Central Scrutinizer

I praise Olberman for 2 things: 1) His pairing with Dan Patrick at ESPN. 2) This commentary on Aug. 30, 2006: The man who sees absolutes where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning is either a profit or a quack. Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a profit. We end the COUNTDOWN where we began, our No. 1 story with a special comment on Mr. Rumsfeld

I forget, would Colin Powell be in with the 93 or the 2?

This is a weird thought -- which might mean it would be effective. They've placed the race card, gender card, age card, all manner of negative campaigning. Has anyone ever tried to play a humorous ad campaign for an elected office (other than Robin Williams, Pat Paulson and, unintentionally, Ross Perot)? I don't mean silly party silly, but using a sophisticated Daily Show to point out indescrepencies like these in a candidates bytes? A broad humored "c'mon!" to those who say such silliness. To a jaded public, such an approach, in limited fashion, might be quite effective.

Terry looks like he's humpin' the fence.

bobbob, correct me if I'm off base, but isn't the Hispanic vote factioned anyway -- due to prejudices and histories of each country and how they respond to one another, as well as the United States? Mexicans, for instance, were a strong base for Bush, which other Latin countries are more liberal?

In Florida it's the exact opposite. Bad schools in bad neighborhoods get most money, incentives for teachers to move there. Bad neighborhoods are bad neighborhoods for a reason -- the people who live there are lower class, but many create their own problems (I know I sound conservation). When the bad schools continue to fail, the local kid can opt out and get into one of the best schools in town -- thereby affecting the talent pool at the best schools. I think that is a common problem. The problem with most people with that problem is they don't bother to even think about working out the is

1. My wife, a teacher, is opposed to merit pay. I don't think there are ways to measure a teacher's effectiveness. It's not like it's in a vacuum (hey the kid was screwed up when I got him). The teacher's success is as much (if not more) a produce of the kid's environment. Parents don't even talk to their kid, let along try to help him along. 2. I hate to raise it, but one of the reasons it's hard to fire bad teachers is if one bad teacher is black, it becomes a race issue. So you can't fire white teachers who are on a same level because it's reverse discrimination. 3. NEA where we're at is a

I know a number of very qualified teachers who would gladly take you to school on this issue! Indeed. But both sides of the aisle show their stupidity on education. Create standards, don't fund them but hold the teachers responsible for them. Grade schools and students with standardized tests, but have the tests scored by uneducated civil service employees. Require more documentation than a teacher can get through in an 8-hour day, and yet also require that they teach kids morals, sex education, creationism, exercise parents kids because they're fat -- and don't require a parent to be res

That would have to change. Any plan would have to put more on the insured to make prudent choices. My company recently went to a plan that has X deductable -- the negotiate good rates on meds, doctors appointments etc. You pay until you reach, say $1,000, then the insurance covers everything after that. For many people, that's not insurance. But you're also not funding someone who doesn't use it. It also makes people think twice about running to the doctor with a runny nose -- given it will cost them $50 or $60 rather than $10 or $15 for co-pay. A responsible plan makes everyone responsible.

You could take a free enterprise approach. But when the biggest health care provider in the country says, "unh uh" the price will come down. In reality, through a federal plan, rates would be negotiated as part of the plan ($x for tonsils, $XX for a stent etc.). While $$ are skyrocketing, I think it's appropriately pointed out that an incredible amount of that is marketing and sales (and R&D). On the pharma side of things, if the government institutionalized that aspect of it -- low-cost generics as there are today, plus standardizing pricing (still be free enterprise for new drugs and

Puck yeah!

Two words:

That review is necessary; good point. But UGH! What they will find out. Featherbedding, projects messed up, undone, badly done. A new plan of action would need to be revived. It's a great plan to turn the work over to the Iraqis, but the vacuum created by our pulling out, will suck in the terrorists and those we deemed to remove, who will attack or pillage what we leave behind for the citizens. I'm a dove as much as anyone, but we need to give them a decent headstart otherwise we will have committed a greater atrocity than the one we're supposed to have removed.

Out of deference to Jack, sweetheart-mine and other athiests and agnostics, I post a column by Jim Wallis, a Christian voice of reason that raised out of opposition to the conservative right. He has his issues, but talks of tolerance from both sides which can't be bad. He edits a magazine called Sojourners and has written a few books, such as "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It." This is a column he offers today about Palin (He quotes a conservative columnist from the Chicago Trib) Beyond Palin's Personality While many conservatives have known and adm

It would be a monumental task to even leave Iraq as infrastructurally sound before we started blasting. Do we pull out without attempting to get even basic services ensured to most of the residents? Pulling out and abandoning the innocent to a situation far worse then they faced under Saddam would be a travesty to Democrat and Republican alike. Fair nuff!

One thing is certain: even if Gustav was a no-win situation for Bush, he's certainly going to get the opportunity to prove himself with Ike. That mother is a comin' John Kerry's message was clear enough for anyone to see. He merely got torpedoed by the Swift Boat and edged out by form over substance. There was a clear enough choice.

I sincerely disagree, but it's strictly opinion based on what I've heard, seen and read. I think McCain is trying to be pragmatic while playing to the right, but as someone pointed out, the reality is converging among the different "plans."

That certainly supports your points of form over substance. But that doesn't make it right. He came with oratory to Rove's knife fight. The bottom line is, in my heart U.S. voters had a clear choice: sound ideas in a package of ketchup, or a failed businessman, former coke fiend who everyone would love to party with, but without a clue. There was no smoke and mirrors. And a few months before the election the argument is, "we know Bush is a train wreck but it was form over substance." There's no excuse -- (except you, because you weren't old enough to vote). And we're at the same place ag

In his defense, in a recent interview I heard (I believe on PBS) McCain said he could have U.S. out of Iraq by the end of the first term, but hedged against the uncertainties of the battle, which is a fair enough point.

But that goes against your own arguments -- should we care about form over substance. We had a choice in 2004 before douche and turn sandwich. But other than a few core Republican values, I could not look at the two and see a rational choice of anyone but Kerry -- based on the issues, including health care. I mean you had bland but intellectual over an imbecile. That may be why Democrats have "the man" syndrome, because rational doesn't usually work in elections. It won't work well, but even if it works as badly as the current system FOR EVERYONE it's better than the current system which

To an extent, same way we're paying for it now. Employers would pay into it just as they do with whatever health care plan. Because the plan would cover millions the buying power of the health plan would reduce cost per worker. And because of the size of the health plan provider (U.S. gov), they would be able to negotiate better terms on treatment, standardizing and holding down spiraling costs for services, removing profit incentive for hospitals -- as well as reduce malpractice and liability expenses for providers. Short answer is tax/co-pay system for those who can afford it, based on ear

Indeed, and even Kerry's approach of just putting anyone need insurance on the government's plan would have been a plausible start.

Compared to the bureaucracy you have now with insurance/health care providers? I would rather have something flawed but consistent and functional than the continue ratcheting of rates, the annual and semi-annual changing of costs and benefits, what's allowed and what's not allowed. I don't think the more plausible plans dictate that the government would be the health care providers -- ala VA -- but that there would be an aim of consistent, predictable and structured costs, benefits for everyone -- but most importantly for kids and those who can't afford anything.