Stop the War in Iraq and the drumbeats for war with Iran.

9:49 AM EST

Howard allows all of us to be First.

KEEP IT UP MICHAEL!

Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) proposal to mandate that all people purchase health insurance would be a boon to the industry, filmmaker Michael Moore said Friday. "Can you imagine, every time Sen. Clinton says that, the licking of the lips that goes on with these health insurance executives?" Moore said during a conference call with reporters.

Moore, director of the Academy Award-nominated documentary "SiCKO" about the U.S. healthcare system, criticized both Clinton and her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), for failing to support a universal system of government-financed health coverage during their runs for the White House. "The two Democratic candidates don't quite get it," he said.

Amen! Single payer is the only way to go.

Want my single vote? Support single payer.

... exactly chuck. Peace is first!

Moore is correct, i guess the establishment Dems will never be able to see past the contributions of mega pharma and insurance.
Heck Barrack couldn't see past the influence of the credit card crooks on the bankruptcy bill.

BTW the previous thread blog was disgusting, we sooooo are better than that.

chuck wrote "Want my single vote? Support single payer."

Would you have denied your vote to Gov. Dean on that basis?  

Dave wrote "i guess the establishment Dems will never be able to see past the contributions of mega pharma and insurance."

Was that your opinion regarding Gov. Dean's position on health care coverage reform? 

Tom wrote:

Would you have denied your vote to Gov. Dean on that basis?

Always dredging up Howard. I was very disappointed in Howard's health-care stand, but apart from that,  his stand on the issues was much more progressive than the current pair.

10:55 am

On topic: Trying to fix elections and limit our choices on the ballot by threats or any other method is fundamentally anti-democratic. Win elections by appealing to voters and their interests, not by restricting the ballot to one candidate.

This happens far too often in many districts and voters are unaware how their choices are being limited, often by so-called party "leaders" who want to clear the way for the favorite candidate.

Was that your opinion regarding Gov. Dean's position on health care coverage reform? 

He probably didn't get much money from them, but he kowtowed to them anyway--one area where he showed a lack of leadership.

11:00 am

... this current post is inane.
Ya'll are just gonna have to let the electorate settle this.

... i can hear it now. "Then i shot an e-mail back saying..."

Grow up. Make your case to the people. Put away your laptop and have a house party or do some neighborhood canvassing. sheeez

That said above, Richard Lara might be better advised NOT to make this as much of a public fight through emails and web postings.

Stay focused on the issues important to voters and why you are a better candidate. And avoid getting into spats with the other candidate's supporters. That is never a winning strategy.

Thanks John, but i avoid the TB lunacy like the plague. lol

John wrote "Always dredging up Howard. I was very disappointed in Howard's health-care stand, but apart from that, his stand on the issues was much more progressive than the current pair."

Thanks for your useful response. I am in total disagreement.  The reason I bring up Dean upon each instance of criticism of Obama, since the reason remains opaque to some community members, is because of the identity between the campaigns of Obama and Dean.  When people illustrate that they don't recognize this identity by their comments, I bring it up for educational purposes.

Many Dean supporters, including me, flocked to Dean's campaign precisely because of the vision he demonstrated in his plan for health care coverage reform, which had been undervalued as an issue for decades. A person, you for example, could choose not to support Dean for his health care coverage stance, but you didn't.  Obviously, a person could do the same with Obama.  There are no perfect candidates.

Yes, thanks John.  I never avoid Dave's lunacy.  I call him on it each time. 

Deaniac in GA
Sat, 02/23/08

Hi, Deaniac,

I agree. One way to approach this is to rise above it, and constantly state that voters deserve a choice on the ballot. And then proceed to make the case why you are the better choice.

It is annoying how some people, though, within the party especially, try to manipulate the election by eliminating any possible choice.

Primary contests are good in many ways. They give voters a choice, raise publicity for Democrats and engage the media and voters in the process. As long as it doesn't turn into a mudfight, that is.

On topic: Richard, if you're reading, please stay above this kind of fray. Let your supporters make the case for you (and hopefully keep them ethical and respectful) and that way you never have to enter into this kind of tit for tat.

It will never look good to voters or media to have this kind of public back and forth. It does make you look rather petty spending time on this with such a long-winded post. I've been there, believe me, and I know how obnoxious some supporters can become. But stay above the fray.

Or take Dave for example.  He had no qualms about supporting Ron Paul's candidacy, meaning he either supported, or had the ability to ignore, Paul's views on abortion, social spending, and the role of government. 

One could dislike some of Obama's positions on one or more issues, but there is no rational, substantive basis to suggest that Paul's policy platform resembled Dean's more than Obama's does.  I mean, come on; we're all sensate humans, with reasoning skills.

... been there Steve.
At a Peace rally here, some fellow was yelling bad language at a car of teen girls for not 'honking' in support. They were just waiting for the light to change to go about their day.
Idiots creep into many movements...

Well, i'm guilty of believing that death and war are not the solution to international disputes... however, i tend to be a "yellow dog" so no Republican, or one who runs as one, gets my vote, support or contributions.
Those pesky facts again...

Dave wrote "no Republican, or one who runs as one, gets my vote, support or contributions."

That probably should have been your first clue. 

Ron Paul has a coherent internal logic to his arguments if you buy his premises, Tom, which is more than I can say for some of yours.

Indy Steve you are right on for the candidate but those of us who are in leadership sometimes have to go to great length to recruit a candidate and that there might be a protective attitude is also understandable. A active and known member of the Party will overcome it more easily than someone who has never showed up in the past. We elected a new member to Congress after a very competitive three way primary but all three were well known so the primary caused no harm. If one is viewed as an outsider because they never helped in the past, human nature says support will go to someone that has, and there may be no conspiracy. However if one is viewed as a big enough threat to get money from the DCCC for your opponent feel honored. It is certainly a badge of legitimacy in itself. 

Phil wrote "Ron Paul has a coherent internal logic to his arguments if you buy his premises, Tom, which is more than I can say for some of yours."

Can you give an example?

... what does it tell you tho when someone running as a Republican more vigorously voiced a position against any use of force(barring a direct attack on us) than did most Democrats?

I clearly and proudly supported Dennis Kucinich,then voted for him in the primary because he earned my vote.

... that is the fact. Now back to more lunacy.

Michael Ellis from previous thread - Freemasons scare me to death. In my wierd brain they are filed with Skull & Bones
+++++++
dog soldier - enjoyed the piece on revolution.
+++++++
This fellow was on Wash Journal this morning. Interesting reading on the defense contracts and the shananigans that went on.

TRIBUNE INVESTIGATION

Inside the world of war profiteers
From prostitutes to Super bowl tickets, a federal probe reveals how contractors in Iraq cheated the U.S.

By David Jackson and Jason Grotto | Tribune reporters
February 21, 2008

ROCK ISLAND, Ill.—Inside the stout federal courthouse of this Mississippi River town, the dirty secrets of Iraq war profiteering keep pouring out.

Hundreds of pages of recently unsealed court records detail how kickbacks shaped the war's largest troop support contract months before the first wave of U.S. soldiers plunged their boots into Iraqi sand.

The graft continued well beyond the 2004 congressional hearings that first called attention to it. And the massive fraud endangered the health of American soldiers even as it lined contractors' pockets, records show.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-k...

++++++++++++++++

Back in the 70s I had to go back to work and couldn't find a teaching job - did a 2 month stint at Katharine Gibbs in the PanAm building over Grand Central in Manhattan - Entree Program for college grads that couldn't find a job - we learned to type/take speedwriting/always wear 3 pieces when we wore pants to work/or wear a dress (dress code for school too). Hardest school I've ever attended -- since, I've never been worried about feeding myself however.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsu...

NEW YORK, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Career Education Corp (CECO.O: Quote, Profile, Research), a for-profit educational company, said on Friday it would start phasing out more of its schools after it failed to find a buyer for them.

The campuses, which include Katherine Gibbs Schools in New York and Lehigh Valley College in Pennsylvania, will begin a so-called teach-out program, which allows the schools to operate while current students complete their program but not admit new students.

++++++++++++++++++++++

From WUFT FM in G'ville FL classical music trivia - who was father-in-law of pianist Byron Janis? Gary Cooper

Must run -- see ya this evening prolly

there is no rational, substantive basis to suggest that Paul's policy platform resembled Dean's

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

they both stem from rational coherent world views, different ones I will grant

Let me give an example of coherent internal logic:  Democrats are a political party with a social agenda to the left of Republicans.  As Ralph Nader reminds us, the major parties come to resemble each other in certain sinsiter ways, but mainly in ways that arise directly from the absence of comprehensive public campaign financing and the accompanying sins of corruption and greed.

Still, there are differences, assuming, unlike Nader, you recognize the distinctions between a Gore and Bush administrations.  A great majority of people here do.

This site began when Dean became a Democratic candidate.  I'm here for the reason that I supported his candidacy.  I supported his candidacy because I preferred the generally more liberal platfom of Democrats to that of Republicans, and the generally more liberal platform of Dean to that of his opponents, excluding Kucinich.  There's a reason, obviously, as people here know because they supported Dean over Kucinich as a candidate as well.

Dean had some flaws in his policy positions, but he was a Democrat to the end, believed in the party and its ideals, and amply demonstrated his loyalty, in a way that Gore also did. He wasn't a perfect liberal, just a better one, who offered an opportunity to help pursue a liberal agenda.  A candidacy like Dean's would appeal to me in the way Dean's appealed to me.  I hope the traces of a coherent rational logic are emerging in this exposition.

If we are all brothers and sisters..............can anybody lend me $50 for the hockey game tonite?

Dave wrote "what does it tell you tho when someone running as a Republican more vigorously voiced a position against any use of force(barring a direct attack on us) than did most Democrats?"

That he is a true conservative isolationist like Pat Buchanan.  It reveals a very consistent internal logic, if you ignore his willingness to allow government intervention into the very personal matter of the reproductive rights of women, obviously something antithetical to the philosophy of Gov. Dean.

In the state of Virginia, this is what our great leg. is worrying about:

Have a good laugh with this one.

I prefer single-payer -- 10,000 Frenchmen (and millions of other Europeans) can't be wrong.

But a lot of Americans still have a knee-jerk reaction to "socialized medicine" despite, as Michael Moore correctly points out, having no problems with "socialized" police and fire services, Post Offices and libraries.

What I don't like about Hillary's plan is it's the worst of both worlds. A corporate greedfest mandated by government. Oh, you don't want to take Hillary's health care? Well, she'll just garnish you then, because you will be covered whether you want it or not.

A large percentage of the uninsured make $75k or more and simply don't want to buy insurance. They are mostly young, healthy and single. I made the same decision when I was young and healthy, and it turned out fine. Now that I'm not so young, I have health insurance through my employer that's affordable and quite good. If I would lose my job it would be nice to know I had a safety net but I have a hard time wanting to impose my safety net on someone else who just doesn't want it.

Yeah, they're both spineless about single payer. Hillary's last Senate opponent, Jonathan Tasini, a brilliant man and a passionate advocate of single payer with the facts and figures to back himself up, got utterly trounced in the primary. Which is why Hillary is the way she is.

Although nothing explains to me why she was so arrogant in the way she ran her campaign, after seeing what being peaked too early did to Howard. I guess she thought the rules of campaigning just didn't apply to her.

Obama-Boxer '08

-- volney

"A candidacy like Dean's would appeal to me in the way Dean's appealed to me" should read "a candidacy like Obama's would appeal to me in the way Dean's appealed to me."  Sorry for the confusion.

To summarize, Phil believes that the rational, substantive basis to suggest that Paul's policy platform resembles Dean's is that they both stem from different rational coherent world views. 

... sheeeeez, what's sooooo hard about comments being shown in order of submission?
Pitifully inexcusible.

Tom Bearse, I had a hard time figuring out why Ron Paul would take any position on abortion, given he is a strict constructionist and the Constitution doesn't include information on the point at which life begins.

(Interestingly, the Bible's position is that life begins at birth. When David mused that God knew him in the womb, the meaning is, "Before I was even alive, God knew who I would be," not "I attained personhood in the womb.")

It turns out that Paul, as an OB-GYN, once observed a late-term abortion in which a breathing ... fetus? baby? ... was tossed in a bucket and disposed of. He never got over this and I wouldn't, either. It's a very complex issue that, IMO, needs a lot of if/then clauses along with the basic right.

But anyway, that's how he came by his one great inconsistency.

I admire the loyalty of his supporters. Signs for him are still up here and there all around my Northeastern liberal town.

-- volney

It's not the charges of lunacy or less consistent internal logic by other bloggers that bother me so much as the cavalier willingness to make such allegations without the integrity to back them up.

you got it Tom

Ron Paul has a traditional conservative view of the Constitution that it is a document to limit government, and that Justices operate in that framework, so he logically assumes our Army doesn't belong overseas fighting pre-emptive wars, or Supreme Courts expanding the right of privacy to include Roe v. Wade.

Howard believes in a living Constitution and a Government that provides for the General Welfare plus all the other things we love him for here

in neither case will you find internal contradictions of their arguments

volney wrote "It turns out that Paul, as an OB-GYN, once observed a late-term abortion in which a breathing ... fetus? baby? ... was tossed in a bucket and disposed of. He never got over this and I wouldn't, either. It's a very complex issue that, IMO, needs a lot of if/then clauses along with the basic right."

This would, in my opinion, provide the sound foundation for someone to spend his or her life in pursuit of the cause of reducing the numbers of abortions that are performed, in the same way that people who witness death become opposed to war, capital punnishment, and the willingness of political leaders to countenance all sorts of laws and social policies that lead to, or promote, the death of individuals. 

It wouldn't, in my opinion, be proper motivation to run for national political office for the purpose of imposing his or her philosophical beliefs, as a public policy, on the personal medical decisions of other women, without regard for the circumstances and conditions that influence those decisions.

Phil wrote "in neither case will you find internal contradictions of their arguments."

Is it your opinion that this illustrates the manner in which Paul and Dean's campaigns substnatively resemble each other in a way that differs from the campaigns of other candidates for the office?

It wouldn't, in my opinion, be proper motivation to run for national political office for the purpose of imposing his or her philosophical beliefs

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You are totally mis-characterizing Paul's position. He wouldn't impose any kind of government on anyone.

Phil wrote "You are totally mis-characterizing Paul's position. He wouldn't impose any kind of government on anyone."

He wants states to be permitted the right to impose these restrictions for exactly that reason.  No Democratic candidate for President would agree, regardless of their personal views, based strictly on constitutional concerns of privacy.

Is it your opinion that this illustrates the manner in which Paul and Dean's campaigns substnatively resemble each other in a way that differs from the campaigns of other candidates for the office?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is what I identify as a "truth teller" Tom. Someone that doesn't let opinion polls be the basis for a political position, but rather adherence to a center core of values and a rational adoption of policies that logically fit that center core. You have to believe the original premise to be a Paul supporter.

might have something to do with all those science classes that a Doctor has to pass

Phil wrote "It is what I identify as a 'truth teller' Tom."

I'm glad.  However it doesn't answer my question, which was prompted by your reaction to my initial proposition that there is no rational, substantive basis to suggest that Paul's policy platform resembled Dean's more than Obama's does, specifically, that they both stem from rational, coherent, albeit different, world views.

 imposing his or her philosophical beliefs

~~~~

He wants states to be permitted the right

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

see Tom right there you stated two mutually exclusive arguments and of the two the latter is accurate, he is a "State's Rights" candidate which is why he has appeal to the right wing of the Republican Party

why we fought the Civil War as I was taught it

might be why Paul appeals to guys with Confederate Flag decals on the back window of their pickup

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/23960...

new thread

BTW Tom how did you drag Obama into this discussion of how Doctor Dean and Doctor Paul are similar, even as their platforms are radically different. Because in both cases if you buy into the premises you will get a logical argument.

as a Lawyer, Obama is trained to understand and be able to see both sides, which might lead to a tendency to generalize, and is a slightly different world view than Doctor Dean's 

Phil wrote "[Paul] is a 'State's Rights' candidate which is why he has appeal to the right wing of the Republican Party.

Of course.  As an anti-authoritarian libertarian, who fights to protect the rights and liberties of Americans, including gun and property rights, from government interference, why isn't he opposed to state government intervention in the lives of Americans who must make extremely personal, emotionally charged, life and death decisions regarding whether to bring a pregnancy to term?  I would suggest it is because of a logical inconsistency in his beliefs.

A states rights advocate passing the issue off in this way employs the most gossamer pretense, which virutally any honest observer would recognize in his or her critical assessment.

Phil wrote "BTW Tom how did you drag Obama into this discussion of how Doctor Dean and Doctor Paul are similar, even as their platforms are radically different."

In the way I suggested by my thread comments.  Reading them will reveal the answer, easily as much as would my repeating them here.

Regarding the silliness of the single-payer plan health coverage, when will you all understand this:

A single-payer plan by any candidate could be a kiss of death next Nov. What a great time the Republicans would have with this. Though they know, as we do, that it would be the best of all plans, I can hear it now about "socialized medicine" which of course it isn't but that makes no difference when it comes to winning the WH.

The answer lies here: Give the Obama presidency a super majority Congress and you will see a single-payer plan that everyone, including our very observant and intelligent Obama, understands is the least expensive way to go.

So instead of whinning and complaining and attacking candidates, go out in your state and district and get those good Democratic representatives and senators elected, throw out the Republicans and Dem blue dogs, and let's get moving toward single-payer health care.

But of course many of you won't do that, especially those few here who only pretend to be Democrats or at least are not very good ones.

I have to admit how annoying it is to be accused of having less coherent internal logic to my arguments than a philosophical shape shifter like Ron Paul by someone who reveals as many logical lapses in his thinking as Phil.

Single-payer is a misnomer since we will all pay, even as we all pay now.  The central issue is whether the collection of the funds and the disbursement will be centralized.  It's not a matter of who pays, but of how payments are disbursed.  Which is why I say:

SOCIALIZE THE FUNDING--PRIVATIZE THE CARE

The second half is not, actually, a prerequisite.  But, if we want to improve quality of care, then some of our segregated delivery systems are going to have to be integrated into the private sector.  We are already fully aware that the injuries produced by modern warfare and battlefield response is producing a lot of care needs to which the VA is not able to respond adequately. 

Consider this, just to get real about the problem--the nation's ANNUAL health care expenditures are over $1.2 trillion.  The total federal annual budget is only $3.1 trillion.  The war in Iraq, so far, after five years and lots of mismanagement and false accounting still hasn't reached one trillion.  So, what we're asking is that the federal government take on responsibility for the expenditure of, at least, 33% more money than it handles now.  This is a tremendous challenge at a time when we know that the professional cadres of the federal government have been gutted and replaced by incompetents and cronies.

I am not arguing that we shouldn't do it; just that we need to be aware of the challenge it represents.

Considering the poor job Hillary Clinton has done in managing her campaign,it's not surprising that she's not keen to take responsibility for the nation's health.  Husband Bill took on welfare and we know how that came out.