Election Year!!!

[Central Scrutinizer]

But it is not at all a desire of his nor is it a goal. I believe any talk of withdrawl from McCain at this point is mere pandering.

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."

[John Smith]

And John, you just simplified a very complex thing. It's not that easy, and I don't think it's feasible to expect to be out even within the first term of whoever's presidency.

 

I agree that I simplify a complex thing, but to actually with draw the plan must start with the simple notion that it is tiime to leave. Formulating a plan to move half a million people (I'm assuming we will be on the tab for the contractors and any politcal refugees otherwise the figure is much lower) and equipment out of the country/region would be a huge undertaking, but it can be done. We have people in the military who are geniuses at moviing people and equipment from one place to another. One of the problems though, and I have thought this was a problem for 30 years now, is that our nations lift capacity is seriously weak. We spend bucks on sexy things but not on the nuts and bolts stuff like cargo lift capacity, either in the shipping or in the airlift area. But getting our troops out is doable. Remember we moved 500,000 troops & gear out fairly quickly after the first war. So the physical act is doable, its the politcal aspect where there will be troubles.

[sweetheart-mine]

john kerry was unable to communicate his ideas, and how he would carry them out, effectively to the american people. i think that's a substantial problem, call it what you will.

[Central Scrutinizer]

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 was unable to communicate his ideas effectively to the american people. i think that's a substantial problem, call it what you will.

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.

[John Smith]

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."

 

I think we will have to disagree on this one because I see McCains record of statements in support of staying In Iraq for the long long haul, I hear his VP candidate make bellicose statements about Iraq and in an interview McCain makes a comment about it, a hedged comment at that, I'll stick with my interpretation of his words and deeds.

[Central Scrutinizer]

I agree that I simplify a complex thing, but to actually with draw the plan must start with the simple notion that it is tiime to leave. Formulating a plan to move half a million people (I'm assuming we will be on the tab for the contractors and any politcal refugees otherwise the figure is much lower) and equipment out of the country/region would be a huge undertaking, but it can be done. We have people in the military who are geniuses at moviing people and equipment from one place to another. One of the problems though, and I have thought this was a problem for 30 years now, is that our nations lift capacity is seriously weak. We spend bucks on sexy things but not on the nuts and bolts stuff like cargo lift capacity, either in the shipping or in the airlift area. But getting our troops out is doable. Remember we moved 500,000 troops & gear out fairly quickly after the first war. So the physical act is doable, its the politcal aspect where there will be troubles.

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.

 

I think we will have to disagree on this one because I see McCains record of statements in support of staying In Iraq for the long long haul, I hear his VP candidate make bellicose statements about Iraq and in an interview McCain makes a comment about it, a hedged comment at that, I'll stick with my interpretation of his words and deeds.

Fair nuff!

[Analogman]

john kerry was unable to communicate his ideas, and how he would carry them out, effectively to the american people. i think that's a substantial problem, call it what you will.

 

I voted for him, but then, I always vote a Straight Democratic Ticket. He was no Bill Clinton, or Al Gore, but that is how it goes.

[fatheadfred]

I think most Americans want that to happen, but stopping the war is going to take time and I don't think there's any agreement on what issues at home need to be take care of. What is Obama going to do on the home front?

 

I'm not looking for a link to his website either. I want to know what he can, realistically, within the scope of the power of his position. You can make a ton of promises, but in the end, congress has just as much say on what happens as the president, so let's look at it realistically.

 

Reposition oil subsidies to alternative energy development manufacturing in local economies. Benefits employment and energy at the same time while reducing dependence on domestic and imported fossil fuel while reducing environmental emission damage.

[John Smith]

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.

 

That's why one of the first parts of my plan woudl be to review those contractor contracts and turn as much over the the Iraqii's as possible, That way they get a hand in rebuilding their country and it may actually get done. We pull back our military and strt moving them out immediately, keep a token force behind to protect advisors who advise the Iraqii's on how to rebuild their country. We pay for it, but let them do it, that way they have ownerhsip and the stuff may not get blo9wn up or destroyed simply because we built it. On top of that it will help the iraqii economy by pushing money into the system and getting potentially thousands of young men of fighting age off the streets and into the workplace. Otherwise if it keeps going the way it is going today it will never get done and we may as well just walk away from it. PR disaster you bet, but so is the occupation.

[Central Scrutinizer]

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 admired Sarah Palin for some time, most Americans do not know her. So the intense media focus on the new Republican vice-presidential nominee was to be expected. But some of it has been inappropriate, especially when reporters go after the Palin family's choices. The suggestion that running for vice president with a 5-month-old special-needs child and a pregnant 17-year-old daughter should make her suspect as a mother is a blatant double standard that would not be applied to a male candidate. All four candidates should indeed focus on the needs of their families, and it's clear they all do. But a mother with children should have as much freedom to run for office as a father in the same situation.

 

Palin introduced herself to the country with last night's speech to the Republican National Convention. She gave the crowd what it was looking for -- the narrative of her life, an all-out defense of John McCain, and strong criticisms of Democrats, Washington, and the media. If anyone had any questions about her being a formidable political figure, those were put to rest last night. Republican leaders are taking pride this morning in Palin's high-school nickname: "Sarah Barracuda." Many found her speech feisty and tough, while others found it negative and smug. But Palin has clearly united the three legs of the modern Republican Party -- social conservatives, economic conservatives, and foreign policy hawks -- and really energized that base, as was evident in the Convention Hall last night. Media commentators across the spectrum commented on the success of Palin's address. But the well-delivered speech still leaves many questions unanswered. As conservative columnist Steve Chapman wrote in the Chicago Tribune,

 

Palin has another, more complicated task that this speech postponed: reaching out to millions of people who are honestly wondering if she has the experience, depth and temperament to step into the Oval Office. What many of those Americans need to see are qualities like judgment, wisdom, tolerance and flexibility. Those traits were conspicuous by their absence tonight.

 

With two months to go, the questions will certainly be raised. The most important one that is emerging is which ticket will be most able to reach out to many people in the middle in both parties, and the all-important political independents. Facts will be important. Whose tax policies will most benefit low-income and middle-class families? Who has a plan to reverse the economic downturn? Who has the smartest strategy for countering the real threats of terrorism? And who has the best and most comprehensive response to the full range of moral issues that are of deep concern to people of faith?

 

Now, all four of the political figures on their respective party tickets have been shown to have compelling personal stories. All four are "real people," as the slogan goes. But this election must not just be about personalities, or inspiring personal histories; it must be about the issues, the records, the leadership, and the facts. May God help us to stay focused on that. Last week belonged to the Democrats, this week to the Republicans. Now, after the showy conventions of the past two weeks, the real work of this election can begin.

[Central Scrutinizer]

That's why one of the first parts of my plan woudl be to review those contractor contracts and turn as much over the the Iraqii's as possible, That way they get a hand in rebuilding their country and it may actually get done. We pull back our military and strt moving them out immediately, keep a token force behind to protect advisors who advise the Iraqii's on how to rebuild their country. We pay for it, but let them do it, that way they have ownerhsip and the stuff may not get blo9wn up or destroyed simply because we built it. On top of that it will help the iraqii economy by pushing money into the system and getting potentially thousands of young men of fighting age off the streets and into the workplace. Otherwise if it keeps going the way it is going today it will never get done and we may as well just walk away from it. PR disaster you bet, but so is the occupation.

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.

[John Smith]

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.

 

I'm not a dove at all, but I am for smart national defense, not for wars of adventure. I have never believed in adventurism with the military. But the whole notion of the terrorists steppping into the vaccuum is a republican/administration narrative that has been accepted as fact since day one. It is part of the whole "central front in the war on terror" argument. Truth is and always was that we were fightign primarily Iraqi factions and what was known as AlQueda Iraq was homegrowwn and not associated with AlQueda except in name only. Nope I think what happens when we leave is that the civil war might possibly start up again. Then again if we have a massive publics works project run by Iraqi's and possibly a peace force comprised of Saudi's, Syrians, Egyptians and yes even Iranians (why not since the majority party in Iraq is sidinng with Iran anyway?) maybe a civil war could be avoided. But if itappears that it wil not work , then partitian thhe country back to it's historical parts. like the Balkans.

[Guest Jules]

COUNTRY FIRST!

[embiggen]

[Guest Jules]

 

Palin '12

[Central Scrutinizer]

Palin '12

[Party @ the Moontower]

COUNTRY HOCKEY FIRST

[Central Scrutinizer]

COUNTRY HOCKEY FIRST

Puck yeah!

[Party @ the Moontower]

I know this is bad, really bad, but I just want to. Hey, Palin let it be taken..

[Beltmann]

Well, I just made my first Obama donation of the campaign.... While I'm not a full-fledged True Believer, the time has come to do something.

I just wanted to say that whole post was great.

 

I dunno. I think the only solution that will fly is some sort of safety-net type of insurance for people who don't have access to it now. Some people I talk to who work for school districts and suchlike have awesome health coverage and fear reform would erode that.

I'm a teacher. My family has great health coverage (not as awesome as it was, but I still can't complain). I definitely worry about the costs of nationalized care, how we will pay for it, and the quality of overall care under such a system. Still, as a prosperous nation, I think we have a moral imperative to figure out a way. To steal a line from Dreamin' Judy, I would consider it a privilege to sacrifice in order to help out the millions of fellow Americans who are systematically excluded from the care that I enjoy. The question is, how much am I going to have to sacrifice?

[ikol]

Here's a question I have about universal healthcare: How much control would providers have in billing? Would the government be capping how much providers can charge for services, procedures, etc. or would the providers be able to set the price on their own?

[mfwahl]

I know this is bad, really bad, but I just want to. Hey, Palin let it be taken..

[lost highway]

The important thing for people with good health care (and money to pay for it) need to remember, is socialized health care doesn't make paying for fancy pants health care illegal. Obama's plan sounds a bit more moderate than what we call 'socialized health care' and it would probably effect people with decent health care less than people with.

 

The cost seems like a concern. But, when you consider an insurance company as a business overall, and break down what makes insurance expensive the cost of universal health care seems reasonable. An insurance company is inevitably populated with a dozen or so CEO's who make enough money to buy you and everyone you love and sell you ten times over. Below them you have upper middle management who still consider a six figure salary 'modest'. That has to factor in to the cost.

 

Also, as a country buying health insurance we are paying for accidents that 'may' happen to all of us. If you don't get sick, you don't get your money back. Under universal health care while you won't get your tax $$ back, if the country stays healthy, we pay less. It looks a lot less like a speculative market, simply treat the sick and collect enough funding to continue to do so as needed. Works for England.

 

Continue letting doctors make the money they deserve, but let suits sell something other than medical care.

[ikol]

Also, as a country buying health insurance we are paying for accidents that 'may' happen to all of us. If you don't get sick, you don't get your money back. Under universal health care while you won't get your tax $$ back, if the country stays healthy, we pay less. It looks a lot less like a speculative market, simply treat the sick and collect enough funding to continue to do so as needed. Works for England.

 

In theory that is correct, but that is not the current state of health insurance. Insurance is expected to cover everything, even routine visits and chronic conditions. This is where a lot of the problem lies. You're not saving any money on insurance if you're paying them to pay for something that you will definitely need versus something that you will probably not need.

[lost highway]

I pay $30 a month for insurance in case something catastrophic happens. I've been to the Dr. once in the last five years and it turned out I didn't even need to. People like me (I know a lot of them) could make everything cheaper for everyone, so the less fortunate, and the elderly could have an easier shot at getting taken care of. And everyone can pay less.

 

Again the cost of paying for something to sustain it, and paying for it so that corporate schmucks can turn record profits are two very different pictures.