Vote Early, Vote Often!

[packsaddle 753]

Brent, I can't disagree about the negativity of the campaigns except to note that if you think this is solely the territory of the Democrats, you lose credibility with anyone who has paid attention to the ads.

As for the talking points, well, I heard exactly the same points on at least three different talk shows over the last few days (Boortz high among 'em). Anything more informative available? You can tell us what you REALLY think, no need to continue sugarcoating it.

 

Gonzo1, sorry my friend, it never lasts forever.

[evmori 11]

Democrat or Republican or Green Party or Independent makes no difference. Vote your conscience. Vote for the best candidate regardless of party affiliation. Voting for a candidate just because they belong to a specific party is wrong.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Hmmmm, let's see, because of the Republicans...

 

Our national debt is at an all time high (a real cliff hanger). Because of the continued wars, we may never recover economically. Because of our blunt speaking diplomats, we are looking more like Attila-the-Hun to all of the world. Our national health coverage favors the wealthy, while 50% of the country has none.

 

I can think of many reasons other than change for the sake of change, it is now imperative that we change but don't let that stop you from doing what you believe to be so righteous.

 

[GernBlansten 10]

Ed, I couldn't disagree with you more. Ok maybe I could ;-).

 

You must vote party, especially in congress. Majority party sets the agenda. Majority party decides what legislation moves ahead, and what dies in committee. Your individual congressman must follow party or get sidelined with little power. So voting for the best candidate is not effective. Your candidate might claim to be a crusader, but in reality, party will override. You must decide which party represents your values and hold your nose and vote for that person. Unfortunately, the two major parties have morphed into something that no longer represents what they advertise.

So in my mind, the best strategy to get the parties to return to their pronounced values is to punish it by removing it from power. When it returns to what it advertises, then just maybe, give it another chance.

 

One clear thing is single party rule on the three branches of government isn't necessarily a good thing. Balance of power seems more and more what the framers of the nation had in mind.

[Lisabob 13]

Yeah I don't know about that Brent. Here are a few Democrats that have made me "feel good" about my country. Doesn't mean I agreed with any of them on everything but at least they didn't make me want to hide my head in shame when they acted in their public capacity.

 

Bill Clinton. Yes, I sure wish he'd kept his zipper up. And listening to his state of the union speeches was not my favorite way to spend 3 or 4 hours on a January night. But you might remember that we had a big economic boom and a shrinking deficit when he was in office. Plus, whatever his other flaws (and there were many) at least I didn't have to wake up every morning wondering whether he knew or cared what the Constitution has to say. I'm pretty sure he was at least aware. I wish I could say the same for our current president.

 

Russ Feingold, Democratic Senator from Wisconsin. I don't agree with Feingold on everything. But I like that he has a backbone. He says what he thinks. He (gasp) works with Republicans on important matters like campaign finance reform. He'll never be president but so what.

 

Madeline Albright, former US Secretary of State and US Ambassador to the UN. Here's one smart woman with a grasp of history and the complexity of diplomacy. She thinks first, acts second. Boy I'd like to see more of that these days.

 

Barak Obama. No, I don't think he is presidential material at this point. I'm not all that excited about the media love-fest surrounding him either. But I am refreshed to see a young, up-and-coming member of the Democratic party with ideas and energy. Obama is about more than just opposing the Republicans. I like that, even though I'm not sure if he is the future of the party.

 

Mark Warner, former Governor of Virginia. I don't care if he runs for president (I know he said he wouldn't in 2008). Here's a guy who understands how to bridge a divide between the parties that has become a chasm. He's pragmatic. He's thoughtful. All qualities that give me at least a little hope.

 

Elliot Spitzer, soon-to-be Governor of New York. Again I don't agree with him on everything. And I know some people really, really dislike him. But at least he is willing to say what he stands for, and then do it. No more of this public grandstanding and nothing going on behind the scenes. Here's a guy who will work to right what he sees as wrongs.

 

By the way there are Republicans I respect too. To name a few: Dick Lugar, John McCain, Colin Powell. All of these guys exhibit traits I don't see in the current batch of Republicans who are running things. They think. They ask a lot of questions and actually welcome diverse answers. They don't go about talking only to their own hard-core supporters. They understand that reputation matters and, once tarnished, it is twice as hard to clean up again. I might disagree ideologically with them, but at least I trust them to give as honest and thoughtful an assessment of the situation as they can, before they commit us to action.

 

 

Lisa'bob

 

[Eagledad 2783]

>>Our national health coverage favors the wealthy, while 50% of the country has none.

[Gonzo1 10]

Ed, as usual, makes a good point. Vote for the candidate of your choice.

 

Gern makes a good point Ed. Congress is pretty much party driven. So, for 'agenda' items, gotta pay attention to party.

 

Lisa, I'm sorry, but Clinton, Albright, Obama, Feingold? C'mon, Clinton got impeached and the ONLY thing that kept him from being removed from office was a spineless Trent Lott.

Sure, with Clinton, the economy was good, but it's good now. Unemployment is at all time lows. In other words, employment is at all time highs. Sure, there's a deficit now, there will always be deficits, even during the Clinton years. Albright never had a clue and continues to not have a clue.

 

Here's the only thing democrats will do for you: They make you 'feel good'.

 

As for McCain and Lugar, they're pretty RINO's, Powell really never declared if he was R or D really. He did sell a lot of books. I think he later said he would be a republican who supported welfare, affirmative action, blah blah blah. Sorry, I don't know Warner or Spitzer, so I can't comment.

 

I even agree with Packsaddle.... to the extent that negative campaigning ON BOTH SIDES is bad.

 

 

 

[John-in-KC 311]

Lisa,

 

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you vis a vis Bill Clinton. A senior leader, be he military, civil, or business, needs to be able to formulate and clearly articulate his vision.

 

Bill's marathon speeches (Inaguration 1, Inaguration 2, and seven States of the Union) failed the "clear articulation" test.

 

Give us an idea we can wrap our hands, heads, and hearts around. Use other communication tools to state the various elements which turn the vision to the reality.

 

For everyone else: I HAVE VOTED (838AM Central). HAVE YOU?

[Lisabob 13]

I'm obviously not FB. Here are some statistics from the US Census Bureau though, with regard to health insurance coverage from 2002-2005. All of this information comes from the following sources, which you are welcome to check out for yourself:

 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin05/hlth05asc.html (2004/2005 data)

 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin03/hlth03asc.html (2002/2003 data)

 

# of people with health insurance coverage:

2002 242.3 million

2003 243.3 million

2004 245.9 million

2005 247.3 million

 

# of people without health insurance coverage:

2002 43.6 million

2003 45 million

2004 45.3 million

2005 46.4 million

 

% of people with employer-based health insurance coverage:

2002 61.3%

2003 60.4%

2004 59.8%

2005 59.5%

 

% of children without health insurance coverage:

2002 11.4%

2003 11.4%

2004 10.8%

2005 11.2%

 

% of children living in poverty who do not have health insurance coverage:

 

2003 19.2%

2005 19%

 

(sorry, I don't have #s for 2002 and 2004)

 

What all of this suggests to me is that although FB is incorrect when he says that half of Americans don't have health insurance, there is a considerable problem with insurance in this country. The trend is for a rising # (and % by the way, although it isn't always reported that way so for the sake of consistency I used #s in the first two estimates provided above instead) of Americans to not have insurance, and also for a declining % of Americans to get their insurance through their employer. Most analysts expect both of those trends to continue.

 

Barry, the problem with looking at who has health insurance vs. who gets emergency care is that you are comparing apples and oranges. Hospitals are mandated to provide emergency care to all. And a lot of people who don't have health insurance still go to the doctor but they must pay out of pocket for it. Many studies show that people without insurance are therefore more likely to postpone medical care until their problem becomes severe, because they want to avoid the 100% out of pocket expense. This ends up being economically inefficient in the long run, both for individuals and for society as a whole. (Not to mention, it results in higher mortality and long-term medical complications because diseases that could be cured or managed relatively easily early on are let go until it is much harder or impossible to treat them.) So the question isn't, do people get some kind of coverage at some point (particularly re: emergency care). The question is really, who has insurance and how does having or not having insurance shape the way people use medical care?

 

Lisa'bob

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

BrentAllen writes:

We haven't been attacked by terrorists since 9/11

 

Not true. The still-unsolved anthrax attacks were just one week later.

 

As for 9/11, where's Osama bin Laden, anyway? Why isn't Bush interested in capturing a known terrorist responsible for killing thousands of Americans?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

"And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

 

Live free or Diebold

[BrentAllen 10]

Sorry, Lisa, but I just can't respect a man who walks out of church on Easter Sunday with his wife, Bible in hand, and then heads over to the Oval Office to play "Drop the Trousers" and "Hide the Cigar" with an employee. Let's throw in the finger-wagging lie to the country, as well.

 

Albright? Madeline "Neville Chamberlain" Albright? Who met with and got fooled by Kim Jong-iL? "The North Koreans cheated on our agreement..." If you say so...

 

I don't know much about the rest, except for the media frenzy around Obama. I still haven't heard how they make anyone feel good about themselves or the country. All I hear is how bad everything is. Where is their positive message? Their uplifting thoughts about this great country we live in? All I hear is what Fuzzy posted - negative, negative, negative.

 

Lisa,

There are plenty of health care options for those without insurance. Primary Health Care Centers provide both primary and preventive care to those without insurance.

From the US Department of Health and Human Services web page:

http://bphc.hrsa.gov/

What is a Health Center?

 

HRSA Bureau of Primary Health Care-supported Health Centers are a major component of America's health care safety net, the Nation's "system" of providing health care to low-income and other vulnerable populations.

 

Health Centers care for people regardless of their ability to pay and whether or not they have health insurance. They provide primary and preventive health care, as well as services such as transportation and translation. Many Health Centers also offer dental, mental health and substance abuse care.

 

Health Centers cared for 13.1 million people in 2004, the most recent year for which data are available. The HRSA Bureau of Primary Health Care funds 1,000 Health Centers

 

Merlyn,

Thank you for pointing out the sad condition of the Democrat party. You, along with others on the left, are forced to pull single sentences out of context to attack Bush. Do you see how ridiculous that makes you look? Is that the best you can do - twist single sentences around into such a knot that they are the opposite of what was actually said? I really feel sorry for you guys.

 

Here is what Bush actually said:

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

 

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

 

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

 

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

 

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

 

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

 

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

 

And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

 

[Hunt 11]

BrentAllen writes:

We haven't been attacked by terrorists since 9/11

 

Furthermore, haven't we been told repeatedly that the insurgents killing US troops on an almost daily basis in Iraq and Afghanistan are terrorists?

 

I think perhaps what Brent doesn't get is that Bush and has crew don't make many Americans feel good about themselves or their country, but the contrary--they make me feel disgusted and ashamed. Clinton was no saint, but compared to Bush he's a superstar. I can understand how Republicans are nostalgic for Reagan, who did have a peculiar ability to make people feel good. But Bush has been a divider from the beginning, and to my mind, lacks the qualities that Reagan possessed.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

BrentAllen writes:

You, along with others on the left, are forced to pull single

sentences out of context to attack Bush. Do you see how ridiculous

that makes you look? Is that the best you can do - twist single

sentences around into such a knot that they are the opposite of what

was actually said? I really feel sorry for you guys.

 

Bush said exactly what I quoted, and the meaning in context is the same. He wasn't interested in finding Osama bin Laden way back in 2002, and there certainly hasn't been much effort expended on capturing someone responsible for killing thousands of Americans. Why?

 

And how does that make Bush look? How did he look doing nothing while the 9/11 attacks were ongoing?

[BrentAllen 10]

Well, Hunt, I guess you have a point there - a clearly ridiculous one, but a point, none the less.

If you consider, in your view, while going after the terrorists in a war, any attacks made against our soldiers are terrorist attacks, then I guess you are correct. I would say that is about as important as the price of eggs in China. To prevent terrorist attacks against us, I'm guessing you would propose we never go after the terrorists? Or have you figured out a way to kill them without putting our soldiers risk?

 

Sadly, I have come to realize the Democrats want us to lose the war in Iraq just so they can gain political power. They want our troops to fail so they can attack Bush. There are plenty of successes in Iraq, but you will never hear about them from the Democrats.

 

[evmori 11]

Yeah the House & Senate do vote on party lines most of the time. Still, if we all voted for the best candidate regardless of party, maybe just maybe this would change. I have been a registered Democrat since I turned 18 and I have always voted for the candidate I felt would doe the best job. If we all did, we could make a difference. Voting for a candidate based on party only helps strengthen the misguided system that is currently in place.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10