 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Primaries
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Feb 08 - 03:34 PM Well blokes over 70 are a minority for that matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: PoppaGator Date: 08 Feb 08 - 04:03 PM Clinton's health plan is similar enough to Obama's to my mind. Both of them give too much continued participation to the current crooks who control the "health insurance" industry, and who spend so much of their payroll and other expenditures in their efforts to deny medical care to people. Also, Hilary's history of bungling a previous attempt to improve health coverage makes me a bit doubtful of her. Of course, she should have, and may have, learned from her mistakes back then. John Edwards had proposed a healthcare plan that allows the status quo approach to continue, but in direct competition with a single-payer federal plan. If the single-payer deal proves to work, as many believe it would, the old-fashioned profit-making care-denying system would eventually fall by the wayside. At first, Edwards was the only candidate to offer ANY concrete health-coverage plan; the other Dems came up with their "alternatives" only in response to his proposal. Eventually, assuming the Democrat wins, perhaps we can hope for a solution that turns out to be similiar to Edwards', if not identical. Contrary to what some have been saying, it seems to me that supporters of both Obama and Clinton will vote Democratic in the general election, and do so quite enthusiastically, regardless of which candidate eventually gets the nomination. Virtually everyone who cares for either Democratic contender is going to be very anxious to end eight years of neoconservative misrule, and most will take the very real possibility of a McCain victory seriously enough to come out and participate, voting against the GOP even if the eventual Demoratic candidiate was not their first choice in the primaries. It's the Republicans who have to worry that their more partisan and ideologically-driven members will sit out the election in protest and/or disinterest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Ebbie Date: 08 Feb 08 - 05:00 PM In Alaska, a caucus requies one to to declare to a party. As a registered Non-Partisan I had to switch to the Democratic ticket in order to vote. I, of course, was able to switch right back. Which I haven't done yet- it was so crowded and the lines were so long that I'll probably wait until close to the next election time. Unless I stay in the Democratic Party. I tend to vote for the candidate wo I've been known to vote for someone in the opposition party or when I'm casting strictly a protest ballot. Nowadays, and for the last couple of elections, I think the stakes are so high there is no way I'd vote Republican. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Charley Noble Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:18 PM Ebbie- I've considered briefly voting for Ron Paul as a protest but then I did some homework about his record and decided that his social priorities were reactionary in the extreme. I'm sorry but I support the concept of public education, even if it is a badly flawed system, and even if some people don't have children. But some will vote for Paul simply because he has challenged the Bush Administration as a Republican on the wisdom of their discreationary and outrageously expensive war in Iraq. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Ron Davies Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:46 PM Q-- I have unlimited respect for your scholarship on folk music issues, and I've enjoyed and learned a lot from your historical vignettes of Canadian history. So I was quite dismayed at your total mischaracterization of Obama's health plan. It will not, as you say, "leave millions still outside the doctor's office". I trust your statement was made in ignorance and not in malice. It will cover anybody who wants to be covered--by subsidizing those who need financial assistance to get coverage. Hillary's plan, you may not be aware, is not in fact "universal health coverage" as in Canada--it is not a single-payer system. She admitted this in her debate with Obama--and you can easily confirm it.. Her plan would still have a big role for insurance companies. Also, her plan will supposedly "mandate" that all participate. No enforcement mechanism would be possible--except garnisheeing wages of those who do not want to participate. This would cause a huge storm in the US---there is very strong feeling against any coercive requirement of individuals by government. And therefore it will never fly politically. And you can bet McCain has noticed this vulnerability of Hillary--and, like the Woodstock museum proposal and so many other issues, he will exploit it to the hilt, in the unfortunate event that she becomes the Democratic nominee. Yet another reason to prefer Obama, who does not believe in a "mandate". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 08 Feb 08 - 11:50 PM My remarks on health proposals are based on an analysis of the health schemes of Clinton and Obama, made by Johnathan Gruber, professor of health economics at MIT, and published on the editorial page of the NY Times. I published a synthesis of those findings in another thread on the primaries and debates. Thread 108237: Clinton-Obama debate Paul Krugman, NY Times, Feb 4, 2008. I stick by what I said; Clinton's plan covers everybody, and as a result would be cheaper (less cost per taxpayer) than Obama's. I am not too optimistic about the chances for health coverage in Congress even if Hillary Clinton is elected; I think Congress will continue to be closely divided. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:01 AM "Well blokes over 70 are a minority for that matter." McGrath Thats probably true but... In the political arena: How many blokes over 70 and how many women? CEOs of large corporations: How many blokes over 70 and how many women? Drs? Lawyers? Dentists? Politcally, women are underrepresented and so are African Americans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: GUEST,Guest Date: 09 Feb 08 - 07:57 AM Neither women or African Americans are as under-represented as Asians and Latinos. So what's the point? In 1988, Jesse Jackson came out of Super Tuesday the front runner. That is when the serious race baiting began--nowadays you would call it "swift boating". But in 1988 it was all race baiting. Obamarama peeps don't want to see a repeat of that, hence them putting so much distance between Obama and the African American voting bloc. Except when he is buying their votes. Which is being done using clever racial coding in TV ads, and sending The Trophy Wife out to campaign about how to keep your man at home to audiences of predominantly African American women--the Oprah voters. In fact, I vote we call the African American princess vote "the Oprah's Girlfriends Club". (Cue the angels) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:17 AM Being under represented isn't the some thing as being a minority. Otherwise it would have been appropriate to talk about black Africans as being "a minority". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:18 AM Being under represented isn't the some thing as being a minority. Otherwise it would have been appropriate to talk about black Africans as being "a minority" in apartheid South Africa. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Riginslinger Date: 09 Feb 08 - 09:20 AM "That is when the serious race baiting began--nowadays you would call it "swift boating". But in 1988 it was all race baiting." Bill Clinton proved in South Carolina that race baiting won't work anymore. I still think if Obama is the candidate the issue will be religion baiting in the general election. The ground work is already being laid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Bobert Date: 09 Feb 08 - 09:37 AM As I have pointed out on another thread, GG... Obama has more to be concerned about with the DNC rigged "super delegate" deck than he has with either McClinton, McWar or the race card being played... Jessie Jackson was a big target becuase Jackson made race an issue... Obama not so... That's why Obama is doing so well with white voters... Even Southern white voters??? Go figure??? Plus, progressives have had some time now to consider how to counter Swiftboating... One of the best things they have done is seize on the term much the way the Repubs once used "liberal" as derogatory... "Swiftboating" is now a derogatory term in most people's minds and so it is now not only part of the progrssive's arsonal but ready to be fired swiftly and often should the McWariers come close to playin' the race card, no matter how subtle the playin'... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Charley Noble Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:00 AM GG- I really don't think your use of the term "Trophy Wife" is the appropriate term to desribe Michelle Obama. You may not like some of what she says, or how she says it, or you may be attempting sarcasm, but you're way off base. Here's the working definition from Wikipedia for your edification and that of others concerned: "A trophy wife is commonly used to describe any wife of an (usually) older man; and who is considered a status symbol. The term trophy wife was coined by Julie Connelly, a senior editor of Fortune magazine, in a cover story in the issue of Aug. 28, 1989[1] and immediately entered the language. Although it often has a pejorative spin, the term originally meant the second (or third) wife of a corporate titan, who was younger, beautiful and—equally important—accomplished in her own right.[2] The marriage of former Playboy playmate Anna Nicole Smith to oil magnate, J. Howard Marshall, was widely followed by the U.S. media, as an extreme example,[3] as at the time of their marriage: he was 89 years old and she was 26. Some sources claim the term was coined earlier (for example the Online Etymology Dictionary cites 1984 [4]) but that seems incorrect. The Oxford English Dictionary confirms Aug 28, 1989 as its first use. [5]" Find another term. Or better, clarify what you find objectionable about her as a person and as a partisan wife. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: GUEST,Guest Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:02 AM Yeah Bobert, your racial memory is extremely selective. Jesse made race an issue in 1988 by being black. His campaign strategy differed very little from what Obama's is today--it was called the Rainbow Coalition, and it's theme was unity and change. Let us not forget, Bobert, even though your Obamaramas all want us to, that Jesse Jackson was standing right next to MLK when the bullet hit him. OK? Don't try and paint Jackson as some radical like that. Homey don't play dat tune. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: GUEST,Guest Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:06 AM True Blue Charley, because you don't think Michelle Obama qualifies as a trophy wife, doesn't mean that I should agree with you. She has all the trappings of a politician's trophy wife, IMO. And my opinion is the one to which I am entitled, not you. Stop telling me what to say and how to say it, just because you disagree with me. You don't have that level of control over other human beings, and frankly, you seem extremely passive aggressive in that regard. Glad I ain't eatin' yo cookies and drinkin yo punch at yo caucus today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: GUEST,Guest Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:10 AM Bobert, the ONLY reason Barak Obama is the front runner today, is because of the progress we have made regarding racism in this country in the past 50 years. If only that were also true of sexism, classism, and religious bigotry. How about we work on a few of those while we sing Kumbayah with Obama, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Bobert Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:15 AM No, it's not that, GG... It was Jessie Jackson's history that made race a part of the campaign... It wasn't anything that Jessie did overtly but somehting that he carried with him by default... That is what I meant and that is why Jessie was a large target than Obama is today... Yeah, I'll admit that it took Jessie's run to clear the way for Obama to run the campaign he is running today but for look back at '88 and say that the playing field in terms of race was the same then as it is today is, IMO, inaccurate... Call it bagage if you like but Jessie was carrying it whetehr he wanted it or not... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: GUEST,Guest Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:20 AM "Carried with him by default"? What does that mean, exactly? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: GUEST,Guest Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:29 AM Jesse Jackson arrived at the 1988 Democratic National Convention in black limo with none other than Rosa Parks. He healed a huge rift among the Black Caucus when Coretta Scott King through her vote to Dukakis. Your historical revisionism is just as racist as the damn Obama/Oprah machine's revisionism. Shirley Chisholm must be turning over in her grave. From the Frontline/PBS website of their program "The Pilgrimmage of Jesse Jackson": When he delivered this speech in Atlanta on July 19, 1988 just before 11 p.m., Jackson was at his highest. He had arrived at the convention with over 1200 delegates--second to Michael Dukakis. Only a few months earlier, his upset win in Michigan's primary had opened the possibility he could eventually achieve the Democratic nomination. This speech, too, was hailed as one of the greatest ever made at a convention--comparable to William Jennings Bryan's 1896 "Cross of Gold" speech, said some observers. There were eighteen standing ovations. In the fifty-minute address, Jackson touched upon his origins in poverty, and affirmed to supporters that his presidential quest had not been futile. One supporter remarked, "Jackson in 1984 was an improbability. In 1988, it's totally possible....." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: GUEST,Guest Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:34 AM And BTW, I heard Obama's speech in 2004, and my first thought was "he ain't no Jesse Jackson". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: GUEST,Guest Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:42 AM And here is what I wonder. Who would Barbara Jordan and Shirley Chisholm have endorsed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Amos Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:52 AM I think GG is a trophy wife herself, in some deeply troubled game. Whyncha chill, there, GG? Charley asked a reasonable question and you got all snippy. What exactly do you object to in Michelle Obama? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Ron Davies Date: 09 Feb 08 - 11:10 AM Q-- You "stick by what you said". You said Obama's plan would" leave millions outside the doctor's office." You are totally wrong-for the reason I cited. His plan would do no such thing. And I hope you are not spreading that poison to Americans you know. Is it ego that prevents you from acknowledging this? Or something else? Why is slander perfectly fine if Obama is the subject? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: GUEST,Guest Date: 09 Feb 08 - 11:28 AM Amos, I hereby dub thou TruBluII. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Amos Date: 09 Feb 08 - 12:17 PM Oh, I bleed!! Not so deep as a well, nor wide as a harlot's door, but 'tis enough, 'twill serve. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:26 PM "...the ONLY reason Barak Obama is the front runner today, is because of the progress we have made regarding racism in this country in the past 50 years." The only reason the colour of Obama's skin is any more of an "issue" than the colour of his hair, and that GG is rabbiting on about it here, is because that progress still has a long way to go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Charley Noble Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:37 PM Amos et al - GG evidently likes to play fast and loose with language, i.e., "Trophy Wife", and then gets all hot and bothered when I point out that he is misusing the term as it's generally understood. I didn't realize fully that the only important meaning to words are what they mean to him. I regret his current attitude. Much of what he was posting before made sense to me and I was even forwarding it on to other folks struggling to make a choice between Clinton and Obama. Whatever! And he even turns up his nose at my offering of cookies and cider for Sunday's Democratic Caucus in my home town. There's just no accounting for taste. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: GUEST,Guest Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:45 PM Dude, if you gotta go to wikipedia to look up trophy wife, I'm guessing you aren't too clued in to the vernacular use of it among boomer women of a certain age. Just a wild ass guess on my part. And imagine how crushed I am that a True Blue Believer doesn't like what I'm saying about their candidate brand. Listen Amos, Ron, and Charley. Everybody knows you three wise men are Obama boys and Knows Whats Best For Everyone. Thank you very much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Ron Davies Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:54 PM Charley- It's fairly well established that GG is female--probably named Janet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:43 PM Some people read, investigate, seek educated opinion and come to their (personal) conclusion. Others just excrete the muddled steaming diarrhetic bolus they erroneously label brains and expect applause. I have slandered neither Democratic candidate; I have merely voiced my opinion, based on the analysis of a noted health care professional, reported in the NY Times, that the Clinton plan would be superior and less costly in the long run to the one outlined by Obama. PoppaGator, on the other hand, brought up a valid point- the insurance companies who have carte blanche to decide who gets what under the present system. I presume that any plan, to receive approval in Congress, would involve both insurance and government money. Clinton hopes to extend the umbrella so that the insurance companies cannot leave anyone outside of it. I agree that controls should be imposed on the private insurers. How, and to what extent they should be involved and integrated into a system, would be determined by Congress. Without professional health care background, my view must rely on opinions of those health care professionals who have studied the problems and pitfalls of health insurance. With a doctor in the family, I hear perhaps more than I want to hear, but it does help to keep me informed to some degree. A common misconception of the Canada Health Plan in the United States press is that it leaves out the insurance companies- true for the lowest income earners but not for many employed (and retired) Canadians. Like them I have some private coverage from my Company plan, which goes a long way toward covering drugs and other medical supplies. On the drugs I receive, the Alberta government pays part, the insurance company pays part and I pay a small part (I understand the federal government re-imburses the provincial government, but it may not be 100%). Québec and Alberta elected to have their own plans (of course largely supported by the federal government) which differ somewhat from plans in other provinces. Is the Canadian system universal? Yes, but lots of 'footnotes.' (Parenthetically, I could have retained full coverage under the Company-private insurer plan, continuing to pay my share, but elected to withdraw when I retired). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Amos Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:45 PM Let's see if I get this right. If we back Kucinich, or perhaps Paul, then we are honsest adherents to clear intellectual principles. If we back Obama we have been hypnotized into being his "boys" by his wave of popularity. That is an asinine position, GG, and I believe in your heart you know it; you are lashing out again and it becomes you not at all. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Ron Davies Date: 09 Feb 08 - 03:26 PM Q-- Leaving "millions of people outside the doctor's office". Sorry, that's slander of Obama. No surprise you refuse to acknowledge it. Must be your ego, after all. Perhaps you'd like to talk to Teribus. He has the same problem. Obama's plan, as I've explained earlier, will not leave millions outside the doctor's office--for the very good reason that it provides for subsidies for those who cannot afford health insurance. And you have provided no evidence to the contrary. You're welcome, however, to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 09 Feb 08 - 05:27 PM Ho hum. To re-quote from the analysis by Gruber at MIT, but quoting the Krugman article in the NY Times directly- "...a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102B per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured- essentially everyone- at a taxpayer cost of 124B. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4400 per newly insured person, the Clinton plan only $2700. ..."One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80% as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured." The analysis results are ..."consistent with the results of other analyses, such as the 2003 study, commissioned by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, that compared health reform plans and found that mandates made a big difference both to success in covering the uninsured and to cost-effectiveness." "...the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates- most recentlyt in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters... similar to the "Harry and Louise" ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine the last chance at getting universal health care." "If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he'll find that it can't be done without mandates- but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him." The bottom line- if Clinton gets the nomination, there is some chance that universal health care might come to pass. "If Obama gets the nomination,it just won't happen." Going back to the figures at the top of this post, the Clinton plan covers 45 million uninsured, while the Obama plan covers 23 million, leaving some 20 million uninsured. Who are the uninsured and where do these uninsured end up? Many are currently healthy people who can afford their medical bills, and have not signed for any program- if they get a serious and costly illness, where do they go? To the free clinics which are already overburdened by the poor who are uninsured or inadequately covered, which translates to- "millions outside of the doctor's office and in the charity wards..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 09 Feb 08 - 06:02 PM Kansas population 2.7 million. In the Republican caucus today, the total vote was approx. 19,000. Huckabee picks up 36 delegates, McCain 2. In the Democratic caucus, total vote approx. 37,000 Obama 26 delegates, Clinton 10 How is the caucus system set up in Kansas? That vote total is miniscule. Does it mean the Kansas folks don't give a damn about the caucuses? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: GUEST,Guest Date: 09 Feb 08 - 06:08 PM I'm guessing everyone figured it was pretty anti-climactic, just like this thread. The Kansas total still isn't enough for Obama to pull ahead of Clinton, I don't think. So. Big yawn. Remember, at least a third of registered voters in any given state are non-affiliated with either party, and most of them these days are neither Demopubs or Republicrats. They are, like moi, fedupophiles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Amos Date: 09 Feb 08 - 06:10 PM A neologism which means "people who really enjoy feeling fed up, and telling others how fed up they are." A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Bobert Date: 09 Feb 08 - 06:52 PM What I mean, GG, in that Jessie carried bagage is that he had been so much the part of the civil rights struggle... Yes, he was with Dr. King im Memphis the night that Dr, King was killed... Sometimes when there is a struggle there are negative associations in that those who came out on the loosing side subconsciously harbor... And, yes, to many southern whites there was, and still is, a feeling that they lost... This is what I think was going on in '88... Yes, Jessie get all the credit in the world for the good fight but with his history it was impossibile for Jessie to escape "race" in his cmapaign... Obama does not have that problem to that extent for which Obama has Jessie to thank... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Feb 08 - 07:39 PM Maybe "trophy wife just means the same as "wife" for "boomer women of a certain age". Though since a "boomer" is a male kangaroo... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Charley Noble Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:48 PM Damn! GG's just not satisfied with the definition of "Trophy Wife" from Wikipedia. I did first check in my Oxford Unabridged dictionary and Webster's to no avail. What's a fella supposed to do with this contemporary slang? There are several interesting links I've found on-line to acquire such a wife, some from Asian countries. But I don't need one, nor can I afford one. You don't suppose that GG is actually a trophy wife, and that is why she feels that she has the personal experience to define Michelle Obama as one? Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Amos Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:52 PM a wife who is an attractive young woman; seldom the first wife of an affluent older man; "his trophy wife was an asset to his business" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Trophy wife is a highly pejorative term, usually applied to a physically attractive younger woman married to a man who has obtained a high level of success, be it physical, financial, or otherwise. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy wife Where's Janet's definition? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Peace Date: 09 Feb 08 - 08:54 PM Well, I am thrilled no end that y'all have had a good time on this thread discussing the reproductive cycle of the tsetse fly. Thank you for your contributions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Peace Date: 09 Feb 08 - 09:31 PM "Say goodnight, Gracie." "Goodnight, Gracie." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Azizi Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:28 PM Clean Sweep! Obama won Nebraska, Washington, Louisiana, and the Virgin Islands Democratic caucuses or primaries! Whoo Hoo!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Azizi Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:42 PM Obama sweeps three states By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent "WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack Obama swept the Louisiana primary and caucuses in Nebraska and Washington state Saturday night, slicing into Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's slender delegate lead in their historic race for the Democratic presidential nomination. The Illinois senator also won caucuses in the Virgin Islands, completing his best night of the campaign. His winning margins were substantial, ranging from roughly two-thirds of the vote in Washington state and Nebraska to nearly 90 percent in the Virgin Islands. With returns counted from more than one-third of the Louisiana precincts, he was gaining 53 percent of the vote, to 39 percent for the former first lady"... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080210/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Amos Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:42 AM Go TEAM!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:59 AM There are caucuses in the Virgin Islands??? What the heck? Say, check out this wonderful picture of Billary: Billary in 1970! Isn't that just the coolest? ;-) Man, they looked just like so many people I was hanging out with at the time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: GUEST,Guest Date: 10 Feb 08 - 08:24 AM Congrats to the Obamarama folk. Well done, fairly played. I shudder to think of a presidency under any of the three remaining standing. But there you have it. Your man won a couple more, and that's all he needed to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Ron Davies Date: 10 Feb 08 - 08:38 AM Q-- "broadly resembling the Obama plan" won't cut it. We have no idea what the final plan will look like. He will not be leaving 20 million more than Hillary out. That's pointless speculation. And if Mr. Krugman thinks he will because of cost, that's your answer right there. The plan will cost more than Mr. Krugman assumes. Obama knows this, and will adjust the cost as necessary. 1) What is the date of your NYT article? Direct source is needed. 2) Hillary's "mandate" plan is a guaranteed crash-and-burn. Why? She has recently admitted it will involve garnisheeing the wages of those who do not want to participate. That will never fly politically, as I've noted. Reason: Mainly the US cult of the individual--as opposed to in Canada. Why do you suppose gun rights groups are so powerful? And Ron Paul's fund-raising strength was not just based on opposition to the Iraq war--the Libertarian party feeds on this feeling against the government. Pressure against red-light cameras is another manifestation. There's even considerable sentiment to scrap the income tax. This fits right in. The Republicans-- and the Democrats recently elected on pro-hunting, anti-abortion. etc., tickets--will never accept government coercion of individuals to participate in Hillary's program. I think it's likely she knows this--but has made the cynical calculation that it doesn't matter--all she wants is a nice simple slogan--"universal healthcare" to run on. It is however possible that just the "garnisheeing" element she has admitted will sink her plans and keep her out of another stay in the White House--as I say, government coercion--and that's how it will be portrayed--is electoral poison. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:46 AM All taxes are "government coercion", when you come down to it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Charley Noble Date: 10 Feb 08 - 10:02 AM Today the National focus should be on the Democratic caucuses in Maine, not a lot of delegates to compete for but they're all ours! We got another six inches of snow last night and we're expecting more this afternoon and evening when most of the caucuses are scheduled. Maine voters are a hardy lot but it will be a challenge for some to get to these caucuses. Both Clinton and Obama gave major speeches in the State yesterday, and everyone is wondering what the results will be. We should know our results by 7:30 pm or so. Cheerily, Charley Noble |
