your response is “yeah, but if there were comepetent medical professionals in charge of the program it will be okay.” That is pure fantasy and wishful thinking. The reality is that political appointees like Brownie at FEMA and whoever those turds were that took over the Travel Office after Hillary had them fired. We will have rationing. We will have the governement telling you that open-heart surgery is elective. We will have to wait 6 months for that surgery, if we live that long. We will have people pulling their own teeth because they are in great pain and they have already seen the dentist twice this year so they have to wait another 6 months for their next appointment. Mortality will go up. Hospitals in England save money by flipping the sheets over and reusing them. Fact is that every developed nation in the world is moving away from socialized medicine and toward market based medicine, except in the US. Last point on this: if you want competent professionals administering your health care, why in the name of God would you want to end the current system where competent professionals are providing for your medical needs? To think that we will be able to do it better than all of the other countries that have tried it is self-delusional, arrogant idiocy.

    I have always said that Republicans have perceived moral superiority. That perception is perpetuated by the MSM every time a Republican runs into trouble. Democrats on the other hand are applauded for fighting the “vast right-wing conspiracy” when everyone knows that the Democrat in question is guilty as hell, but that’s okay, it was just (insert character flaw here). That double standard is as much a fact as rain falling down and the sun rising in the east.

    How is my miltary expertise even relevant? I thought that the War on Terrorism was a law and order issue? Putting a police command center in the heart of a crime zone worked wonders in Time Square and all of the other places where crime was rampant. So we needed a military response to the ’93 WTC attack? What an amazing admission, Bob? Does the DNC gestapo know that you have admitted to this yet? Get ready, the goonsquad is coming to take you away for “re-education” because the War on Terror is a bumper sticker and better handled with a “law and order” solution, right?

  32. downtown jim
    October 25, 2007 at 4:10 am

    Downtown mouse?
    Bob…Your logic suggest possible brain damage! For your sake I hope Hellery gets elected so she can provide you free medical care.
    You “claim” to have a true legitimate indentity here.
    But you have forgotten to think it through.
    “downtown bob” is just as anonymous as those that click the anonymous box when posting, if not more.
    You continually ridicule those that blog under nicknames (as you do) acting like what they say has less power or impact than that which you post here.
    There is one problem with your illogic! Everybody sees right through your error!
    If you want to blog as “bob Smith” and come out of your own self imposed closet that’s great. Some do that here. But it certainly adds no credibility to what they say. I could give your thousands of examples of lies posted by “named” bloggers.
    So why not set aside your hate for the anonymous bloggers that post things that you disagree with and deal with what they say?
    Rich for example has tried to help you understand the truth for months now…only to his exasperation and frustration because you are single minded in your thinking. Let’s leave it at that.
    But I respectfully submit that you either “put up or shut up” about those, like you, that choose to post anonymously.
    OK?
    Deal?

  33. Downtown Bob
    October 25, 2007 at 7:40 am

    vhDowntown Jim: I applaud your attempt at a humorous response. I still don’t think you get what I am trying to get at though. When you see a comment by someone and it is in the “blue” highlighted color, everyone can rest assured that that comment is by the person identified with the “blue” highlighted color. My identity here is one I have chosen, it is anonymous to the point that only a few people truly know who I am, but every time I comment, you know that it is the same person every single time. When I used to write under the name “bob from san luis” without the “blue” lettering, someone else posted a very derogatory comment that was attributed to me. That can never happen again. If someone attempts to comment here as “downtown bob” and it is not in the “blue” lettering, everyone should know that that is not me commenting. It isn’t about who I am or who you are; I don’t really care to know your identity- it is about being able to address you directly and about you being held accountable for your comments. If you still don’t get it after that very long winded explanation, please, forget about it, I cannot explain it to you any more plainly.
    Rich: Your military expertise that I was referring to was about the strategic decision to place a command center that should be immune to attack so that it can remain operational during the worst possible situation; on that basis Rudy Guilani made the worst possible decision when he decided to locate his command center at WTC 7 on the twenty first floor. You are a smart person; if you cannot “get” that, you must be clinging to an ideological fantasy about Rudy Guilani, because you are not facing the reality of the tactical blunder he made in that decision.
    Your comment about perceived Republican moral superiority once again does not address the reality that the Republican leaders themselves are the ones attempting to foster that image. The “perception” is there for the base of the party because the leadership pushes that ideal.
    Again, the issue isn’t about our “healthcare industry” or the availability of healthcare access, it is about the payment for the healthcare, which usually involves insurance. No matter what the situation may become regarding a single payer system, anyone who has the means to provide for themselves can continue to do so, just as it is now, both here and in countries that have a national healthcare insurance system. Perhaps my understanding of the single payer approach is a lot different than what you believe a single payer system would be. I was under the impression that absolutely nothing would change regarding how hospitals are operated, how doctors offices are run, except that the billing to insurance would be to a single entity, not a dozen or more different insurers or h.m.o. s. Of course there would need to be regulations so the system isn’t abused, but even in the system we have now you have h.m.o. s and insurance carriers doing almost everything they can to deny coverage and trying to weasel out of actually providing the medical help patients truly need. My main point about a nationalized, single payer, universal healthcare insurance system is that it can’t be any more unfair than the system we have now, if you are among the unfortunate group that cannot qualify for coverage due to preexisting conditions, or you are faced with a very expensive treatment for a life-threatening illness or disease. I am aware that other countries that have nationalized healthcare systems do have problems, but I don’t believe that we aren’t smart enough to figure out how to do it better here in America. As I stated before, it would be very beneficial to all businesses (except the insurance industry) and those who could have the coverage they need while doing a job that they truly love so they will be as productive as possible.
    I did not mean to imply that all past Democratic administrations have been perfect in appointing the absolute best people to do the jobs; I just feel since the Bush Administration has done such a terrible job at making every single appointment into a “political litmus test” that the next Democratic President will do the absolute “best” job they can at trying to run the country as efficient as possible. I fully expect the Republican members of Congress to examine the nominees by the next Democratic administration; I just don’t want to see Democratic leadership telling the Republicans to “just approve the choices or else” like the situation has been with the Bush Administration.

  34. Anonymous
    October 25, 2007 at 5:15 pm

    Downtown Bob (in blue)
    “it is about being able to address you directly and about you being held accountable for your comments”

    As you may know recent changes to the blog discourage personal attacks. So calling someone that chooses to post anonymously,as you do, “anony-mouse” is still a personal attack.
    So why all the concern with us anon posters.
    I suggest, as Dave has, that we stick to the topic and respond to the commnets and not the person directly. Thta’s simple enough isn’t it?
    Does it really matter if you are directing your comments (or personal) attacks at a person in blue or not?
    Wow! It’s a blog man! Relax a lil…
    As for me, I am sticking to the topics and not attacking or demeaning anyone on the blog…regardless if they are a mouse or not!

  35. Dave Congalton
    October 25, 2007 at 5:27 pm

    Just as a side note, this entire subject of Anonymous postings on the Internet, calls into radio talk shows and guests on the radio who hide behind certain monikers will be discussed by Gordon Mullin on my show Friday from 6 to 7.

    By the way, I’m the one who coined the term “Anonymouse.” I think it fits, but that’s just my opinion.

  36. Rich from Paso
    October 25, 2007 at 10:45 pm

    And what I am saying about your concept of a nationalized, single payer, universal healthcare insurance system as you present it here is that it will become another budgetary line item just like, um, Medicare. Medicare itself is driving up the cost of medicine because Medicare tells doctors and hospitals how much Medicare will pay for a procedure while mandating that the procedure is performed. Since time, drugs, equipment and salaries cost money, the doctors and hospitals transfer the unpaid portion of the Medicare procedure to those of us with private insurance. Private insurance, paid for with yours and my premiums, says “whoa, we, the private insurance business, can’t afford to pay for all of the unpaid Medicare bill; we’ll go out fo business”. So, HMOs and insurance companies start telling the medical community “we will only pay a percentage of what Medicare charges”. This again forces the hospitals to up their charges because now they don’t have private insurance to pay for their time, drugs, equipment and whatnot. Under a nationalized, single payer, universal healthcare insurance system, you have the exact same system as you do under Medicare except that everyone is in that program. You will have budget debates and legislators debating how much a % of inflation HillaryCare (for lack of a good term) the budget will rise next year. You will have politically appointed arbitrators, know as “regulators” saying that hospitals will only get paid X dollars for each particular thing, regardless of costs. Where will the hospital get its money to operate? From the federal government, that’s where. Hospitals will close down under the “budgetary pressure” of less and less federal money reaching them. Doctors will leave practice and students will stop going to Med School when guys like you think that they get paid too much money and cap their pay but not their work hours. And work hours will go up as 300 million people think that their are “entitled” to get every hang-nail and every tiny ache and pain checked out by a doctor. If you say that won’t happen in your socialist utopia, then you are absolutely advocating the rationing of services. On the subject of who pays for it, just how much in taxes are you willing to pay to make sure that all of your neighbors get their nationalized, single payer, universal healthcare insurance system fully funded. Our taxes will easily be 50% of wages. Will Medicare and Medicaid go away? Of course not, because the poor and the elderly will not want to take a chance on your new system. Medical research will dry up because your panel of “experts” and “professionals” (i.e. bureaucrats) will determine that many life-saving drugs and new lines of research are “not cost-effective”. What private organization is going to want to fund research for a government sector that will deny them fair compensation for the investment? Answer: none. And there would be entire investment streams denied to potential investors as the US government takes over more and more portions of the medical industry. After you take over the insurance, you will end up taking over the hospitals that cannot survive on your price controls. This is not about fairness or justice; this is about the acquisition of power… pure, unadultrated lust for power. The government is number one in only one thing in all of the things it does and that is the military. Used to be number one in many things but now it is just the military. Absent the government, we have the strongest private sector in the world. Absent the government we have the best medical system in the world with the lowest death rate per capital due to illness in the world. Your a nationalized, single payer, universal healthcare insurance system is a socialist pipedream born of the best of intentions from the worst parts of the communist mannifesto.

    The solution to people not being able to afford is to allow people to pay cash for the services they need. When the consumer is informed about the true costs of their medicine, they budget better, they make better decisions, they do more preventative things, and they are involved in how their health care is delivered. Giving away medicine is the surest road to abuse and ruin of the best medical system in the world. If you cannot understand that, then don’t bother replying because there is nothing more to talk about on this subject either.

  37. Downtown Bob
    October 26, 2007 at 6:36 am

    Rich: You do paint a dire picture of a nationalized healthcare system. How do you know that what you say is what will be? I do value your opinion because you respond usually with an intelligence that mostly transcends ideology. An admitted crude comparison is that of mandatory auto insurance; we are required by law to have insurance on our cars and trucks and such, and when there is an accident that results in damage to one or both vehicles, the insurance companies usually step in and battle each other, or the company representing the at fault party usually tries to weasel out of paying for everything they can. There are still those who do not carry insurance, some because they cannot afford it, and some who cannot get it because their record is so bad. Occasionally those not carrying insurance are involved in an accident like happen to me a few years ago. The young man behind us wasn’t paying attention and smacked into the back of my wife’s car while we were sitting at a red light. He very calmly gave us his information and informed us that he was going to take care of all the repairs and that we did not need to contact our insurance company. We got a bid for the repair work and sent it to him and he said that was fine, we had the work done, and he paid it immediately after the bill was presented.
    The analogy here is that yes, you can go around a system if you have the money and the desire to not use the usual system, as I am sure that would happen under a single payer universal system at times. I do find it amusing that you bring up Medi Care and Medi Caid as the example of how you perceive the short comings of a single payer system to be. Medi Care when it first started was quite a wonderful system; doctors and hospitals submitted bills for treatment, the bills were paid and everyone was happy. Well, almost everyone; opportunists saw a potential gold mine in abusing the Medi Care system, and that led directly to for-profit healthcare that has put us in the mess our medical system is in today. And what was the vehicle used by those who abused Medi Care? Yeah, that’s right, the insurance companies. That is the reason that Medi Care was “reformed” so that the abuses could be contained. Could a single payer system be as screwed up as you state? Possibly. Could it be much better than what you stated? Another possibility. Something has to change; a majority of those declaring bankruptcy do so due to huge medical bills. People who have had a life threatening aliment discovered have been dropped by their insurance company (if they were fortunate enough to have insurance that is), and big business friendly Congress (pre-2006) passed a bankruptcy “reform” bill that made it much more difficult for individuals to file bankruptcy than it ever was before. This is just a part of the pattern of assault on the middle class by the elite upper upper class to further their ability to make even more money, further separating the haves and the have mores from those of us getting by on less and less. In the late seventies and early eighties I worked a union job that payed me enough for my wife to stay home and take care of our three kids, we paid our bills, bought a home in 1980, made car payments and had a bit of savings. Our insurance was one of the best available, but it was part of the contract between the union and the employers. How many families do you know that can do the same now? Access to affordable healthcare is not really a “right”, but making it available would be a huge step in stopping the decimation of the middle class. I just don’t think your dire picture is necessarily how it would be.

  38. Rich from Paso
    October 26, 2007 at 8:36 am

    Thanks for the nice words. I just wish you would listen to me for once.

    I don’t know any more than you how a natioanl healthcare system would pan out, but I am not willing to try it just to find out. The current system gives the finest medical care in the world. People of all classes and income levels come to America for our medicine and that is a fact. The goal here is not how to pay for 300 million to have affordable healthcare, but how to get affordable healthcare to the 30-40 million that (reportedly) don’t have access to it. I dispute your assertion that a “majority” of bankruptcies are due to medical bills; more Democrat propaganda in my mind.

    Here is the true defining line between you and me: You hear a proposal or read a plan and say “yeah, that sounds great! Let’s do it.” Me, on the other hand, see or hear a plan and my first reaction is “How is this going to change things? What is the 2nd and 3rd oder of effects from this?” I don’t trust what I read, if I did, I would be a Communist. The “Communist Manifesto” is really believable… until you put greedy, flawed, selfish, generally incompetent, uncaring, people in the mix. That is why Communism failed and that is why nationalized health care or health insurance will fail. The more power and choice we take away from the common man/woman and give to the government, the more we are down the road of a totalitarian state. You decry the rights that are abused with warrantless wiretaps and G’itmo and whatnot, but are all too willing to let the government determine how when and why you get fundemental health care. That perplexes me beyond words. The car insurance analogy is exactly the same one used by Mitt Romney when he got mandatory health insurance passed in Massachusetts. Coinsidentally, Romney has since backed away from the mandatory insurance program and does not propose he same thing on a national scale.

    As I said earlier, we need to make paying for healthcare simpler. Insurance is a ponzi scheme. We expect that a checkup and chemotheropy should be paid with equal furvor. After all, we paid our premiums, right? Well, if health insurance was only needed to pay for catastrophic health issues (i.e. cancer, serious car accident, etc) and we could pay cash off of a menu of options for routine things or invest in a HSA, that would drive costs way down.

    Again, I am just not ready to cede decision-making on my health care, nor the decsion-making abilties of 270 million other Americans, to the same politicians that have failed at every turn to solve the simpliest problems in America. There is not a single candidate, Republican or Democrat, that I would give decision-making authority on my health care too.

  39. Rich from Paso
    October 27, 2007 at 5:19 am

    Just thought of this: We need a law that forces our Representatives and Senators to resign from Congress when they announce their candidacy for the Presidency. What this would do is: 1) stop our elected representatives from using their “job” to campaign for the presidency, prevent them from using the Franking Priviledge and “official” travel to gain an unfair advantage over non-Congress candidates, and would prevent candidates from both parties from using their committee seat and floor speeches from self-agrandizment and campaign speech making; 2) it would necessitate special elections or replacement selections to fill the seats, thus increasing turnover and getting representatives focused on doing the People’s business, and 3) it would be a true test of dedications and committment to be president if the potential candidate had to “sacrifice” their seat in Congress.

    How many candidates currently running would actually give up their seat to run for president? I feel that NONE of those currently serving would give that up. Look at Obama. He’s only been in Congress for 3 years. He has nothing to run on if he was just another private citizen. Same goes for Hillary. Brownback, Paul, Biden, Dodd, Hunter and Tancredo stand no chance of winning, so do you honestly think they would sacrifice the steady paycheck just to run and fail to get the nomination? I don’t think so. McCain might, but I also don’t think he would put his power and influence in jeopardy just to be president.

    Again, this is another law that should be on the books but will never see the light of day because the ones passing the law would be the same ones forced to resign to run for the presidency.

  40. blue anonymous
    October 27, 2007 at 3:08 pm

    Hey Rich?
    Does your head hurt from banging it against the wall? I seriously don’t think Bob will ever “get it”. Many like him just want the government to do everything for them, and no logic will change their sense of entitlement and wanting to be controlled by the government!.
    Their only problem is that they want to drag us down with them. There are countries that control every aspect of your life right now! Why don’t they just move there and leave America alone?
    Sigh…heavy breath…They want to destroy America, and that is heartbreakingly sad.

    DT Bob…Let me ask you this. And I would appreciate an answer.
    If one of your loved one’s life depended on an overnight shipment of special medicines…and you had 2 companies to choose from to be sure the medicine actually made it on time to save a life, which company would you pick?

    1) Fed Ex?
    2) UPS?
    3) US Post office?

    Remember that all three offer over night deliveries…so which one would you choose?

    Also remember this…The “Overnight” delivery was invented by the private sector, an American Corporation.
    The US Post office did not start offering overnight service for almost 9 years!

    Now compare that to Government controlled health care!!

    In the past 25 years 97% of all wonder drugs that are now savings thousands of lives came not from Government funded projects or university grants, but rather from American drug companies and private universities.

    The same government that handled the Katrina disaster you want delivering bypass surgery to your loved one?

    Bob…really! Think it through…You don’t want that! I know you are not that stupid.
    The government could screw up a wet dream and you want them inside your chest with a scalpel?

    Rethink it Bob…

  41. waiting for Bob
    October 28, 2007 at 3:37 pm

    Bob? We’re waiting…
    What’s your decision?
    Life saving medicine needed on time and overnight to save the life of one of your loved ones…
    Do you chose the government run company? Or Private industry tat in fact invented overnight deliveries.
    Please, let’s be real with one another Bob…
    Woud you trust the life of your dearest loved one to the post office?

  42. Marilyn
    October 28, 2007 at 8:26 pm

    People who are in dire need of life saving medication do not utilize any mail service to obtain such medication. They either would have made prior plans to get it or they would call a hospital, doctor, or 9-11 if they think they are going to go into crisis. If they run out before they remember to order on time, they can also go the the pharmacy and get a few doses to hold them until their shipment arrives. I and many other people have done that.

    I have never ever heard of the Post Office, UPS, FedEx, or any other carrier service being utilized for a service like that. People who think that they need to get lifesaving medication last minute by mail and they do not realize that such a request puts a great liability on the shipping company, should not be creating such hypothetical scenarios to challenge people.

    I have used the Post Office to mail important documents and I have used Fed Ex and DHL. You pay far more than it is worth sometimes because Fed Ex does carry a disclaimer. They are only as good as the next available flight out of your source area. You can ship overnight using the Post Office too and they are just as reliable.

    On a safety note: I hope no one thinks that if they they forget to order their medication on time and they need emergency medication that they have to wait till they get them in the mail.

    If you have no more doses left of an emergency medication the first thing you should do is call your pharmacist and, if you do not have one, call the doctor or the nearest hospital and explain the situation. I can assure you enough doses will be provided for you until your shipment arrives.

    So, if I were Bob, I the question to your answer would be “none of the above.”

    As far as research funding is concerned, that is irrelevant too. In societies that are Capitalist or Socialist, drug companies always use research and the government does subsidize some of the research. Even drug companies and universities need grants to fund their studies. In fact, they are far more subsidized by the government in terms of tax breaks and money than the average American citizen is.

    The good thing about having government involvement is that they can regulate legally and ethically the research and advertising processes to ensure that the research is accurate and not violating the rights of people, including their health by misleading them or using them for deliberately harmful procedures.

    No one is saying that the government should take over everything. What many of us are saying is that public service employees are the ones best qualified, if and when trained properly, and when backed by solid laws, to act as impartial arbitrators and overseers of all aspects of our lives specifically because they should not answer to any interest group but have the public interest as their primary mission.

    I suggest to people who resent government employees to research the topic and find out exactly what the duties of public employees are and how public service holds the fabric of society together.

    As I said before, take all that away and you ARE on your own and there will be no one legitimate to speak on your behalf

  43. nice try
    October 29, 2007 at 1:34 pm

    mrilyn, as usual you missed the point completely, and the question was for Bob…but thanks for taking a stab at it. nice try

    as for puclic employees being the fabric that holds everything together…hmmmm…are you sure you are talking about America?

    a rampant new trend is female teachers having sex with under age boys. That kind of fabric you can have! I want no part of it.

    Proof positive is that any government task that has been privitized has been done more efficiently and at a much lower cost!

    More tax supported employees is NOT the answer. The answer is more private industry competeing for contracts! That’s how you increase results and lower cost!

    I have no less that 50 recent examples…but I fear they will be lost on you!

    So Bob? What say you? You gonna put the life of one of your kids in the hands of a postal worker??

    We all know the answer…we just want to hear it from you. If you have big enough grapefruits to answer!

  44. life long learning
    October 29, 2007 at 3:23 pm

    If you do a Google search, you will find that there 1,980,000 medical supply comanies that deliver medications and medical supplies via Fed Ex.

    hmmmmm…But Marilyn said:
    “I have never ever heard of the Post Office, UPS, FedEx, or any other carrier service being utilized for a service like that.”

    Well now you have…almost 2 million times.

    Blogs are great for learning things you never knew!

  45. Downtown Bob
    October 29, 2007 at 5:37 pm

    Responding to “blue” anonymous (sad?): IF I ever needed to do what your fictional scenario outlined, I would use none of the above. Medical couriers exist for transporting something so precious, and they understand that their deliveries can be a matter of life or death. The straw man you are attempting to set up is that the Postal Service is (in your opinion, I assume) unreliable for something so urgent. It is curious that you are choosing the Postal Service as your example of a federal agency that can have it’s services done better by a private company, since 1971 the Postal Service was removed as a regular federal agency, and operates as an independent agency, of which there are several. Link here to a list of such agencies. As for trusting Fed Ex or UPS for such a vital delivery, I for one would not. If you want to, that is your business.
    Rich, I will come back to address your comments later.

  46. Downtown Bob
    October 30, 2007 at 7:49 am

    Rich: You are right about insurance being a “ponzi” scheme. You say that I hear a proposal and think: “All right, let’s give it a try.” At this point my concern is that what we have doesn’t give us all an equal access to coverage or access. Those with unlimited funds can buy anything or treat anything they want, okay, fine, if you’re wealthy. Those with great insurance (usually those in a group plan like from an employer or as part of a union agreement) usually receive great coverage and care, but even they can find themselves not being covered if a really expensive treatment plan is called for. Those with mediocre insurance (usually those who are paying for it themselves) can find the insurance company looking for any excuse to deny coverage, and those with no insurance usually don’t get any treatment until they are really sick, and it is usually not enough. My whole point here is that a Medi Care for all approach would solve some of those inequities. The insurance companies at this moment will do almost anything they can to deny anyone coverage if they have nearly any preexisting conditions as these individuals run the risk of needing more care and are then more expensive to cover. It does make sense from a strictly business sense view; that is the crux of my argument though, access to medical care shouldn’t only about who can afford it. Society cannot afford to have people who do get the medical help they need, because it affects us all. The saying “A rising tide raises all ships” applies here, in my view, as when nearly all have access to healthcare, doesn’t that make us all stronger? If we are all stronger, more healthy, doesn’t that make or allow us to be more productive? Common sense should be that it would be less expensive to have a healthier population and it would be less expensive to provide wellness care than it would to provide treatment for diseases and injuries. You don’t want to “trust” anyone in government to make healthcare decisions for you; by allowing lobbyists for big pharma and h.m.o.s to influence politicians and therefore policies and laws, government is making decisions about our healthcare right now. By implementing a Medi Care for all, or a single payer system, there will be greater availability for more. You say you do not want the level of service and care you receive to go down; how do you tell those with no coverage and no chance of getting coverage that they don’t deserve a chance at improving their situation?
    Getting back to the topic at the start of this thread, Al Gore is one (as is John Edwards) of the politicians that I would trust to implement a national system that would work.

  47. government watchdog
    October 30, 2007 at 1:45 pm

    Bob, You get the golden pumpkin award for using the words “independent” & “government” in the same sentence!
    Your phrase “Independent agencies
    of the Government” has been added to the Guinness book of oxymorons!

    Look at this list Bob and tell me what about any of these government black holes for tax payers money is independent! LOL! I actually chuckled at your attempt to tell us the US Postal service is independent…Thanks!

    Well here is your list…I see nothing independent about any of these, except maybe that all but a few should be privatized to private industry for increased competition and efficiencies!

    You can’t have any more of my money Bob. Your party just announced they want to raise taxes on the average American by over 32%! And if Rangel and hellery rotten clinton got her way the tax increase would be more than a trillion dollars! Really Bob…you have GOT to be kidding! or at least I hope you are!

    Oh well…onto your “independent” list.

    Independent agencies
    of the United States Government

    1. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
    2. Agency for International Development (USAID)
    3. American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC)
    4. AmeriCorps
    5. Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC)
    6. U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC)
    7. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
    8. US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR)
    9. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)
    10. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
    11. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
    12. Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS)
    13. Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC)
    14. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    15. Export-Import Bank of the United States (ExIm)
    16. Farm Credit Administration (FCA)
    17. Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
    18. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
    19. Federal Election Commission (FEC)
    20. Federal Maritime Commission
    21. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission (FMSHRC)
    22. Federal Reserve System (The Fed)
    23. Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
    24. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
    25. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States (FCSC)
    26. General Services Administration (GSA)
    27. Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)
    28. Inter-American Foundation (IAF)
    29. Learn and Serve America (LSA)
    30. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
    31. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
    32. National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC)
    33. National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)
    34. National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
    35. National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)
    36. National Ice Center (NIC)
    37. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
    38. National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) (NRPC)
    39. National Science Foundation (NSF)
    40. National Transportation Research Center (NTRC)
    41. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
    42. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
    43. Office of Government Ethics (OGE)
    44. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
    45. Peace Corps
    46. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)
    47. United States Postal Service (USPS)
    48. United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS)
    49. Office of the Inspector General (USPS-OIG)
    50. Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC)
    51. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
    52. Selective Service System (SSS)
    53. Senior Corps
    54. Small Business Administration (SBA)
    55. Social Security Administration (SSA)
    56. Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC)
    57. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
    58. United States Trade and Development Agency (TDA)

    Now…aren’t we glad at how efficient our government is?

    NOT!

  48. Wilson
    October 30, 2007 at 3:51 pm

    Al Gore’s movie has 35 serious scientific errors or exaggerations, all pointing towards invention of a threat that does not exist at all, or exaggerations of phenomena that do exist, do not reflect credit on the presenter of the movie or on those who advised him. The movie is unsuitable for showing to children, and provides no basis for taking policy decisions. Schools that have shown the movie to children are urged to ensure that the errors listed in this memorandum are drawn to the children’s attention.
    Simply put, he’s a huckster

  49. Anonymous
    October 30, 2007 at 9:17 pm

    I agree Bob! The inventor of the internet should be the one to roll out a government health care plan for all Americans (legal or not!)

    After all…look at how popular and efficient the internet is! It’s a huge success and growing daily!

    If Algore can invent that…If Algore can save our planet…I’m sure he would do a wonderful job and raising taxes skyhigh to reinvent something that is already being done! And being done the best in the world!

    Go Bob Go! Go Algore! Go!

    ps: Edwards insn’t interested in inventing national health care…he will be too busy suing cities, counties, and states for denile of treatment based on lack of resources.

  50. Rich from Paso
    October 30, 2007 at 11:27 pm

    You trust John Edwards?!?! You trust an ambulance-chaser to administer your health-care?!?! You just lost a lot of credibility with me with that comment. John Edwards is the second biggest fraud running for president. He is the very people you hate so much. He is a greedy ambulance chaser that “communed” with the spirit of dead baby to win a frivoulous lawsuit. He was a hedge fund manager in an attempt to learn about poverty, according to his own statements. Next thing you’ll know is that he’ll say he’s communing with the spirit of C. Everett Coop on healthcare and the man isn’t even dead yet! There is no reason to vote for any of the Democrats, but John Edwards? He’s incompetent and underqualified to be president. He’s not even a credible choiice to lead people out of a burning building, much less administer a national healthcare program. Rudy Giuiliani has ran a healthcare system in NYC. Mitt Romney tried his hand at a state-wide healthcare program. Mike Huckabee administered his state’s program. Ther is no experience whatsoever on the Democrat side at running or implementing a successful healthcare program. But that doesn’t matter since they agree in principle with your position.

    Gore at least was Veep for 8 years, even though all of the problems he cited during the 2000 campaign were things that Bill and Al could of and should of addressed during their term in office.

    But I still will never understand why the same government that botched katrina relief, the same government that has botched Iraq, the same government that has allowed 30 million Americans to go without healthcare (all your stated opinions) should be trusted to administer the solution to the problems they created. That is a leap of faith and logic that I cannot accept. The only thing the US government does really well (and let’s not lower our standards to just “good” or “acceptably well”) is the military. I will not allow you or any other bleeding heart liberal to seize my ability to choose how my family and I receive healthcare and I will not allow you or any other bleeding heart liberal to dictate to me and my family what constitutes “acceptable” choices in helathcare just so you will sleep better at night at the “reported” 30 million Americans that don’t have it as good as me or you. You know what? There have always been X number of million of Americans that do not have it as good as you and I do and there will always be millions of Americans that will be like that. Erecting a healthcare police state for 300 million Americans just so 10% of the populace can have healthcare is 100% wrong in my book and I will fight you every step of the way.

    I draw the line in the sand here.

  51. Downtown Bob
    October 31, 2007 at 7:54 am

    But I still will never understand why the same government that botched katrina relief, the same government that has botched Iraq, the same government that has allowed 30 million Americans to go without healthcare (all your stated opinions) should be trusted to administer the solution to the problems they created.
    Rich: Every single example you cited (with the exception to the 30 million Americans without healthcare) were created solely by the Bush Administration. I have said this many times before, I believe it with all my bleeding heart, and will say again; when people who believe that government is the problem are put in charge of the government, the government will become the very problem “they” railed about. Katrina, Iraq, oil prices, and even the current consumer safety actions (you know, the lead in paint on toys made in China) are all failures of this administration that have a common theme; either they have been purposely mishandled to someone’s benefit, or there is just plain old incompetence running amok in the Bush Administration, period. You comment here that you can go on and on to me and not get through; I feel the same way when you cannot understand that a competent administration would get the ship of state running in good order. When the Bush Administration puts conditions on appointees like asking an appointee what their view on abortion is, or if the President can break the law if he feels it is necessary to do what he feels is his job, you don’t get the best and brightest lining up contribute to a smooth running government, trying to help. Instead you people like the lady in the article that I linked to telling Congress that they should not fund her agency. I for one have had enough of the Bush world view of up is down, black is white and I have to be very afraid to that Daddy Bush can “protect” us from the evil boogie Muslims.
    As for John Edwards, he is genuine, he is a populist and would be a great President. Your choice, Guilani, has how many of his current advisors with ties to organized crime? Remember Bernie Kareck? (sp?)
    Link here to the mission statement of Physicians for a National Healthcare Plan, if you want to read something about a national single payer approach to medicine and healthcare.

  52. less government is that answer
    October 31, 2007 at 2:54 pm

    Bob,
    Once again, nice try. Your PNHP organization has been around since 1987 and only has 14,000 members and chapters?
    Wow! That is a tiny fraction of the national number of doctors and health care providers!
    All it proves is that you have 14,000 people that believe like you…that working for the government is the cat’s meow, and that government will “fix” a problem that isn’t broken.
    So far this year California has born the burden of providing health care to all those not covered by health insurance, most of which are criminals from Mexico here illegally! That total so fat is just shy of 2 billion dollars!
    Now Bob, really! Where do you think that money is going to come from if you get your national health care government fiasco?
    Want the answer? It YOU!
    35 million Californians will bear the 30-50 billion dollar expense of providing free health care…
    Let me do the math for you!
    That’s $1500 per Californian! $125 per month.
    And you think that is a solution?
    Especially in a small town that will have limited resources? You want to wait 6-12 months for a scan that will tell you if you have a brain tumor and then wait 3 years for the treatment?
    Bob…You’re dreamin pal! dreamin!

  53. Rich from Paso
    October 31, 2007 at 5:42 pm

    What you are failing to understand that “the Bush Administration” is comprised, at its core, career bureaucrats and government employees that are feckless and incompetent regardless of who is in the White House. Your optimism that once “the Bush Administration” is gone that the sun will come out, birds will sing again, and career employees and bureacrats will actually work harder and better. You are fooling yourself, period.

    Three things: John Edwards is not real, not a real populist and will be a terrible president. By the way, Bernard Karek, however you spell his name, is one bad advisor from several years ago. Rudy says he would have never recommended him to the DHS job if he knew what we know now about him. What about the fugitive from justice and convicted felon that Hillary Clinton had on her payroll “bundling” her campaign contributions? I guess that automatically excludes her from the presidency by your standards? Oh, wait: she’s a democrat and therefore incapable of doing any wrong. Right?

  54. Leave me & my doctor alone!
    November 1, 2007 at 3:18 am

    Now this is worth the read because this is what will kill socialized medicine in America.

    Universal Health Care Won’t Work — Witness Medicare
    by Sue Blevins

    (Sue A. Blevins is president of the Institute for Health Freedom and author of “Medicare’s Midlife Crisis”)

    They’re back. The single-payer advocates are out in full force, again, calling for universal health insurance for all Americans. This time they’re backed by a bipartisan coalition including Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Some of the current proposals are as coercive as Hillary Clinton’s infamous national health plan. The new push carries the same message, but more “moderate” messengers deliver it.

    At first glance, many Americans might find the idea of single-payer health insurance appealing, given current economic conditions and high health insurance costs. However, before we accept such a drastic shift in national health policy, we should examine how single-payer health insurance could affect all individuals’ health care costs, choices and privacy.

    If history is any indication, any single-payer initiative will end up costing much more than advocates claim. That, in turn, will lead to higher taxes and/or rationing under which the government will determine which medical treatments will and will not be covered. How do we know this will happen? Because single-payer health care has already been empirically tested on seniors in the United States. Many people may not realize it, but the Medicare program is one of the largest single payers of health care in the U.S. and in the world. An examination of Medicare’s 38-year-old track record provides evidence of what happens when the government controls the financing of health services for millions of U.S. citizens. Consider the following facts.

    When Medicare was debated in 1965 (the year it was signed into law), business and taxpayer groups were concerned that program expenditures might grow out of control. However, single-payer advocates assured them that all seniors could easily be covered under Medicare with only a small increase in workers’ payroll taxes.

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    The federal government’s lead actuary in 1965 projected that the hospital program (Medicare Part A) would grow to only $9 billion by 1990. The program ended up costing more than $66 billion that year.
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Just three years after Medicare was passed, a 1968 Tax Foundation study found that public spending on medical care had nearly doubled in the first few years of Medicare. In subsequent decades, Medicare payroll taxes and general taxes have continued to rise to pay for skyrocketing health care costs.

    The main problems with Medicare (single-payer) financing. “As fiscal pressures mount, the federal government does not ‘negotiate’ with medical providers for lower prices for covered services. It dictates below-market reimbursements with its near-monopoly power as a purchaser of health care for seniors. The full costs of such price discounts eventually reduce access to quality care and hold health care markets hostage to political exploitation.

    Before Medicare was passed, seniors were promised that the program would not interfere with their choice of insurance. However, existing rules force most seniors to rely on Medicare Part A to pay their hospital bills — even if they can afford to pay for private insurance. Additionally, today’s seniors and doctors must abide by more than 100,000 pages of Medicare rules and regulations dictating what types of services are covered or not under the program.

    Currently, many Americans choose to pay privately for health services to maintain their medical privacy. However, a single-payer health plan would eliminate that option and all citizens would be forced to give up their ability to maintain a confidential doctor-patient relationship. Just look at what has happened with Medicare.

    Under Medicare rules established in 1999, patients receiving home health care are required to divulge personal medical, sexual, and emotional information. Government contractors — mainly home health nurses — are directed to record such things as whether a senior has expressed “depressed feelings” or has used “excessive profanity.” If seniors refuse to share medical and lifestyle information, their health care workers are required to act as proxies. This means total strangers will be permitted to speak for seniors.

    Medicare officials stress that the government protects patients’ privacy. However, the General Accounting Office reported to Congress several years ago that at five of 12 Medicare contractors’ sites, auditors were able to penetrate security and obtain sensitive Medicare information. At a time when citizens are concerned about high health care costs, fewer choices and loss of medical privacy, a single-payer health plan could exacerbate these concerns. Given our empirical evidence from the single-payer Medicare program, a single-payer health insurance program for Americans of all ages would most definitely lead to increased costs, reduced choices and less medical privacy for everyone. These are warning signs that no American — including the moderates pushing universal health care — can afford to ignore.

    Some will ignore it because they want all that personal info recorded about you and available!

    Some will ignore because they are ignor-ant!

    Americans will never elect a president with that as an agenda.
    Never!

  55. Downtown Bob
    November 1, 2007 at 5:19 am

    Rich: Thank you for at least not using any “Breck Girl” reference concerning Senator Edwards. Of course most on the right will do most anything to denounce John Edwards simply because he is doing the right thing by not taking corporate PAC money. He has also been a (gasp) trial lawyer, so he must be evil, completely disregarding how many attorneys the Bush Administration has hired. You say he is not a “real” populist; article here that disputes your (actually all opinions) that John Edwards is not a populist. Argue his past, his current wealth, but his policies are what makes him the populist candidate he is.
    As for Hillary, she is a “corporatist” Democrat, with more donations credited to her by military contractors than any other candidate, Democratic or Republican. Kucinich, Biden and Dodd are all serving a great purpose in keeping Clinton and Obama from straying over into Republican “Lite” territory (that’s corporatist, by the way). John Edwards needs no such “balance” as he is, IMO, “genuine”, verses Hillary. As to your assertion that she had or has a “convicted felon” on her payroll; how many?, what jobs were they responsible for? The accusation I have heard leveled towards the Guilani campaign is that there are many shadowy figures who have links to organized crime, but, I will admit that I have seen no “proof” of such accusations.
    Leave me and my Doctor alone: Thought provoking cut’n paste. I’ll get back to you.

  56. Downtown Bob
    November 1, 2007 at 6:34 am

    Leave me & my doctor alone: The “Institute for Health Freedom” labels itself as a nonpartisan research and policy think tank, however, since its inception it has received over two million dollars in funding from various branches of the foundations of Richard Melon Scaife, the wealthy ultra right wing contributor to many conservative causes. Does that mean that Ms. Blevins is wrong in her assertions? No, but it does leave a possibility that there is a taint of influence in her research. Ms. Blevins certainly writes a compelling argument against Medicare, but I am curious what she may have left out in her research and writing, or what slant she may have had in her writing.

  57. beware
    November 2, 2007 at 3:58 am

    bob said:
    “but I am curious what she may have left out in her research and writing, or what slant she may have had in her writing.”

    Yes Bob! And keep looking for those black helicopters and men in black suits! It’s a conspiracy! Beware of what authors leave out! beware!

    as for the 2 million to that wacko organization of socialist doctors…That’s like giving a rope to a suicidal patient…in time they will hang themselves…
    But I am curious! What did those doctors leave out when they wrote their manifesto?

  58. Wilson
    November 2, 2007 at 11:47 pm

    Al Gore’s carbon footprint would crush downtown SLO like a ant.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: