In a recent blog post, the discussion has been about holding Barack Obama accountable for an unfortunate sentence in a 14-page bill that he supported in the 1990s, a sentence that seemed to promote "comprehensive sex education" for children as young as Kindergarten, but was countered by more careful wording in the rest of the bill that called for "age and development appropriate" curriculum.
If we are going to hold candidates accountable, let's look at more recent words. Here are some of McCain's in the September/October 2008 edition of Contingencies, where he writes:
"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."
He concludes the same paragraph with:
"Nationwide insurance markets that ensure broad and vigorous competition will wring out excess costs, overhead and bloated executive compensation."
Hmmmm. Is that so? Unfettered competition sure has done a lot to wring out bloated executive compensation in other industries, hasn't it, John?
But, hey, don't trust my word on his policy. Go read the article yourself:
http://www.contingencies.org/septoct08/mccain.pdf
You can tell it's McCain talking, or a paid minion, because he twice calls us "my friends." Among the scary concepts you will read -- a $5,000 tax break for all families, regardless of how wealthy, to pay for health insurance. While this sounds loverly on the surface, especially if you need that $5,000, please remember that every time you read the words "tax subsidy . . . regardless of one's income" you need to hear the sound "ca-ching," because it means we're taking out another cash advance on the Credit Card of the Bank of China and throwing the money at wealthy people. Note that the Republicans would have this credit card (a.k.a. the national debt) repaid by our children and grand children. They hope to make W's tax breaks for the wealthy "permanent." And remember too, that a $5,000 tax credit is meaningless for someone who is so poor that they aren't paying $5,000 in taxes to begin with. And finally, remember that every $5,000 subsidy that a wealthy person receives for health care is another 5 grand that won't go to public education or another area we may think needs support.
Hear "ca-ching" again when he talks about expanding support for the guaranteed access plan, with no apparent funding mechanism.
In the subsection "Transforming Medical Practice," it sounds like he is suggesting an HMO-type system, "paying for coordinated care and prevention," though, honestly, it's vague. If it is HMOs he's suggesting, but under a different name, we should remember they didn't work when we Dems launched them. How will they work better now?
Ca-ching, again, when he proposes "incentives to strengthen the business model for investment in health information technology (HIT)." Republicans love to say you don't solve problems by throwing money at them, but they sure do love throwing money at CEOs who are following a "business model," especially when that money comes from the credit card of the Bank of China, which our children will repay.
In the third to final paragraph, he finally suggests something that would seem to pay, in part, for this expensive plan, but, in fact, it's even more scary than everything else he has proposed. He's gonna make sure that doctors and hospitals are protected from you filing "frivolous lawsuits." If your doctor dotted his i's and crossed his t's and followed "best practices," (not necessarily most complete practices) you won't be able to sue if you have the wrong organ removed. Even if you are able to sue, the doctor will be protected from a jury of peers awarding you a fair settlement because McCain will protect your doctor from "excessive damage awards." Republicans love to give the Reader's Digest condensed summary of lawsuits to make them appear unreasonable and excessive, when, in fact, most of the time judges mitigate the damages after a jury makes an award, or an appeal otherwise prevents the dreaded "excess." But McCain will take discretion away from judges and the system of due process, and give doctors carte blanche to screw up without, dare I say it, taking "personal responsibility."
"Personal responsibility," ironically, is the topic of his final subsection, where he blames political correctness, not the No Child Left Behind Act, for squeezing nutrition and physical education out of the public schools.
Read and weep, my friends, my friends, but especially read between the lines. Hold McCain responsible for his words and don't make him CEO of this fine nation.
Debra Sapp-Yarwood, Midwest Voices '08









Delicious
Digg
I googled
Google gave me this link from 2006 where Kerry's talking about wiretaps.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Politics/story?id=1530799
Can't you simply give me your source yourself so we don't have to play "go fishing" games?
Google it--
Google John Kerry 2008 interview with ABC. I'm guessing you want to do the whole semantics argument thing as far as what "universal" means, which is your right. But I'm not buying it. The Congress, especially a Dem controlled one, will not tackle health care for all--look at how they bent over for Bush on the SCHIP issue.
Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" is another example of no balls. Would you like me to provide more?
And for the other comment---the Dems already have the center in their rear view mirror, so I would question whether or not Obama gets to the right faster than McCain.
Got anything else?
Truth squad miscellaney
Chazzy, here's my promise, as the election continues to unfold and the truth squads left and right (thank you, Pilon) work their strategies, I will try to keep a critical (if left-wandering) eye.
At this point I don't have the time to do the research to give you a good answer. Your points one and two were not readily apparent from the materials you provided in your original post. Please don't take that as encouragement to provide proof and footnotes at this time. I, er, need to actually attend to my real life right now. The virtual has intruded too long.
Oh, and I responded to your last post in the George Will thread. No need for further response on your part. The question at the end may be taken as rhetorical.
Let's keep it fair and balanced, hem hem
I personally don't see this as anything more than surrounding the entrance to a venue with protestors with their arms linked. However, let's note the following, from
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080927/BLOGS09/80927018
"Frank Donatelli, deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee, held a conference call with reporters Saturday morning while touring the state’s offices for GOP presidential candidate John McCain.
In a telephone interview with the News-Leader, Donatelli admitted the Democratic prosecutors “haven’t specifically said” they would use their prosecutorial powers on Obama’s behalf.
“I don’t think you have to use the power. I think if you just call out somebody and you have the power, you’ve made your point,” Donatelli told the News-Leader. “It’s not that you have to prosecute a guy, but people think you might.”
Donatelli said prosecutors don’t normally join campaign truth squads because their mere presence as a campaign attack dog “has a chilling affect on people’s rights of free speech.”
But a review of McCain’s own truth squads shows he has a district attorney from New Mexico and the South Carolina attorney general ready to respond to misleading ads from Obama and Democrats in their respective states."
Debra
First, thank you for that which you display: (my prism here) unusual, uniquely civil liberal perspectives absent the one way hypocrisy I attribute to most of your political persuasion.
Allow me to focus on what I believe distinguishes the "truth squad" from the standard conteporary levels of acceptable (repulsive) campaign behavior. 1) They proactively PRECEDE open discussions with threats and intimidating vitriol designed to stop free expression. They call people deceitful liars before they have opened their mouths. 2) They do so hypocritically even as their partisans practice exactly the same behavior that they are attempting to inhibit. My personal belief is that the behavior of the Truth Squad is perilously close to the activities and behavior of the gestapo. I find it to be over the line.
I begrudgingly accept the deplorable standards of gutter sniping that both of the candidates are displaying in this cycle. I reject them philosophically but I, like you, am powerless in my efforts to stop them. My sense is that you would also aspire to a higher level of comportment.
let me be clear: I accept and agree that each should have, in fact do have access to the legal system as a method of retribution when lines are inexorably crossed.
You reveal yourself and your acceptance of some liberal dogma a bit when you excoriate Corsi's writing having obviously never read any.( Its Jerome, not Richard) He is a scum bag of the first order BUT he had little to do with the "swift boat" book other than editing and footnoting....which, if you research Corsi, is where he really gets himself in trouble. John O'Neill was the source of, and true writer of the book
I sought out and have spoken with Mr O'Neill on two occaisons and personally found him to be an unlikely fabricator and an affable and forthright guy. (I say that as a Nam vet and protestor at the time of Kerry's eloquent testimony before congress in '71) (Surprised that I was once a lib?)
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, regarding the issue of media bias and the future of media in general: You state that the conservatives have their own TV network (FOX) and a clear dominance of AM radio. What you left unsaid is that your side has 4 TV networks ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC and over 90% of the print media. I reluctantly accept that imbalance, but take significant exception to your sides unwillingness to leave it there.
Whatever percentage of media dominance the libs enjoy (I would suggest that it is between 65 and 80%) it not enough. They are anxious to forward the "Fairness Doctrine" which I perceive as a legislative effort to completely eliminate any semblance of media fairness. That also I fear, like the truth squad, are attempting to eliminate any public access to the non liberal perspective.
jenniferm
would you please provide evidence for your claim? Thanks.
And so obviously your solution is...
...to run even faster to the right so you get there first. Gotcha.
It isn't on the table....
...because the DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY said so and therefore they have already caved on the issue to the GOP. Like all other former Democratic causes out there--the Democratic Party has chosen to run to the right rather than fight for what is right.
I pointed out the conflation you're making
between universal healthcare and universal insurance coverage.
There's a distinction between the types of universal government run healthcare system we see in the UK (which, as I pointed out, isn't on the table), and making certain that all Americans have access to affordable health insurance plans, which Senator Obama supports and Senator McCain opposes.
Obama's not
...in favor of universal health care--you said so yourself awhile back. Now if you are looking to change the meaning of "universal" coverage, that's your prerogative. Not sure what Obama's position is, because he seems to alter it based on his audience.