RE: Sarah Palin

I didn't expect you to budge, but thanks for humoring me with a reply anyway (ok, sometimes I do want closure in a debate when I don't think I will be sucked in for hours. I've broken that habit fortunately).

My final point is:

You are still avoiding the real "crux" of our little debate (or at least the point that *I* called you out on, not your overall theme of "the american people disapprove of the majority of Obama's recent moves).

Again, I called you out most specifically on your contention that there is no support for the public option. I've certainly backed up my counterpoint that you are just wrong on that. And you keep coming back with: the american people SHOULD not support the public option because there WILL be negative ramifications. That is all fine and well that that is your theory, but you don't know for sure what the result of the public option will be.

Obviously many people think there will be positive results from the public option. What if the question was worded:" if the public option results in lower insurance costs due to competition for everyone, do you support it?" There would be overwhelming support. So it is silly to tack on a "what if" to the question since there is no consensus on what all the long term ramifications of a public option will be.

When the question is simply worded: " DO YOU SUPPORT A GOV'T RUN INSURANCE OPTION ? ", the data from BOTH CNN & Rasmussen is clear: there IS significant support.

You stated otherwise. You were wrong.

If you so desperately need me to be wrong, than in the interest of graciousness, you can have it.

I wasn't, nor am I currently, equivocating here. I, like most of the American public, think about this bill in TOTALITY and within the context of what probable ramifications will be based on historical precedent (just look at how far over budget medicare and medicaid are, despite their "efficiency"), the fact that current CBO estimates employee financial shenanigans that put liabilities off into the future (where have we've seen this film before?) and don't take into account liabilities already on the books, and within the context of the trajectory of the debt and its downstream and deleterious impacts on the economy.

And when I wrap my brain around all of this, I think it a more pertinent question to ask about the public option WITHIN the context of its concomitant ramifications and potential impact on the system as a whole. And when you do that, most Americans are opposed to the public option. Asking a generic question about whether or not one favors a public option is a meaningless inquiry (We already have medicaid, do we not?). That's the way I was thinking about it when I teed this up.

What's interesting, and I'm going to link to Gallup here, because, as much as I don't think much of Gallup, it was you favorite poll when you were in (and continue to exist in) "Fukk you G.W. mode," is that the majority of Americans no longer favor government involvement in healthcare at all. Particularly notable are the independents. If this isn't a tell that Congress should be listening too and not merely trying to pass an agenda before the next election cycle ensues (a strategy employed by both parties to be sure) and the window of capital attraction closes, I don't know what is.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124253/Say-Health-Coverage-Not-Gov-Responsibility.aspx

"The reason behind this shift is unknown. Certainly the federal government's role in the nation's healthcare system has been widely and vigorously debated over the last several months, including much focus on the "public option." These data suggest that one result of the debate has been a net decrease in Americans' agreement that ensuring all Americans have healthcare coverage is an appropriate role for the federal government."

*we

*to

This site sucks.

Sagarin wrote:

*we

*to

This site sucks.

don't forget *then ;)

... and yes, it would be nice to have an "edit post" function to quell the grammar Nazis. Including me.

Yes, i frequently interchange than and then... but whatever. this site simply needs a post-post editing tool. frankly, i type fast, as do most, and, generally, don't care to go back and correct, which is irresponsible and presents a bad image maybe, but, like most, we're all juggling three things at once. and we would all do well to spend less time here.

Even though I dont agree with right-wingers, I do listen to talk radio. One of the things that make me laugh is when I hear Rush and Sean say that Dems are scared of Sarah Palin. I know they are paid to spout bullshit out of their mouth, but that is beyond stupid. You can bet that Barak Obama is PRAYING EVERY NIGHT THAT HE HAS TO RUN AGAINST PALIN. It wouldn't even be close.

I know you teabaggers and birthers dont like Obama, but do you honestly think Sarah Palin can be the leader of the FREE WORLD. I dont think so. I dont think you beleive that either.

Palin 2012, Palin 2012!!!!! A Democrats Dream.

Picayune wrote:

Whatever intrigue she has for some people certainly has to nothing to do with her achievements, which are scant, nor to her clearly delineated stances on issues, which in many cases don't even exist. Her "followers" also seem to be willing to overlook a level of family dysfunction that they usually condemn out of hand.

A level of family dysfunction? That's a joke. The media have portrayed it as the ultimate hillbilly nightmare, where in actuality there is little to no real "dysfunction" that virtually every family in the U.S. today isn't well accustomed to. What we're talking about is her teen aged daughter having a child out of wedlock. I would venture to say that, literally, everyone in our country knows someone, either in their own family or a friend's, who has done this. I would also submit that most of her "followers" as you call them, would in no way condemn that so-called dysfunction out of hand, and probably are no strangers to it.

I will admit that I don't particularly enjoy the fact that she doesn't enunciate "ing" at the end of her words, but that hardly justifies the blatant and utterly hypocritical sexism that has been thrown at her from our so-called media. What hypocrites. They're all for minorities and women... just so long as they don't stray from the party line. Otherwise, they're dead meat. See Clarence Thomas as just one glaring example of this phenomenon.

Nouli wrote:

... What hypocrites. They're all for minorities and women... just so long as they don't stray from the party line. Otherwise, they're dead meat.

one of the most accurate posts ever on letsrun.

Al Sharpton wrote:

Even though I dont agree with right-wingers, I do listen to talk radio. One of the things that make me laugh is when I hear Rush and Sean say that Dems are scared of Sarah Palin. I know they are paid to spout bullshit out of their mouth, but that is beyond stupid. You can bet that Barak Obama is PRAYING EVERY NIGHT THAT HE HAS TO RUN AGAINST PALIN. It wouldn't even be close.

I know you teabaggers and birthers dont like Obama, but do you honestly think Sarah Palin can be the leader of the FREE WORLD. I dont think so. I dont think you beleive that either.

Palin 2012, Palin 2012!!!!! A Democrats Dream.

You really think that Obama will be re-elected? Wow you're really drinking that kool aid. Regardless of who he runs against he will lose. Americans have ZERO confidence in that jabroni. No jobs, no tax cuts, nothing! Just bigger deficit and more spending.

He will lose guaranteed! Bookmark this thread and set up a pay pal account and I'll give you $200 if he gets re-elected and you give me $50 if he doesn't! Put your money where your mouth is chimp!

EDIT: Chump not chimp

Nouli wrote:

... What hypocrites. They're all for minorities and women... just so long as they don't stray from the party line. Otherwise, they're dead meat.

Really? Seems like the media loves Colin Powell, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, for example.

and if polling were around in the 1850's a large majority would have supported slavery as an institution. we elect people to make hard decisions that are in the best interest of the nation not listen to babbling pollsters

1 term is all yohmamma will get once he announces next week the continuation of genocide in the middle east. it will split the dem popular vote down the middle. the anti-genocide dems thought obama was about civil rights being 1/2 black, but it turns out that he is a house negro and a sellout and will even demonize the mostly caucasian blooded afghans to satisfy his need for blood.

BL Z Bub.. wrote:

and if polling were around in the 1850's a large majority would have supported slavery as an institution. we elect people to make hard decisions that are in the best interest of the nation not listen to babbling pollsters

I wholeheartedly agree actually (polls are only useful as exponential moving averages in election cycles anyway, and, frankly, too heavily influenced by the media now), so isn't it a shame that the current crop of politicians that we elected in the "fukk you Bush" vote are doing just the opposite and capitalizing on political capital while squandering capital capital, despite our shrinking latitude with regard to how it should be deployed to serve the economic and energy interests of this country.

FWIW, Bush did this too. It's a shame we didn't actually elect the "anti-Bush," in terms of fiscal responsibility and adhering to the constitution.

As I said, we are no longer a Republic, nor united. And it's only going to get worse. The perfect storm is NOT behind us.

Obama will not lose the next election unless more lies and propaganda is attempted "successfully." It WON'T be successful...

This IS part of Obama's 2012 campaign...

*Over 80 million people are medical debt. (Note: 120 million voted in 08' Hmmm?)

*49% of the homes that were foreclosed in 2008 placed blame on medical expenses. (Note: nearly 3 million foreclosures)

*46 million people are currently uninsured. This doesn't include the poor coverages. (Note: Guess who's voice will be heard again next election?)

* The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country. (This plan will actually allow us to spend less, and do MUCH more!)

*Private Health care does nothing but make owners administrators rich. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. (Note: Medicare spends 3% on administration).

Republican's can keep believing that universal health care is some horrible attempt at government takeover, rather than a necessary service to all American's. The rich can still go pick their favorites just like our public and private school system... Optional educational and health care providers should not be based on your income, it should be a right to all American citizens. It's too bad you republican's have your nose stuck so high in the air to realize that this would benefit YOU much more than the taxes you will be paying...

5 of my neighbors with McCain/Palin signs no longer live on my street. I guess foreclosures and bills aren't just a liberal problem... I think they could have used universal health care...

Sagarin wrote:

FWIW, Bush did this too. It's a shame we didn't actually elect the "anti-Bush," in terms of fiscal responsibility and adhering to the constitution.

As I said, we are no longer a Republic, nor united. And it's only going to get worse. The perfect storm is NOT behind us.

Who would be your perfect candidate? Who has all the answers to make America a united republic? Good luck getting 3% of the votes! This country started out screwed up and it's going to end screwed up because American politics is one of the worst in the world. Just find your side and stick to it I guess... If you're still hoping for that 3rd party candidate to change things. STOP WASTING YOUR TIME!

The constitution outdated itself long before we got to this point. Remember when the constitution said slavery was constitutional? Screw the constitution, and say yes to actually doing what's best for American citizens.

Mr. Price wrote:

gamecock wrote: He is the least-prepared US president in a century, yet we're told over and over that it's OK because he's so brilliant. But it's entirely possible that he is actually a guy who, while smart, has benefitted from a great deal of luck and good political sense.

I thought about this for a while, and while I don't want to dig up an old discussion I think you are off in one respect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy

Looking back, he's a white Obama with more connections and richer parents. Carter, Clinton, and Bush II weren't really much ahead of the curve either.

I've said that many times over. Although JFK did have more time in the congress than Obama, as well as executive experience as a naval officer on PT-109. The similarities are eerie, right down to the authorship of their books (although I think it's far more likely that Obama wrote his than JFK really wrote Profiles In Courage). Both are/were personally very charismatic, and project(ed) a mystique that transcends their actual policy accomplishments. One of my favorite historical "what if" questions regards JFK not going to Dallas, and having to be president in the tumultuous years of 64-68. I doubt very seriously that in that scenario he would be the guy on the half-dollar.

As for the other three, Clinton (Rhodes Scholar) and to a lesser extent, Carter (top 10% at Annapolis) really were as smart as advertised, and Bush never claimed to be. But all three were governors, which in my book is more relevant experience to the presidency than legislating.

All that said, I will undercut my own argument by admitting up front that neither the best preparation nor the highest intelligence are guarantees of success (probably the guy with the best combination of the two in modern times was Nixon). And our best president ever may be Lincoln, who neither had a degree, nor hardly any experience in politics.

My only point was, and continues to be, that the arguments used repeatedly that Palin is woefully unqualified to be president or even vice-president are not applied consistently and honestly to Obama. We assume that he is far smarter based on pretty superficial evidence and ignore his very thin resume. I don't want to trade them out, I'm just still waiting for someone (anyone?) to admit that it's even remotely possible that our emperor has no clothes

gamecock wrote:

I don't want to trade them out, I'm just still waiting for someone (anyone?) to admit that it's even remotely possible that our emperor has no clothes

Finally, SOMEONE ELSE said it. My work here is done.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.