Wednesday morning

[mike777]

1) Any of the Dem Candidates show facts that it is not affordable?

How about if they tell us how much it will cost so that we can decide for ourselves whether it is "affordable"?

Well it is a debate you would think someone at sometime would have asked that question? Either one of the candidates of another one or the moderator might ask.

Perhaps asking this is not allowed.

[mike777]

A recent study done in The Netherlands (I think) concluded that preventive health care often costs more in the long run because of the costs associated with longer life.  Unhealthy habits may save in the long run because the unhealthy people drop dead while the healthy ones see health care providers during their extra years.

People are supposed to stop wrking when they are 65 no matter their helath so there is no point in keeping them alive beyond that age from a gvt finance point of view.

 

The European Commision wants us to work till we are 70 so maybe preventive medicine will make more sense in the future.

Hopefully North America will soon get a commission to set these rules also. At the very least Congress could set rules on how long people must work or are allowed to work. We really need a commission to tell us how long it wants us to work. Perhaps they can tie all of this with health care.

 

Now if we can just get those French work/firing rules where you cannot be fired at will and you get a lawyer free of charge if they call you in. Is most of Europe the same?

[luke warm]

I also do not understand the hatred spewed at Mrs. Clinton but I do hear it alot from women. When I ask for an explanation out spews pure venom.

 

With Republicans retiring in droves from the Congress it looks like a huge victory for the Dems in Congress.

 

I understand about 20% more Democrats in total are voting in the primaries than Rep. This really looks like a huge victory for whoever the Dem party nominates.

 

With Obama or Mrs. Clinton and with a combination tax increase and huge slash in the defense budget we should see alot more government money for teachers and students, Nat health care for all, more government aid for children and preschoolers.

 

Mrs Clinton will put a stop on foreclosures of homes and freeze interest rates for 5 years. Both will provide better housing and food for the poor.

 

Finally we should see some real Gun control if not outright banning of many guns/rifles and perhaps even a ban on the death penalty.

 

Both will put much more progressive judges on our courts and fewer restrictions on abortions or government money for abortions.  Civil rights for all including those accused of crimes will grow and not just for a privileged few.

 

Both will bring our troops home fast and talk with those who hate us rather than try and kill them.

 

Both will form a partnership with allies and listen to advice from them rather than bully them. More farm and other subsidies for alt energy sources. Force Detroit to make greener, cleaner cars. Stop harmful oil drilling in Alaska, coastlines and other places.

 

Both will stop global warming and return our planet to a green, clean and peaceful place where we are not hated for being an oil stealing, global warming, killing innocents, wiretapping, torture, deny civil rights bully.

As I understand it both plans will save 100's of billions in health care costs.

I am guessing alot comes of that comes through preventive care and making sure we eat and drink the right stuff and exercise more and stop smoking.

 

In any case a plan that covers everyone and costs less at a higher quality has got to be good. If it costs a bit more than some think, I doubt anyone will be shocked and I doubt that would cause anyone to vote against it or any of the ideas they propose.  The Dems should have all the votes they need to pass anything.

:)

[jtfanclub]

Why should I care whether Joe Lieberman is President or his separated-at-birth twin McCain is?  Both would be a lot better than Bush, or Huckabee, or Thompson.

Are you conceding the race to the Republicans?

I'm saying that I don't work for the Democratic party, and I'm going to pick the guy I think will be the best President, no matter what letter he has next to his name. I like McCain's policies better than I like Hillary's, and I think McCain is more likely to accomplish them. If it weren't for McCain's age and personality I'd vote for him over Clinton in a heartbeat. At least he's owned by domestic companies and not by foreign countries.

 

And who knows, I still might vote for him, but only if Obama loses in the primaries.

[Winstonm]

My reflections on Super Tuesday is that it needs a new tag.

 

Suckass Tuesday has a nice ring to it.

 

My personal favorite would be Does It Really Matter Tuesday.

[kenberg]

I don't understand.

 

The Republicans have pretty much settled on a candidate, a man who was counted out just a dew months back and who is hated by many in the party's conservative base.

 

The Democrats will be nominating either the first women ever or the first Black ever to head their ticket, and at polls across the country both are clearly viable candidates.

 

 

This doesn't matter?

 

Are you having a bad day?

[TimG]

I like McCain's policies better than I like Hillary's

Could this mean you aren't really a Democrat? Sure, you could be a registered Democrat, but if you like the Republican policies more, maybe you aren't really a Democrat.

[kenberg]

I like McCain's policies better than I like Hillary's

Could this mean you aren't really a Democrat? Sure, you could be a registered Democrat, but if you like the Republican policies more, maybe you aren't really a Democrat.

I guess then I am not one either.

 

I mostly vote for Democrats, I sometimes vote for Republicans. In the Maryland governor's race six years ago I cast a write-in vote for my dog. Let's see, if not voting for a Democrat makes me not a Democrat then not voting for a human makes.... Maybe I don't want to follow that through.

[Al_U_Card]

Super Red White and Blues day?

[jdonn]

I like McCain's policies better than I like Hillary's

Could this mean you aren't really a Democrat? Sure, you could be a registered Democrat, but if you like the Republican policies more, maybe you aren't really a Democrat.

Or maybe people sometimes vote for a candidate based on factors other than which policies they like more.

[TimG]

I guess then I am not one either.

 

I mostly vote for Democrats, I sometimes vote for Republicans. In the Maryland governor's race six years ago I cast a write-in vote for my dog. Let's see, if not voting for a Democrat makes me not a Democrat then not voting for a human makes.... Maybe I don't want to follow that through.

I can certainly understand voting for both Republicans and Democrats based upon the personalities of the candidates, or if you have a specific pet policy item that is more important to you than the overall party platform (I don't imagine many, if anyone, agree with all of a party's platform -- many pick which subset of policy items is most important to them in any particular election). But, when jtfanclub said he like McCain better than Clinton on the policies, it sounds like this is an overall thing rather than a specific item. In fact, he said on personality, he would vote for Clinton in a heartbeat.

 

I think that if you agree with McCain's policies that much more than you agree with Clinton's policies, maybe you're not really a Democrat. Not that I'm saying that is a bad thing. It just seemed very strange to me that a self-professed Democrat thought it was a good thing that the Republican party was nominating someone who is perceived to be more of a "Democrat/Independent".

[Winstonm]

The Republicans have pretty much settled on a candidate, a man who was counted out just a dew months back and who is hated by many in the party's conservative base.

 

The Democrats will be nominating either the first women ever or the first Black ever to head their ticket, and at polls across the country both are clearly viable candidates.

 

 

This doesn't matter?

 

You only validate my observation. The stories are gender, race, and age.

Little details like illegal wiretapping and amnesty for the co-operating phone companies, the co-opting of the NIE before the Iraq invasion, and a $9 1/2 trillion debt with a $3 trillion dollar budget proposal (exluding war costs) are unimportant.

 

I'm voting for Nero - at least he could play the fiddle.

[cherdano]

I like McCain's policies better than I like Hillary's

Could this mean you aren't really a Democrat? Sure, you could be a registered Democrat, but if you like the Republican policies more, maybe you aren't really a Democrat.

Or maybe people sometimes vote for a candidate based on factors other than which policies they like more.

Probably many people do, but it strikes me as a pretty dumb thing to do in the current political situation in the US. The president brings with him many many people, which all have quite a bit of power, and he usually picks them among his own party. So if you only care about which face you see on TV, then of course you can pick whoever you find sexy, but if you care at all whether we should protect the environment or not, whether we should get closer to universal health care or not, if you have an opinion on the "family values" vs "gay rights" "debate", etc. etc., well, then the only sensible thing to do is to pick the party you mostly agree with and vote among party lines.

 

(And I didn't even include more controversial statements issues like abortion, common-sense- versus blind-ideology-guided foreign policy, etc :P)

[Gerben42]

I am as usual struck by the huge difference between my own environment and the USA.

 

That things like gay marriage and abortion are topics for a PRESIDENTIAL campaign. I mean, being against these things affect only a relatively small group in a negative way, namely those who are gay and want to marry, and those who are pregnant and want an abortion. It does not affect anyone else in a positive way. Being against these things is not going to raise your paycheck, or cover your healthcare, or bring your sons home from Iraq.

 

You can be against it for yourself, but for me it is not acceptable to be against it for OTHERS. That is simply intolerance.

 

Of the democratic candidates, I hope Obama wins. He seems like a good leader.

[TimG]

That things like gay marriage and abortion are topics for a PRESIDENTIAL campaign. I mean, being against these things affect only a relatively small group in a negative way, namely those who are gay and want to marry, and those who are pregnant and want an abortion.

I think the abortion issue may affect more people than you think, check out this article for some figures. To say that the issue only affects women who want an abortion is ignoring a whole gender (without which there would be no demand for abortion).

[mike777]

I am as usual struck by the huge difference between my own environment and the USA. 

 

That things like gay marriage and abortion are topics for a PRESIDENTIAL campaign. I mean, being against these things affect only a relatively small group in a negative way, namely those who are gay and want to marry, and those who are pregnant and want an abortion. It does not affect anyone else in a positive way. Being against these things is not going to raise your paycheck, or cover your healthcare, or bring your sons home from Iraq.

 

You can be against it for yourself, but for me it is not acceptable to be against it for OTHERS. That is simply intolerance.

 

Of the democratic candidates, I hope Obama wins. He seems like a good leader.

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.

Many people vote on this one issue alone. Just imagine if Obama or Mrs. Clinton announced tomorrow they are Pro Life/against abortion. This would be so much bigger than all the other issues combined. BTW there are many issues such as appointment of judges that are affected by this debate.

 

This would change votes for millions of men and women. This would dominate the news or change votes much more than the war or the economy.

 

"You can be against it for yourself, but for me it is not acceptable to be against it for OTHERS. That is simply intolerance."

 

 

 

If you think being Pro LIfe or being for numerous restrictions on abortion here in the USA is intolerance you would get a firestorm of debate. :)

[Gerben42]

If you think being Pro LIfe or being for numerous restrictions on abortion here in the USA is intolerance you would get a firestorm of debate.

 

Because this is a sensitive theme let me make myself perfectly clear. My opinion is that being against gay marriage is intolerant. My opinion is also that rejecting abortion in principle is intolerant. I do not ask you to like me for that.

 

On the other hand, I do not think that abortion should become "normal" or "simple", and I think there should be some limit after how many weeks. But to take an extreme example: Making a woman who has been raped and does not want a baby she could never love into a criminal is intolerant to me.

 

And since I struggle to understand the motives of the moderately religious, I have little hope to understand extremely religious people. But it doesn't strike me as a particularly tolerant society for those who happen to have another belief, and it would not be a society I would want to live in.

 

Therefore I am happy to be living in Europe.

[PassedOut]

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.

Many people vote on this one issue alone.

Alas, this is all too true.

 

People who don't blink an eye at invading another country and bombing children to hell go ballistic at the idea that a woman would end a pregnancy. People who applaud executing children and mentally handicapped people stop at nothing to prevent a woman from aborting an unwanted fetus.

 

The anti-abortion crowd in the US wants very much to give their own religious views the force of law.

 

Interestingly, the very politicians who pander to anti-abortion voters don't hesitate to bring their own wives, daughters, and girl friends in for abortions when expedient.

[jtfanclub]

I like McCain's policies better than I like Hillary's

Could this mean you aren't really a Democrat? Sure, you could be a registered Democrat, but if you like the Republican policies more, maybe you aren't really a Democrat.

That's silly. With the exception of abortion, I doubt you could tell the difference between Lieberman's and McCain's positions without a magnifying glass. I know that Lieberman is now technically an Independent, but he was (and is) a Democrat who was the VP candidate less than a decade ago.

 

If the Republican Party's official positions switched to a combination of Guilliani's and McCain's, then yeah, I might be a Republican. But the Republican Party positions are very different. It's not that I'm not a Democrat, it's just that McCain isn't a Republican, at least his positions aren't close to the Republican Mainstream's.

 

There are other issues as well. For example, while it's not an official position on either side, I can't stand our Supreme Court paying more attention to the Pope than the Consitution.

 

Luckily, Mitt "The Chickens***" just quit. This will end up giving the nomination to Obama, oddly enough. Here's why:

 

Up next are Washington State, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Maine. All Caucus states, where Obama has done well. He'll definitely take the first three, IMO.

 

After that come District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. Obama will definitely win the first two.

 

Then Wisconsin, which will probably go Obama (the way Iowa and Minnesota did), and Hawaii, which will definitely go Obama.

 

And finally Little Tuesday (March 4): Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Nobody's going to care about the results of the latter two.

 

So for the next month, we get:

Definite Obama: Washington State, Louisiana, Nebraska, District of Columbia, Maryland, Wisconsin, Hawaii.

Up for grabs: Maine, Virginia, Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont

Definite Hillary: None

 

But here's the trick. Virginia, Ohio, and Texas are all Open Primaries. Which means that all you need to do to vote in the Democratic Primary is to say you're a Democrat and not vote in the Republican Primary. And with the Republican Nomination already sewn up, guess what's going to happen? You guessed it, we're going to have lots of Independents and Republicans voting in those primaries. And those people vote very, very heavily Obama (about 67%). So move at least Virgina and Ohio into the Obama camp.

 

And that'll end it for her. She's having enormous trouble raising funds already, if the only state she wins in the next three weeks is Maine (if she even wins that), she'll need to get a home run on Little Tuesday, which won't happen any more.

 

From 3/05 until April 21st, there's only Wyoming and Mississippi. So reporting on the election's gonna take a breather. That's going to hurt her fundraising even more. So I expect her to quit some time in March, and never make it to late April and May, when Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, and Kentucky all vote, which could all potentially go for Hillary.

 

But if she doesn't win Virginia and Ohio, she won't make it that far. The momentum will have shifted, and it has six weeks to set.

[luke warm]

i'm not sure your scenario plays out... i know people who are going to insist that republicans cross over and vote for hillary because they think she's unelectable... if republicans in open primary states vote hillary for that reason, who knows what can happen

[hrothgar]

I like McCain's policies better than I like Hillary's

Could this mean you aren't really a Democrat? Sure, you could be a registered Democrat, but if you like the Republican policies more, maybe you aren't really a Democrat.

That's silly. With the exception of abortion, I doubt you could tell the difference between Lieberman's and McCain's positions without a magnifying glass. I know that Lieberman is now technically an Independent, but he was (and is) a Democrat who was the VP candidate less than a decade ago.

Comment 1:

 

Historically McCain has always identified himself as a hard line conservative. There are a lot of significant policy differences between McCain and Lieberman. To the extent that the lines are blurring, this represents a significant movement by Lieberman to the right and not any kind of mellowing on the part of McCain.

 

Don't get me wrong. I've never liked Lieberman. Lowell Weicker is on of a very small number of Republicans that I ever voted for. Ned Lamont is the only candiate that I ever did much volunteer work for. I will rejoice when the Deocrats strip him of his Senate appointments in 2009.

 

However, its complete ingenuous to suggest that the two men vote the same way.

 

Comment 2:

 

Lieberman made it on to the Democratic ticket for two reasons. Neither of them had anything to do with his policy positions.

 

First: Liberman is (obviously) Jewish. The Gore campaign beleived (correctly) that this would put Florida into play

 

Second: Lieberman spent a lot of time scolding Clinton for his indiscretions. Gore made the mistake of running away from Clinton during the 2000 campaign cycle believing that the baggage associated with the Lewinski scandal outweighed the economic record. Nominating Lieberman seemed like a good way for Gore to insulate himself from Clinton.

[mike777]

I can't imagine that even a 1/4 of those voting in the Democratic primaries could accurately cite a single difference between the two candidates' proposals.

From watching any debate or speech by either candidate, especially Hillary, the difference clearly seems to be that Hillary mandates coverage for all whereas Barack makes it available but doesn't mandate it be purchased. The back and forth between them generally goes like this.

 

HC: Universal healthcare is a cornerstone of democratic belief and a moral imperitive! BO's plan is not universal and mine is.

BO: That is just another way of saying you force people to buy healthcare whereas I make it available to all but don't force anyone to buy it, although I believe if it's available and affordable they will buy it! What will you do if they can't afford it?

HC: We will send subsidies to people who couldn't otherwise afford it.

BO: And if they decide to spend the subsidy on other things they can't afford like rent or food then what?

HC: They won't, everyone wants and needs healthcare.

BO: In Massachusetts they have mandated coverage and many people choose not to buy it. Those people then receive fines. So how are you going to mandate the coverage on everyone, by fining them if they don't buy it? By garnishing their wages?

 

At this point as far as I can tell, Hillary never answers the question but merely reverts back to step one. I actually am not sure which plan I prefer, but I much prefer Barack's honest approach to explaining his plan. Hillary completely dodges the question of how she will enforce the mandate every time she is asked, all I want is an honest answer to that question from her.

I think on tv this past weekend that Mrs. Clinton said yes there would be an enforcement arm and people would have their wages garnished if they did not buy the Insurance. This might have been on ABC News.

 

I read somewhere that something like 40% of the uninisured make over 50,000$ a year and something close to 20% make over 75,000$. I think these numbers come from the census bureau.

 

As I guessed it will not matter whether you think it is affordable or higher quality or not. These issues or facts just will not matter in the debate.

[TimG]

As I guessed it will not matter whether you think it is affordable or higher quality or not. These issues or facts just will not matter in the debate.

What does it matter whether I think it is affordable? I'm supposed to simply believe:

 

In any case the cornerstone of the Dems plan is that it is affordable so do not worry.

[jtfanclub]

However, its complete ingenuous  to suggest that the two men vote the same way.

 

Outside of abortion, would you care to name a significant issue that the two differ on? On the unimportant stuff, they do vote party line of course.

 

I don't mean to say that McCain is a Democrat. Just that his policies are very different from party-line Republicans.

[TimG]

I don't mean to say that McCain is a Democrat. Just that his policies are very different from party-line Republicans.

McCain on the issues (from johnmccain.com):

• John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned
  
• John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
  
• As with most issues vital to the preservation and health of civil society, the basic responsibility for preserving and strengthening the family should reside at the level of government closest to the people.
  
• A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq.
  
• John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.
  

These views would seem to be rather different from party-line Democrats.