-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/06/friday-open-threadyeah-its-friday-6/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
FISA is on hold! But we still have work to do. Here is a list of Senator Office Phones numbers.
I plan to call at least 2.
Bayh (202) 224-5623
Carper (202) 224-2441
Obama (202) 224-2854
Inouye (202) 224-3934
Johnson (202) 224-5842
Landrieu (202)224-5824
McCaskill (202) 224-6154
Mikulski (202) 224-4654
Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274
Clinton (202) 224-4451
Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551
Pryor (202) 224-2353
Salazar (202) 224-5852
Specter (202) 224-4254
Feinstein (202) 224-3841
Webb (202) 224-4024
Warner (202) 224-2023
Snowe (202) 224-5344
Collins (202) 224-2523
Sununu (202) 224-2841
Stevens (202) 224-3004
Byrd (202) 224-3954
Lincoln (202)224-4843
Reid (202) 224-3542
Coleman (202) 224-5641
Durbin (202) 224-2152
Smith (202) 224-
Stabenow (202) 224-4822
Kohl (202) 224-5653
Leahy (202) 224-4242
Schumer (202) 224-6542
They are Jim McConaha and Valery Mitchell. McConaha and Mitchell both supported Sen. Chris Dodd's presidential bid.
The editors of the Washington Post noticed Barack Obama's love letter to town hall meetings in his book, The Audacity of Hope, and have found Obama's counter-proposal ridiculous, and completely contradictory to his previous "anytime, anywhere" debate pledges.
They write:
"The sooner the sniping stops and the serious discussion starts, the better off the country will be — and the best way to achieve that would be for the candidates to meet, one-on-one, as often as possible. Mr. McCain's proposal to hold weekly town hall meetings was — as the Obama campaign said — "appealing." That was more than three weeks ago. Since then, the Obama campaign has countered with the offer of a single town hall meeting, on nobody-will-be-watching July 4, and a second debate on foreign policy — this in addition to the three traditional fall debates. Mr. Obama has written that "one of my favorite tasks of being a senator is hosting town hall meetings." He launched his campaign decrying "the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial." Now, he should seize the opportunity to practice the change he preaches."
a) McCain is using Obama's appeal to get some attention for himself that he otherwise would not be able to get
b) McCain and his people will stack the audience chock full of McCain people, just like that Fox debacle a couple of weeks ago.
Obama doesn't need to have town halls with McCain; he can have his own and if he does do a joint town hall with McCain he needs to make sure half that audience is comprised of Obama supporters.
Why voluntarily give McCain any type of advantage?
When is there going to be a serious discussion among Obama supporters about some of Obama’s more troubling recent positions such as his cave on FISA and his contention, which contradicts yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling, that people found guilty of raping a child should receive the death penalty?
The best explanation of why the FISA bill--which gives the White House broad surveillance powers and the telecom industry immunity--is bunk comes from the ACLU. http://blog.aclu.org/2008/06/19/this-spade-is-a... whole post is worth a read, but the most contentious FISA provision grants retroactive immunity for the very phone companies that compromised your 4th amendment privacy rights and mine to begin with so long as they can produce a document from the president or government asking them to comply. In short, “We were only following orders.”
There is no question of whether Obama supports it, despite his having promised in October 2007 to filibuster any version of the bill that contains immunity for the phone companies. Here’s Obama’s statement from earlier this week supporting it: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/201032.ph... can call this whatever we want, from level-headed politicking and sound political strategy to a failure of courage and principle, but either way we’re still looking at a candidate who is running on a platform of change, but perpetuating the same constitutional violations, and accommodationist positioning, that have made these past 7 and a half years such a bleak time in this country.
I don’t think it’s rude or inappropriate to ask when, where, and on what issue Obama plans to take a stand against “politics as usual.” I’m a little uncomfortable with the panacea that “All that will change once he’s in office.”
As for the death penalty, I think it’s wrong, period. But it’s particularly ironic that Obama would support it given that, as astute commentators on the Talk Left thread http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/25/234840/218 noted:
“Even the SCOTUS opinion referenced the research finding that having a death penalty for child rape increases the likelihood the child will be killed to ensure the child cannot later be a witness against the offender. It also referenced the research showing that family members would be less likely to report another family member who raped a child if they thought the offending relative could be executed.”
BTW, most child rapists are family members. And the death penalty is disproportionately levied against black men.
Obviously and understandably, Obama doesn’t want to be caught in the Dukakis trap and painted as “soft on crime.” But is this really the best place for the candidate of Change and Hope to make a stand?
"Not a flinch. Not a flicker. Not a hint of shame. By the time he's finished, Obama will have made the Clintons look scrupulous."
AND his turn to the right one economic policies, hiring a Union Busting Wal-Mart guy to run his economic policy?
Obama is a fake. He lied to us.
Angela
"Obama's Strategic Juggernaut
Submitted by pmcarpenter on Wed, 06/25/2008 - 7:47am. P.M. Carpenter
THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter
Given John McCain's ballistic temper, I pity the poor aide who drew the short straw and had to show him the latest in bad news.
By now, after everything the good senator has done to pamper his base and pander to independents -- and after having had a free ride for months to solidify his numbers among both -- he must be wondering what it takes.
The latest in depressing news for McCain, of course, was yesterday's Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, which read very much like the latest Newsweek poll, which itself was ridiculed and dismissed by many among the punditry as an aberrant quantification.
But I doubt they're ridiculing this morning, or that McCain's hopes of a mere aberration are still intact. To quote the source:
In a two-man race between the major-party candidates, registered voters chose Obama over McCain by 49% to 37% in the national poll, conducted Thursday through Monday.
On a four-man ballot that included independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr, voters chose Obama over McCain by 48% to 33%.
Which was precisely what Newsweek's poll said in either case, given the margin of error.
Even worse for McCain is that the political reputations to which he's tethered just keep on sinking, and with no salvation in sight: George Bush's approval rating has hit yet a new all-time low of 23 percent, according to the LA Times/Bloomberg poll; and only 29 percent of voters admitted to having a "positive feeling" about the Republican Party.
The second set of numbers is especially grim for McCain in the long run -- which is to say, through October -- yet wouldn't be quite as grim if Barack Obama weren't exploiting the situation so artfully.
For Democrats, winnable contests are the ones in which they race to the center -- and that, of course, is exactly what Obama is doing, plus some. The Dems can tack to the left when all seems hopeless, but this is hardly one of those occasions.
When far or at least comfortably ahead, it is always asked of the Democratic presidential candidate: How can you screw this up?
The answer? Appeal to the base, long after the primaries are put away.
In fact, that's probably the only way Obama can now screw this up. But he's admirably refusing to buckle, and the base had best brace itself for more middle-to-right positioning to come.
Because in that positioning there's victory, and Republican strategists know it and fear it as well as Obama knows it and loves it.
Said, for instance, GOP media consultant Alex Castellanos to the Washington Post: "[Obama] is not trying to cobble together the old Democratic coalition of interest groups and get 48 percent like John Kerry. This is not three yards and a cloud of dust. This is an aggressive leap across the 50-yard line to play on Republican turf."
Obama's advisers believe that independents will break decisively their way by fall, which likely would be decisive itself. "In the end," however, they also "believe that whichever candidate wins the highest percentage of voters in the other party is likely to be the next occupant of the White House."
And they're taking no chances. Obama is going right -- literally -- at the heart of the opposition, which may peeve the leftward base to no end, but is exceedingly smart.
One Obama confidant put it well: "People and commentators have been saying we know Barack is hopeful and that he appeals to a broad cross section of the public. But perhaps people didn't know how tough he is. He's been saying all along, don't confuse hope with naivete."
I might add that the base should not confuse strategy with idealistic intent."
<a href="http://streetknowledge.wordpress.com/2008/06/27/sohh-hacked-spammed-with-racist-nazi-headlines-pics/" rel="nofollow">SOHH.com Hacked!
You've made YOUR point. NOW MOVE ON! Whew!!!
With Powell on the GOP ticket McCain’s standing with independent voters will go from a slight lead to a widening, awe-inspiring gap. With that one step he can erase the three to six point lead that Obama holds in most polls.
Powell is a more experienced version of Obama. He is also a proven American military hero. And to paraphrase Obama from his recent prediction that his opponents will make an issue of his race, did I mention that Powell is black
I'm not liking what I'm feeling from O lately. It doesn't feel like bravery or boldness or confidence...it feels like excessive calculation. Maybe he's carrying unresolved anger from the primary, and it's jamming the signal..LOL!
My sense is that America needs a hero, not someone who capitulates.
I gotta tell ya, these Clinton donors are pissing me off. It's been reported that one of them actually asked Obama point blank if Hilary was going to be his vp, and even Hilary Clinton looked uncomfortable and she actually motioned for Obama to just move on.
Are these people adults? Some of these people need to grow up. Either support the man or not! It was disrespectful, it seems to me they want the man to beg for their support.
That's why I won't be running for office or anything like that. I'm a pretty cool person, but even I would have to tell those people to "put their money where the sun don't shine"!
Geez.
Here's the link:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25411295
Also check out what Obama said to Lanny Davis who introduced himself at the meeting:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/after_the_press_leaves_some_ed_1.php
::
That's a funny last line, truthseeker.
He is calculating.
Is it excessive? That's in the eye of the beholder. I think it's necessary.
There's one running.
..references to Obama were not only kept out of the trial during his run for the primary -- it was kept under seal. Until today.
The Boston Globe Reveals the Catastrophic Failures of Obama's Housing Efforts
But one of the problems of constantly moving on to the next promotion is that you never get to see the consequences and ramifications of past actions.
Of course, Obama ends up with a great deal on his house - thanks to Rezko - whilst the poor in Chicago were left to struggle. Did Obama's house have mice, a collapsed roof, sewage in the sinks, etc? Of course not, Rezko made sure of that, but what about Obama's and Rezko's other projects? Read on:
Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy
The candidate endorsed subsidies for private entrepreneurs to build low-income units. But, while he garnered support from developers, many projects in his former district have fallen into disrepair.
..About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale - a score so bad the buildings now face demolition.
Like New Orleans, Chicago is a Democrat strong-hold, with Obama and the Democratic Party caring little about them...other than place's that churn out votes for them.
I don't get why folks are having a hard time with Obama over this. Now, there are things you can disagree with him on, but, for a person to believe that if you rape a child, you should expect to be paid back by society, I'm not feeling the reason for this discomfort.
You can argue about constitutional issues, but THIS group of criminals? not worth making into a philosophical discussion.
For those of you who dislike his stance on FISA - I.do.too.
I'm not liking what I'm feeling from O lately. It doesn't feel like bravery or boldness or confidence...it feels like excessive calculation. Maybe he's carrying unresolved anger from the primary, and it's jamming the signal..LOL!
Him not sticking up for child rapists, or gun control laws is 'lack of bravery'?
Come on.
The FISA issue, I grant you. Like I said, it bothers me too.
Well, You Stumped Me
Don't throw tomatoes. I'm not warming to her, but I see what I see.
Who wrote this speech?
A McCain/Powell ticket would win in a LANDSLIDE if the war was the #1 issue, but it looks like the economy may trump Iraq, especially if progress continues.
More and more, the election will be a referendum on Obama. If they believe him to be nothing more than a smooth-talking, ambitious politician who will say whatever it takes to get elected; who is not above playing the race card; who promises one thing, then does another if it is politically favorable to do so, then McCain is an acceptable alternative to moderate Dems and independents who are more conservative.
Obama is trying to run as fast as he can away from the far left, now that he has their cold, hard. cash in hand. But he will not be able to run to the center with a voting record that is anything BUT moderate OR independent.
Maybe it's my signal that's jammed! From day to day, I don't know what exactly I feel about the Obama campaign. At the beginning, there was a clear, consistent signal. Now, it's like schizophrenia. My sense is there's discord between Obama the man, and his advisers who have a job to do in getting him elected.
At the beginning, I thought I could say who he was. Now, I'm not entirely sure. Whatever.
http://www.selmatimesjournal.com/articles/2008/06/27/news/local/news%20908.txt
I'll bet Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks and others are turning over in their graves...
Separate FISA from the other stuff.
FISA, Ok, be pissed about. I mean, on its own, yeah, folks should be pissed.
But, this other stuff people are lumping in...i'm not feeling it. I feel a pileup.
And, there are those who believe JJP isn't strong on FISA. The CPL has done 3 posts on FISA, hasn't she?
I've told you I disagree with Obama on the issue. CPL's made her feelings perfectly clear. We aren't ' in the tank' for Obama on this issue.
I agreed with the Supreme Court decision.
Jill Tubman did not.
I like that kind of diversity here at JJP.
He has decided to demonstrate his ability to 'buck his own party' ala McCain by supporting the compromise FISA. But this will not be enough.
Iraq is now unmistakably proving a success, and more and more news outlets are reporting that we are winning the War on Terror.
Obama will not be able to avoid facing tough questions about his outdated Iraq policy and when he does, his answer will give the clearest indication of who he is, and what he really believes.
Oh..and re he gun control thing. I was disappointed he didn't talk directly to the rural gun crowd about the point at which the law-abiding becomes the criminal. I had hoped he'd talk about the difference of outcome between those who are distraught and have access to a gun and those who don't.
I know Obama feels this way, (as per the "cling" comment) but doesn't say it much.
---------------------------------
Nope.
My point is that those of us who plan on voting for Obama in November need to talk about what's going on when the man who said that he stood for a different kind of politics takes stances that look a whole lot like politics as usual. What do we think about O's strategic choices and are we going to let him know when we think he's gone off track or made a good call?
I'm super pleased by the # of smart, serious responses I'm getting here, because whether I agree with what people are saying or not re: FISA and the death penalty for people convicted or raping children, this is a discussion that needs to be had throughout the campaign, whenever this kind of stuff comes up.
Politicians are calculators, by nature, and they care an awful lot about what their voters think and where they'll wind up by taking position X or Y. Going after Obama for being a politician, and thereby a strategist and a calucater isn't useful. But not speaking up when we don't like what Obama isn't a total favor to him, since it gives him no cover for taking more progressive positions.
Obama supporters seem to be fine with his tacking to the center, but for those of us who reside there, watching him 'come about' on certain issues is in my view, nothing more than political expediency.
He is all over the map right now on the issues that have arisen thus far.
Can anyone state definitively where he stands on NAFTA, Jerusalem, energy and Iran?
Where will he end up on Iraq and the War on Terror? My guess he will try to diffuse McCain's advantage on national security by supporting FISA and eventually changing his position on immediate troop withdrawl from Iraq.
What will his supporters do then?
They will still vote for him. He knows this. His goal now, and always has been to win the 'swing voters' in this election: white, blue collar, males.
Find out where white, blue collar males stand on the death penalty, individual gun rights, and anti-terrorism and the war, and you can see where Obama is headed.
Obama has thrown every position that has threatened his standing with this group under the bus, beginning with Wright and ending with Iraq. But will all those 'regular Joe's' out there believe him? I doubt it. Why vote for the poser when they have the deal deal in McCain?
He is for subsidizing inefficient corn ethanol at a time of record-high fuel and corn prices, while supporting tariffs on the importation of more efficient sugar-based biofuels.
In short, by opposing all drilling in Anwar, off the coasts, the continental shelf, and omitting any reference to coal, tar sands, shale, or nuclear, he apparently thinks that millions of acres of new solar panels and hundreds of thousands of wind turbines dotting our mountain crests and deserts, together with millions more acres devoted to corn, will somehow bring gas prices down or make energy more affordable.
Bob Zubrin writes:
"Let’s stop fooling around. This year the United States will import 5 billion barrels of oil. At $130/barrel, the bill for that will come to $650 billion, or more than five times the cost of the Iraq war. Add to that $400 billion the Americans will pay for domestic oil, and our total fuel bill this year will come to over a trillion dollars, and the world as a whole will pay $4 trillion. These petroleum costs are up a factor of twelve from what they were in 1999, and represent a huge highly-regressive tax on the world economy. For Americans, the $1000 billion oil levy is equivalent to a 40% increase in income taxes across the board - with sixty percent the sum being paid over in tribute to foreign governments.
So, as a result of this massive tax increase — by far the largest in American history — the United States is being driven into a recession. Subjected to the same tax, Europe and Japan will follow, while poor third world countries who can afford high oil prices even less will be pushed towards starvation. And as the misery spreads, the Saudis and other OPEC potentates are putting together huge Sovereign Wealth Funds to execute takeovers of the western corporations their extortion forces into insolvency. Indeed, OPEC will clear $1.5 trillion in net export profits this year. The entire worth of the US Fortune 500 is $18 trillion. So at their current rate of looting, OPEC will accumulate enough cash to buy majority control of the entire Fortune 500 within 6 years!"
On June 24, McCain put forward a proposal that could really make a difference. This was his call to require that all new cars sold in the USA be flex fueled.
Flex fuel cars can run on any combination of alcohol (including methanol and ethanol) or gasoline. The technology is readily available and it only costs about $100 per vehicle.
Making America a flex-fuel vehicle market would effectively make flex-fuel the international standard, as all significant foreign car makers would be impelled to convert their lines over as well. Within three years of such a mandate, there would be 50 million cars on the road in the USA capable of running on alternate fuels, and hundreds of millions more worldwide. Around the globe, gasoline would be forced to compete at the pump against alcohol fuels made from any number of sources, including not only current commercial crops like corn and sugar, but cellulosic ethanol made from crop residues and weeds, as well as methanol, which can be made from any kind of biomass without exception, as well as coal, natural gas, and recycled urban trash. Creating such an open-source fuel market would enormously expand and diversify humanity’s fuel resource base, protecting all nations from continued blackmail, robbery, and in some cases, starvation, induced by the oil cartel.
Methanol is selling today, without any subsidy, for $1.50/gallon on the spot market, equivalent in energy terms to gasoline at $2.80/gallon. Make cars that can choose between methanol and gasoline, and the power of OPEC to set high prices will be broken for good — everywhere in the world.
The Audacity of Hope:
Here you go, found it at Andrew Sullivan's.:
Obama's support for the execution of child rapists wasn't invented for the presidential election; it dates back to The Audacity of Hope, where he wrote:
"While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."
The quote:
"..the rape and murder of a child.."
I wonder if he meant rape OR murder.
I'm not saying O is wrong to feel whatever he feels. It's just that my experience of it is no longer clear and consistent. Maybe it's just me.
How can you accept the teachings of Jesus Christ and endorse the death penalty? What would Jesus do? Would he pull the switch? Would he give the injection?
People who call themselves Christians and accept the death penalty based on "old testament" doctrine really, really need to check themselves...that includes Barack Obama.
That being said, i'm still supporting him though I strongly disagree about this issue.
"blank screen"...hardly.
Here's what I do know:
1 Obama is not dumb. Actually, he's extremely intelligent.
2 He's a decent human being; a good person in whose care I would feel safe.
3 Obama is not perfect...but is pretty damn close!
I wish I could share your confidence in the man, but I just don't know what I am getting for my vote. Yes, he's eloquent and charismatic, likable enough, but he has yet to persuade me of his ability to be a strong, principled leader.
I am looking for a candidate who will provide:
Energy Independence
Victory in Iraq/War on Terror
Sound tax policy that will keep a struggling economy from falling into recession.
School Choice
Moderate, pragmatic judges.
But don't you know that Obama is trying to make a play for Evangelical voters? Who knows where he really stands? My guess would be that he would continue to appoint judges in the mold of those who rendered the majority opinion in that case.
Defense of innocent life, from the unborn to victims of child abuse are very difficult moral arguments and split many individuals in both directions.
As for victory in Iraq. Maybe you need to re-asses what victory is. You are looking for an honourable outcome from a dishonourable war. Perhaps victory is not possible in those circumstances except to admit a mistake and take actions to correct the injustice immediately. Right now, the error is being compounded. Think of all the disabled soldiers...all the dead ones and their families. You are willing to sacrifice their lives for "victory"?
Yes, Saddam was a bastard, but was not an imminent threat to the USA.
and
Maybe it's my signal that's jammed! From day to day, I don't know what exactly I feel about the Obama campaign. At the beginning, there was a clear, consistent signal. Now, it's like schizophrenia. My sense is there's discord between Obama the man, and his advisers who have a job to do in getting him elected. At the beginning, I thought I could say who he was. Now, I'm not entirely sure. Whatever.
FWIW, I am not feeling that from him.
I am feeling grounded truth-telling in action -- truth-telling that is painful for some/many to see because it says some ugly things about this country that, for some, getting through the day requires avoidance of.
And you wrote: My sense is that America needs a hero, not someone who capitulates.
He is not a hero and to my knowledge has never said he would be or should be. He is -- and he makes this very clear to my ears and eyes -- part of a large collective (this nation) that I think he attends to and understands EXTREMELY well. The fact that this collective has its painful conflicted and ugly sides is not coming from him. He is not and cannot be a hero. He is nothing isolated from the collective he is listening to, observing, feeling and acting on behalf of.
And: My parakeet just said "It's just the scary."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/27/16495/0128/59/543029
My guess would be that [Obama] would continue to appoint judges in the mold of those who rendered the majority opinion in that case.
So you're saying that Obama would appooint Scalias and Thomases to the court like George W. Bush wanted to do. Hunh? Are you out of your ____ mind?
And s. also said...
But don't you know that Obama is trying to make a play for Evangelical voters?
Sure, he's making a play for evangelical voters. It's called "politics." Barack Obama is a politician. He seeks to win elections.
For all of the FISA-feely types, say that Barack voted against it and a terrorist strike occurs before the elections...Bush and McCain could hammer *O* for leaving America vulnerable by not supporting the bill.
Barack is "covering his bets," as any good politician should do.
The World As It Should Be: What Michelle Really Said
Now if those of us who are L, G, B and/or T can just stay focused on what Senator Obama's actual role is, and not project all our hopes and dreams on him (he is not going to lead our fights and he should not!) ... we and others can maybe fully appreciate what Mrs. Obama is saying here and its consistency with what Senator Obama has been saying for some time.
I say this knowing that Senator Obama also recently met and is deliberately reaching out to evangelical Christians -- who not only have actual LGBT people among them (it's true!) but also are as real and present a part of this nation as us non-evangelical-Christian LGBT people.
I could say that their theology teaches *them* to hate *us* (under the guise of our sexuality being a sin). But the they/we distinction breaks down somewhat knowing the lived reality of people like my girlfriend. She left the Southern Baptist church (where she was raised and active) in her early 20s. But NOT because she was a lesbian. She left because the theology unraveled for her, and particularly in its suggestion that Jews would go to hell -- she had a Jewish teacher, friend and mentor and couldn't accept that.
Once that piece went, my girlfriend's sharp mind saw the whole theology fall apart. It wasn't til she was 30 that she came out to herself. Then later she ended up in a relationship with a Jew herself.
To me understanding the range of who and what makes up this country, and acting from a non-us/them approach is all part of what it means for Senator Obama to so accurately and effectively seek the presidency of this country. I see him knowing, learning and acting in response to what it is actually capable of -- and what it is not.
You misunderstood. Obama will be sure to appoint judges like Ginsberg, Kennedy, and Stevens.
Covering his bets may be good politics, but is it leadership?
Ginsberg and Stevens were in the minority on that decision. Kennedy was the swing vote.
Is it good leadership? You can not lead if you do not win...
Guess who are co-sponsors of the new Federal Marriage Amendment (Marriage Protection Amendment)?
Anyone...anyone....
Larry Craig and David Vitter
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16020.html
No way.
hahahah!
Who needs satire when we have reality?
*snort*
Claude Castonguay is the father of socialized medicine in Canada. In the 1960s, he chaired a Quebec commission whose recommendation of a government-run health care system for that province was adopted, and quickly spread to the rest of the country. Now, after forty years of experience with socialized medicine, Castonguay has changed his mind:
Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."
"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."
A novel idea! When the first countries adopted socialized medicine, it was a mistake. For the U.S. to do it now, in the face of disastrous experience wherever it has been tried, would be a crime.
No, I don't think he has any problem with ridding us of child rapists.
I agree with us ridding ourselves of child rapists; I just disagree on the method.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/whos-that-man-obama-asked-for-id-at-gym-2008-06-27.html
[P.s. I'm the "MOVE ON Anon. Don't want any confusion. :>)]