Kerry Shot in the Foot

[johnc]

I can't believe how badly the DNC and the Kerry campaign has screwed up:

 

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004/09/why-is-this-man-laughing-grimacing.html

[tannji]

That is incredible. There are serious issues with both candidates.... plenty of legitimate things to talk about and spin... and they had to manufacture that. I heard one almost better tho.... Kerry's wife telling a reporter here in Iowa that the Russian hostage situation was staged, that it was a strategic maneuver by the Bush crew to gain points in his strong suit. Kerry's wife developed "stomach problems" a couple hours later and went home. I doubt we will hear anything other than platitudes from her the rest of the campaign.

[Pop N Wood]

Try again. From

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5956557/

 

In a comment Thursday, Teresa Heinz Kerry seemed to reflect Democratic frustration that Kerry’s ideas are not yet winning acceptance. Touting her husband’s health insurance proposal she said, “Only an idiot wouldn't like this. Of course, there are idiots."

[tannji]

That would by definition be a platitude, lol. Good to see she is not disappointing me. Just wish I could be more confident Bush is learning from HIS mistakes.

[Guest Phil1934]

As I said about Nam. I DON'T CARE! We've talked the '60's to death so now we are going to talk about the talk. Meanwhile health care is climbing at double digit inflation and the budget is in free fall. The RNC might as well have been a Kerry roast as little else was discussed. And he's been the biggest non-candidate ever. Can anyone recall anything he said noteworthy? Any memorable moments? Or just him skiing and wind surfing? For all the veteran politicians in DC, I'm surprised no one's bitch slapped him and said "Wake up." I liked Dean, but Hannity and all played a few whoops and called him crazy for weeks until his chances dwindled. Must we leave campaigns to those with absolutely no personality? I think so, as the attack machine starts long before they even consider running. Take Hillary. Republican voters absolutely hate her, but why? I've been told she dared to try reforming health care. How dare Nancy deal with drugs or Barbara and Laura with illiteracy. On the other side Bush isn't exactly the life of the party. Mayber if we dealt with issues and not mud slinging we could get someone we could get behind instead of the lesser of two...

[JMortensen]

Take Hillary. Republican voters absolutely hate her, but why? I've been told she dared to try reforming health care. How dare Nancy deal with drugs or Barbara and Laura with illiteracy. On the other side Bush isn't exactly the life of the party.

 

Public education and the war on drugs are already in the govt's charge, like it or not.

 

Health care is increasingly in the govts charge, but there are those of us who look at the public education and war on drugs and think that the govt shouldn't be in charge of health care. Those are the people who hate Hillary's policies. I am one of them.

 

I'm not accusing you of this Phil, but it always amazes me when people talk about how crappy the govt is then in the same breath tell you how they want to expand its powers.

 

I don't care about Nam either, but forging documents to slander your opponent? That's almost Watergate-ish.

[Guest Phil1934]

Maybe W forged them so the Dems can't talk and score a black eye. I don't like increased gov't if it involves the sort of civil rights losses we've had in the last few years. But to be one of the few industrialized nations to leave health care up to its citizens and employers is sort of backward? Not all of us are born healthy. What do you tell the others? Or just hide them away like the Communist countries do? And if we want more people to ride mass transit, why isn't it free? And why does gov't provide "free" education to 12th grade and then expect you to shell out over $100K if you want more? In the mean time the money spent on the Cold War would have bought EVERYTHING in this country but the land. Ponder that for a bit.

[SportZ2]

If this turns out to be true (and anyone that uses a computer can tell), Kerry is toast by next Monday. This has nothing to do with 30 years ago and everything to do with what a campaign is willing to do to try and win.

 

The guy on 60 minutes is a part of the Kerry campaign and that is where this will ultimately bring Kerry down. I would hate to see it end this way.

 

Sorry Phil, but I find it odd that a couple of weeks ago in another post you were complaining about the smear campaign that the republicans were doing and now you want to get back to the issues. Sounds alot like what Kerry's people told him to do after the failed attempt of using a 30+ year old war as part of his campaign. And now for some god for saken reason, they brought it back to the forefront only after a couple of days. I'm willing to bet any one on this forum could run his campaign better than how it's being run right now.

 

It's sad to watch just how stupid this presidential race has gotten

[Guest Phil1934]

What i said was"Today he said he would not have his commitment to defend this country questioned. I say about time. But as I have said Nam is not a big issue with me... it's time to steer the campaign instead of staying on the defensive." I did't object to the smear, only Kerry's inaction about everything.

 

We used to complain about politicians not keeping their campaign promises, but they don't even make any anymore. Do you know where either candidate stands on the issues (with the exception of Bush and terrorism) other than they would like things to be better? We keep hearing the work ethic and spirit of America will fix the economy, the joblessness, etc. But it's already too late. Even with a group of Z enthusiasts, do you think a car club with everyone pitching in on each other's cars would work? No. We've lost sight of what we could become by working together. Instead of the candidates one upping each others plans, they tear them down I see the Federal government taking on projects too big for states like supplying water to the West Coast, making a new passenger rail in the New England area, etc. If it can be handled at the local level, it should be. The Feds just need to ensure each state maintains a cer5tain standard.

[Guest bluex_v1]

Take Hillary. Republican voters absolutely hate her, but why?

Simple. Because she is a socialist.

There are still plenty of people in this country that want it to remain the one nation in the world that is the most free. Where its people are not allowed, but garanteed the right to make decisions on how to live their own lives. You can move to almost any European country and be taken care of by a government. If the US succumbs to this far reaching model of government as service provider (rather than an entity designed to protect its citizens from rights violations by other humans, as was originally intended) there will be no other place for these people who would prefer freedom over security. What the hell are the rest of us supposed to do? Its incredibly selfish to force a healthcare system on the citizens that don't want it. It is a violation of our rights.

[Guest Phil1934]

And how dare they force paved roads and sewer systems on us? I say they should just take half our money and leave us alone.

[JMortensen]

Now you're talking, except we should keep more than 1/2 and they should leave us alone.

[Guest bluex_v1]

And how dare they force paved roads and sewer systems on us? I say they should just take half our money and leave us alone.

 

Not a bad point, but there is a pretty serious difference: My life is not threatened if I choose to drive my car on a private track or in my own yard instead of the public roads. I am still free to make that choice. To drag this analogy out, 'HillaryCare' would be equivalent to the gov't forcing me to drive my car on a poorly maintained, congested, slow moving, decaying-because-there-is-no-incentive-to-get-in-the-business-of-maintaining-it, dilapidated roadway that is built on a mountain side with frequent fatal avalanches and rock slides.

 

I did type "...the most free." In an ideal country, roads and sewers would be provided reliably by the free market...but even so, those things (with the exception of the federal subsidies) aren't things that can be argued to be in conflict with the US constitution, because they occur at state and local levels.

[Guest Phil1934]

The same blind hatred for Hillary extends to a gov't health care system. The Republicans have done their job. You equate it to a dilapidated roadway that is built on a mountain side with frequent fatal avalanches and rock slides. Yet every day you cross bridges and don't wonder if they will support you. (40% are in need of replacement, but we have to fix all the bridges in Iraq first.) You assumption that the gov't would mess that up but is capable of supplying you with clean water or educating your children or even converting a Muslim anarchy into a shining symbol of democracy is a glaring contradiction. Why do you assume that gov't health care is worse than employers shelling out thousands per employee in insurance and gov't mandated workman's comp? And as in my case, if I'm the only one paying a living wage with benefits and W.C while the rest of the industry is hiring Mexicans off the street corners, the disparity is too large to be overcome. Looking at it on a global scale, we accuse the other nations of dumping because their industries are gov't subsidized. But no one asks the hard questions of how? Do they save ins. premiums with managed health care? Pensions with gov't ones? We keep hearing "by doing nothing we are giving you the most wide open option possible." Maybe that's what the merchant and the priest told the man left on the road to Samaria.

[Chaparral2f]

Phil1934

Georgie has a plan for universal health care: he's going to issue forged canadian passports all of us. it must be true, I heard it on the Chapelle show.

[Guest Phil1934]

I was thinking of stocking up on Canadian meds before they outlaw them.

[Pop N Wood]

...and gov't mandated workman's comp? ...

 

In my opinion you answered your own question. Workman's comp is an absolutely classic example of how the government turns good intentions into a horrendous nightmare.

 

Have the government provide a service as an act of charity. Before long, people start to view it as a "right" then something they are owed. Other people will work an angle, feeling no remorse at fleecing the "system". Politicians and courts get involved, ostensibly to protect people's "rights" and "fair share". The system grows, as does the bureaucracy needed to manage all the competing interest placed upon it. And before you know it, you need to hire a lawyer simply to talk to your doctor about your carpal tendon syndrome. Once you talk to the lawyer, he sues the government, gets you declared “disabledâ€, and viola! You no longer need to work!

 

Not mindless paranoia on my part but a very brief summary of my mother in law’s current life.

 

We are far from backwards in health care. When I see all of the Arab people arriving at Johns Hopkins in Mercedes for cancer treatment just confirms to me that we have the best health care system in the world. These people can afford to go anywhere, and their life depends upon it, so why do they come here?

 

And if we want more people to ride mass transit, why isn't it free?

 

Because nothing is free. Everything costs money. The only question is who’s pocket is it going to come from?

 

Who was the pundit that said “if you think health care is expensive now, wait until it is free…�

 

I want to take care of Americans also. I understand the “hidden†costs of the uninsured are simply passed on by the hospitals to everyone who can afford to pay. But you have to look at the whole problem and be realistic about what you can accomplish.

 

Hillary is my worst nightmare in a politician. Some elitist who quite simply put believes she knows what is right for me better than I do myself. Why would any one be for someone so stupid as to believe her lying, philandering husbands problems are all the result of a “vast, right wing conspiracy� Do you really want someone with such poor judgment representing you in congress?

[Guest Phil1934]

Congress Hell. I'm waiting for her run at the Presidency. It is interesting after a $40 million probe into Whitewater, they then asked and received permission to redirect the questioning into Bill's philandering. That's an example of party bickering run amok. As to the cost of supplying the electorate with benefits, punch up any site on the annual deficit and look at the numbers. If it's not going to us, where is it going? Admittedly we've made multi-millionaires of everyone associated with politics, but there's not that many of them. Do we really need billion dollar stealth bomber programs when any plane after dark is a stealth bomber to the countries we've bombed? There is talk of building a new Savannah River Plant to resupply our atomic weapon industry. We've used two and generated a massive clean up problem. They are trying now to reclassify all the radioactive liquids there as less radioactive so they can bury them in place. These sort of things are our main expense, but return nothing to the electorate. Admittedly we need defense, but it's a bloated industry of $600 toilet seats.

[Pop N Wood]

Congress Hell. I'm waiting for her run at the Presidency. It is interesting after a $40 million probe into Whitewater, they then asked and received permission to redirect the questioning into Bill's philandering. That's an example of party bickering run amok. As to the cost of supplying the electorate with benefits, punch up any site on the annual deficit and look at the numbers. If it's not going to us, where is it going? Admittedly we've made multi-millionaires of everyone associated with politics, but there's not that many of them. Do we really need billion dollar stealth bomber programs when any plane after dark is a stealth bomber to the countries we've bombed? There is talk of building a new Savannah River Plant to resupply our atomic weapon industry. We've used two and generated a massive clean up problem. They are trying now to reclassify all the radioactive liquids there as less radioactive so they can bury them in place. These sort of things are our main expense, but return nothing to the electorate. Admittedly we need defense, but it's a bloated industry of $600 toilet seats.

 

So why in God's name do you want the government involved in your health care?

[tannji]

We are far from backwards in health care. When I see all of the Arab people arriving at Johns Hopkins in Mercedes for cancer treatment just confirms to me that we have the best health care system in the world.

 

Little error there.... We certainly have the best Health Care in the world, but 40% of us cant afford it. The health care SYSTEM leaves a lot to be desired. Also, the cost of healthcare is not driven mostly by the uninsured, but is greatly influenced by both malpractice lawsuits, and over-zealous profiteering by the companies that make the products for health care.

 

Additionally, several of those worthless stealth planes have been shot down..... the same planes that sounded the death knell in the Soviet Unions hopes for Communism. I remember atomic shelters and the duck&cover, and served in the military towards the end of the cold war. We have been trimming military spending ever since. Some of the people in the field right now might have an opinion on whether or not the stealth technology that supports them is necessary or beneficial.