Speaking of hypocrisy...

Orrin Hatch: Republicans Will Use Reconciliation To Repeal Obamacare

You guys have heard of the Republican Party , yes? Not sure why this type of hypocrisy surprises you.

Lol. Did you just realize this about him?

Because this is a situation that requires people to avoid making it personal. I'm not opposed to that person receiving care at all. I'm 100% behind finding a way to make that happen. With that said, I don't think the current option is the right one.

You can be reasonable while still being compassionate. Let's just say this moves forward and we follow the plan currently laid out by this law. If this health care law goes south and becomes a further anchor to our mounting debt situation, will our Congress/President be smart enough to repeal it and admit they made a mistake or will they apply bandages that make a bad situation worse in order to save face and not be called 'hypocritical'. History has shown that bandages are the likely road. Color me skeptical.

Like an enforced tax which people have to pay? ...

(combined with allowing the government to actually negotiate agressively with drug companies to cut costs rather than tying their hands would be a bloody good start imho - after all this is a 'capitalist' country, so why prevent capitalism and economies of scale from working?)

Glorious.

How Low Can The Stock Markets Go? - Forbes.com
Nouriel Roubini Says Nationalizing the Banks Is the Market-Friendly Solution - WSJ.com

At some point people need to stop giving him attention. You can't be wrong 99 out of 100 times and then run around claiming to be a genius the one time you are right. If people listened to Roubini on the markets, they would be broke.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has a solution for it.

Letting people die because they lost the genetic lottery doesn't seem like something a civilized country should be doing.

And here we go with the 'people are falling dead through no fault of their own' argument. People need to visit inner city teaching hospitals throughout the country. There are people walking in each night with all sorts of ailments and getting treatment (both long and short term) despite being poor/homeless/etc with no insurance.

There's always room for improvement, but that doesn't mean THIS plan is 'improvement'.

A civilized country shouldn't be burdening its citizens with unneeded debt pursuing incorrect solutions to many of our problems either, but that's exactly what we're doing.

So what would you propose as the correct solution?

I'm not saying people are falling dead. I'm saying if you support a stance of not providing medical care to those people because they can't afford it or got some bad genes at birth, they will. Currently we have a socialized system of health care because we can't turn down patients. If you support eliminating that, you support people dying if they can't afford treatment.

Do you honestly think the inner city teaching hospitals have the resources to treat everyone who can't afford or can't get insurance because of pre-existing conditions?

But I agree that we need improvements. That's why I suggest we copy any one of the other countries that have a national health care system and get better results than our current one.


Well I was against the wars.

Remote Area Medical was founded to bring free healthcare to some of the world's poorest people. Recently they've been running expeditions to places all over the U.S. When they arrive, thousands line up for their chance at a visit to the dentist, eye doctor or primary care physician.

It should embarrass us that the richest country in the world can't find a better way to bring healthcare to the most vulnerable.

http://www.ramusa.org/

I just hate the whole "affordable" argument. Even if everyone is in the system, the costs of these treatments aren't going to suddenly come down.


And other industrialized nations are feeling health care costs squeeze, and seeing their overall financial situation being hammered. France may be the poster child for this. It's simply not feasible, at least to me.

We pay far more per capita for medical treatments than any other industrialized country. If we paid what France pays we wouldn't have a deficit crisis.

I agree that prices aren't going to drop instantly, but I do believe we can slow the rate of growth. If we can do that, over time that will put us in much better financial shape.

?

Edit: I don't think liberals are brainwashed and/or liars. So, your response is incorrect, though predictable.

I don't much about the Massachusetts health care system (except that there's rhetoric here that it's "exactly" like Obamacare.). One thing that's surprising to me is aren't hearing more accolades for it as a policy argument/justification for Obamacare. It is working, does everybody have healthcare, is a good thing to model? Are there any unforeseen issues that have come up?

I know there's all kind of reasons why it's not a strict apples to apples comparison (which is why I disagreed with the people here that say that they're exactly the same and that people are brainwashed or whatever if they support Romney but not Obamacare).

But if it's working in MA why aren't more states utilizing this? Were they all just waiting for Obamacare? Was there a conscious collective strategy about timing? If it worked in say, 10 states, and people in some states just didn't have the same worries about healthcare that people in other states did, I could see the tide turning some in the national consensus on this. I think there's something to be said for that type of economic/healthcare change to happen in that matter. If people feel you're forcing something on them as a big brother to a little brother that doesn't know any better, they're going to find ways to oppose it, ways to challenge it, ways to find problems with it. Obviously some people will still find those things, but I think that psychological aspect is often discounted as far as effectuating the change you want. I think the acceptance of say, gay marriage has grown a ton in the last 10 years among moderates, just from people and states actively pressing ahead with it in their own states, making it a norm. And I like I was saying a few pages ago, I think healthcare systems have spread throughout Europe in a similar manner. What would Europe be like if it was just one big, arrogant, corrupt, bureaucracy the last 50 years? Would they have the same healthcare systems, the other programs (that most people would like if they thought they could afford them.)

Vermont passed single payer. It's popular there by wide margins by companies and individuals alike.

Most states haven't passed health care like Massachusetts because its been vilified and they're run by plutocrats who are in the pockets of that (and a bevy of other) industries.

This. The amount of sheer profit makes changing the system such a uphill fight. Those advocating change are fighting several large and very wealthy beasts that make up a large portion of political donations to the very people who would need to make the changes.

Couldn't it pass in most blue states? Or even in half of them?

It's hard to believe it's easier to pass healthcare reform in the national legislature than it is Rhode Island or Delaware.

But you often say "liberals do X" or "Dems do X".

1. I am frustrated with the lack of correlation between the bragging and the accomplishments, as are many liberals I know. That's not in any way "calling all liberals liars".

2. "You guys" was specifically directed toward the posters here who were pushing the morality thing that annoys me so much.

3. "liberals in power" clearly distinguishes the liberals in power from those, like the ones on this board, with more sincere beliefs. Yes, there are some liberals in power that have sincere beliefs, so I should have qualified that a bit more. I meant to frame that in terms of what I think the general Democratic party strategy is - which is the end result of those in real power (though clearly those in power can disagree too). Again, it's not "calling all liberals liars".

4. I do believe that if Obamacare doesn't work out that will be the general line, that this was flawed from the start because of Republican opposition. I should have qualified that one better, obviously there are Democrats who don't think Obamacare is all that now, and there will be those who admit they were wrong about it. So fair point there, but it's not "calling all liberals liars" either. This point I should have just reserved for you specifically, since you blame nearly everything on Republican opposition. Which is certainly not something "all liberals" do.

Isn't it likely that the same general ideas apply when people criticize conservatives or conservative policies? Why do you think that those criticisms are always directed at everyone even slightly right of center?

I've said on numerous occasions that I think the Dems are spineless and too in bed with monied interests. I do think the current GOP is full of John Birch type crazies that are given a platform by the more moderate members of the party, but don't let that fool you into believing that I think the Dems are perfect.

+1

It's just a matter of "the lesser of two evils" IMO at the moment.

For many people, sure when they criticize conservatives or conservatives policies, that's the same general idea. I get that feeling from people posters all the time. And I admit too, that I accidentally group those people into those that don't sometimes, and I could do better at identifying that. I'm not a fan of the characterization of conservative opinions as the product of brainwashing or simply not understanding the issues, but, yes, I suppose those types of statements, especially here, are more often just directed to a minority of conservatives who are in fact, brainwashed or simply don't the issues (people of which character are of course, all over the spectrum).

Do you think a better, more skilled, more sincere, more effective Democratic party could have enacted much better healthcare reform than Obamacare, in the current climate, with the current Republican opposition? I definitely do. Which makes Dems the problem, doesn't it? There will always be opposition.

Which goes back to the gay marriage/state thing. If somehow, there was legislation in 1999 that forced all states to recognize gay marriage, I think that would have set back gay rights decades. Maybe they'd be able to technically marry, but there's be loopholes, compromises, and huge fights on everything, and huge resistance to any other social or legal progress in gay rights. Instead, by letting states tear down those walls, I think the culture has changed in a more organic way, and I know plenty of people who are still "against" gay marriage but who have pretty much thrown in the towel on it. It's happened pretty quickly.

Obamacare is clearly not what the liberals wanted, so that's not just the line, but the truth. I'm not sure how it could be argued any other way. The liberals wanted single payer and the public option was supposed to be a compromise. Then Obamacare was a bitter pill to swallow but still considered better than the status quo. You're setting the stage for some kind of future hypocrisy that does not exist.

I'm not saying it's anybody's perfect solution, but it's clearly something (most) liberals want as opposed to nothing, or as opposed to some other type of reform that could have been pursued instead. You "want it" in the sense that it's an improvement, or is a step towards single payer, right?

I'm saying if it makes things worse, causes health costs to rise, hurts the economy, or takes us even further away from single payer, that in that case, some will disclaim it as something they never really wanted anyway. Which is why I reacted to people proclaiming the greatness of European plans or single-payer, and I'm all, "wait, what about Obamacare? Are you disclaiming it already?" Is this thing going to be awesome or not? I mean, if you guys think it's going to suck already, we're in big trouble. It was just weird that in the days after Obamacare got the constitutional green light, people were still talking about the greatest of other plans we don't have. I wish they were a little more excited about this one.

But that's not really happening. It's being torn down in some states, but not in others as we saw with North Carolina. I have friends in Georgia who would like to get married, but cannot because of the same sex marriage ban. How long are they supposed to wait for a majority of Georgians to change their mind on the issue? 59% are still opposed to repealing that ban and only 27% are in favor of repealing it.

Doesn't that just paint people with two brushes? Are the "you guys" that you're talking about people that were for Obamacare, or are they just liberals?

I understand the not wanting to wait around for rights thing, I just think there's something to be said for the broader effects of cultural changes v. tangible rights, depending on the importance of the tangible right i guess.

Nobody's getting married in Idaho anytime soon but I believe it's a much less hostile environment for gays than it was even 10 years ago. At least, real hate has gone underground, there are different societal rules and norms. Would that still be the case if the feds tried to force acceptance on the state 10 years ago? Would it be better if today, there was some right to gay marriage, but more gay ignorance and hatred in society? I guess that's more a question for gay people, but it's just a thought.

Edit: And yes, I'm sure people made this argument over civil rights too. I'm not saying, "can't you just use your own separate water fountain so that whites like you more!" I just wonder though, if we'd have more racial acceptance and civil rights faster, more gay rights faster, and in the long run, without picking those fights in those ways. (and maybe picking sneakier fights to get gay marriage into the culture).

People who supported Obamacare. I was asking if they are still excited about it, on it's own merits. "You guys" was a hypothetical group question, but I understand that if every liberal in the world could answer they would be a lot of different answers.

I thought there was an interesting tension shift - before the Supreme Court ruling, there was a lot of nervousness, built-up anger ready to explode if it went the other way - but then now, the discussion is about single payer and the superiority of Europe again. Could just be a coincidence. But I would have expected more, "now you'll see, things will be better now."

I think this is the statement that's a bit misleading. You seem to be painting with a brush that says "Happier with Obamacare than not". That is one statement and one that I'm not sure many liberals even agree with

But as opposed to some other type of reform that could have been pursued instead? Considering you see (and saw) people advocating for single payer, a public option, or a massive expansion of Medicare on the left and some combination of voucher program and tort reform on the right, I think the above bolded simple isn't a true statement. I would even argue that if you offered the "center" of the country a choice between "Obamacare" and "Medicare for all", that the latter would be the overwhelming choice.

This leads me to believe that the ACA is even to the right of center and that's why you have so many liberals disenchanted with the result. The parties didn't meet at 50-50 but Obama settled at 30(l)-70(c) because he had to get 60 in the Senate (why it was never passed under reconciliation and a much better bill is the frustrating part). And even tho it's more conservative than not, the GOP hung it like a political noose around his neck because it wasn't 20-80 or 10-90.

So to describe it as being anything more of disappointing but (arguably) better than nothing would be a mischaracterization. I don't see much of anyone with a full throated endorsement of it anywhere.

SI

Why does it have to be one or the other? There were 50+ votes in the Senate for the public option, but with the GOP filibustering everything there weren't 60. Is that the fault of the Dems? The GOP?

That's what I'm learning, I guess. There are much fewer people than I thought that feel positive about this gigantic piece of legislation that will impact our healthcare system and economy in dramatic ways.

Because you just can't say France pays this much per person, then compare to a different country and say they pay this much. You need to dig deep and examine the countries, their health care system, who pays what, what are people willing to pay for (the latest and greatest drugs and technology on the market), R&D and investment costs for drugs, hospitals/health care facilities, technology, training, staff, demographics and genetics, and lifestyles.

France is in the black hole in terms of debt. The UK just basically revamped it's NHS system.

Maybe it's just semantics. But if two people want two different things, and one person gets their way somehow, is it their "fault" that the other person didn't? They're part of the cause for it, no doubt. But I'm not sure the person who got what they wanted is "to blame" for not going along with what the other person wanted. I don't think either person is entitled to cooperation from the person that wants something else.

Edit: Like if you lose a boxing match, I don't think it's the other guy's "fault".

Why is the U.S. in a unique position that requires a CT scan to cost up to twice as much as the next highest OECD country price? Why do we pay more for drugs? Why do medical devices cost more? In short, why are American consumers in the unique position of having to pay far more for healthcare than any other person in an industrialized country?

Ok, but in the absence of any action, there is still the current system which is getting worse by the day. The current system is badly flawed and this is a marginal improvement on the current system. I'd also argue that it's better than some voucher system which is even worse than the current system. The options on the table were make a bad system worse with a voucher program, keep the current bad system, or marginally improve the bad system. A marginal improvement is still better than continuing to get worse.

However, it's substantially worse than a public option or Medicare expansion. However, the GOP's Plan A was worse and their Plan B was just to sit around and do nothing, then, yes, ACA is better than both of those options.

Then again, I would have run the Presidency a lot differently than Obama, granted I have the benefit of hindsight. I would have just gone reconciliation and slammed through a non-profit public option and say "hey, if the government is so bad at stuff, then insurance companies should be able to compete with the government and beat them on overhead and do better on profits".

(While we're playing this game, I would then have done the same with Cap and Trade and my political capital still wouldn't have been as hurt as Obama's. Dodd-Frank would have been actually been effective but it would have had to have been written by someone who had a vested interest in fixing the damn thing and not crapped all over by Dodd or Frank or Schumer or any number of the Dems who carved it up just as much as the GOP. Then I'd have handed the CPB over to Elizabeth Warren on a recess appointment. But Obama's pretty beholden to Wall Street so that had no chance at happening. And we wouldn't be talking about the Bush era tax cuts because they would have become a think of the past so, you know, we could pay for stuff. And I'd have pushed for an additional $1M tax bracket. Then I'd have spent some of it on a new WPA to get people back to work- not contractor labor like we did but honest to goodness actual labor for actual people. That said, I would not have had nearly the foreign policy success he would have. At least if I'm going to be accused of being a liberal, I'd act like one and get crap done. )

SI

I fucking <3 you right now.

SI for President '2014

Probably part of the problem is that the American health care industry is a for profit industry.

I don't really agree with this. Things are calmer now due more to generational changes than any public policy. Young people are more supportive of gay rights and that's not going to change if gay rights were mandated nationwide. If anything, I think forcing changes can actually speed up public acceptance. As more gay people became out, then people realized they were no different than themselves and became more accepting. And if gay marriage were legalized nationwide, eventually people would be more supportive of it because they would meet married gay couples and realized they were just like any other married couple and not a threat at all. The vocal people in opposition who are frothing at the mouth are going to do that whether gay marriage is legal or not.

If we didn't go through with forced integration in the 50s and 60s, then I think racial relations would even be worse, because fewer whites (especially younger ones) would have interacted with African-Americans and given them the impression that they are no different.

Well, of course, my first act as not-yet-President would be to pass the 62nd Amendment, which would, of course, allow for elections in 2014 :D

SI

Like I was saying, from the perspective of sincere Dems, I think Dems are the problem. You're not going to change Republicans' minds on things. But maybe you could change your party if enough people wanted that. I think there's too much focus on boogeymen on the other side. Probably because that helps with fundraising. Fine, there's boogeyman, but you can't get boogeyman to change their opinions on boogeying I don't think, or make them more agreeable to your contrary anti-boogeying views.

I'm still stunned that the right so viciously turned on the idea of the mandate, when that was the preferred solution for many decades, and championed by the very conservative Heritage Foundation. The mandate was the choice the Republicans presented in the 90s when the Clinton Administration was pushing for single payer.

That is part of the reason for distaste for the mandate from many on the left, as the mandate is pretty much co-opted from the right's playbook.

There's plenty of efforts to get more progressive Dems in office. Your idea, though, would be electoral suicide. How do you increase your margin if you spend your time ignoring the opposition and instead focus your attacks on your own party.

That doesn't make sense-you still need to develop all of these things (usually buy for-profit businesses) that go into health care, pay the salaries, train your talent, and since those in favor the government health care don't seem to understand how financial statements work because they like to spit out the "for profit" lines, health insurance profit margins are rather razor-thin. The cost problems isn't that simple as black and white. We have problems, but I don't see any clear way to really "fix" the cost structure without being realistic in the kind of health care quality each person gets.

Is there a industrialized country that is as big (population wise) and diverse (demographic wise) as the United States that has our level of health care quality in terms of the standards and tools we have at our disposal?

Mitt Romney at the NAACP today:

Translation: If you weren't all stupid you'd vote for me.


Way to win over voters Mittens - insult their intelligence. This guy just can't get out of his own way when it comes to this type of stuff.

You could do that, but then you'd be the GOP. You can focus on purifying your base, which is probably a long term loser. Or you can focus on being "everyone else". Problem with being "everyone else" is that it's hard to get them to agree. Then, if you fix the rules so that you need 60% approval to get something done and only 40% to not get something done and then preach about how the government can't get anything done - well, that's how you can maintain some power even when you're purifying the base. It's a brilliant strategy to get years and maybe decades out of an ideology that should be on its last legs.

Eventually, the GOP will have to shift and re-align their base because there won't be enough people in the religious conservative + fiscal conservative base. And they'll shed some of their current members until they're not really viable and we'll play this game all over again. Who knows, maybe next time it will align so that the Dems become libertarians with laissez faire views on economics and social issues (no taxes and legalize weed!) while the the GOPs is more authoritarian (a bacon tax to pay for your health care!).

SI

Or better yet, go ahead and communicate better what it is they're missing in you as a candidate so they have a chance to understand it. Kind of hard to communicate it if you're not going to tell them (assuming he didn't do that previous or after this quote).

Actually the worst part of that quote is the second half-a white guy telling black people what's in their best interest for their families.

Yes, he had such a chance to gain votes there in the first place.:confused:

I can't stand the two-faced phony sumbitch but he really didn't have much to lose there regardless of what he said. If he convinced a few (naive IMO) voters that he's actually got a backbone or any actual position that he'll stick with then he accomplished about as much as he could.

My personal opinion is, health care should not be for profit. My conundrum with my own opinion is, I don't mind doctors and nurses and others, making pretty good salaries, but, how do you pay for that talent if it's not for profit? I don't know how to solve that issue, however, I do know it is not as simple as a black and white, snap of the fingers fix.

I'm not in favor of government health insurance/care. The government is neither a model for efficiency or a model demonstrating fiscal restraint. It's kind of like asking a bank robber to handle my finances. I'm in favor of a system that is not based on the bottom line or profit margins, that uses logic and sound reasoning not clouded by dollar signs to provide the best health care to everyone, regardless of their financial status.

I feel no sympathy for the health care industry and their razor thin margins, simply because I feel that it is not an industry that should be based on profits. Just seems odd that an industry that is supposed to help people, is hurting the people it's trying to help, by being 'for profit'. It kind of contradicts the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath in my opinion. Again, I admit, that this creates a contradiction in how I feel about the whole thing. I want the best, but, I don't believe it should be dictated by profits and I have no idea how to solve that conflict.


I have no idea. Probably not. Off the top of my head, the only country that comes close to population and diversity would be Russia? But each country is different and opinions on things such as personal responsibility for ones own health maintenance, cultural differences, genes, dietary habits, etc...kind of makes that not such an easy question when you consider those things.

Even if that's what he did (I haven't read the whole speech yet) the guy (and yes I know it's his speechwriter really) is tone-deaf. You don't communicate better to someone and then effectively say "I just dumbed that down for you because you're stupid." That's called shooting yourself in the foot.

Mitt didn't go see the NAACP to talk to the black people with whom the minds of 95% are made up already. He went because white people will talk about it and he gets points for showing up. It was a low-risk move. The booing makes it even better. Will get lots of replay on the FOX spin cycle, MSNBC will mock him for saying nothing new and we'll be in no different place than we were before.

If Team Mittens were smart, they'd have shown up with something substantive or interesting to say, but that'd require belonging to a party that still does that sort of thing.

I didn't quite understand this campaign stop. Obama figured these votes are so in the bag, he sent Biden to give a speech. To the NAACP convention. Biden.

I was wondering if Romney misread this as a chance to upstage the President. But if he had any chance, he would have had to deliver a speech that could have, you know, upstaged something- big, ambitious flowery speech to win over some moderates. Not just a "hey, I'm a good guy- just trust me to do what's right for you".

SI

Health insurance has small margins but pharmaceuticals and medical devices have a huge margin. One of the reasons we pay more is because medical suppliers make a shit ton more money in the U.S. than anywhere else.

According to Mitt it worked perfectly:

I don't see the problem with sending Biden. If anyone at the convention is considering race, then theyre voting Obama anyways. The NAACP is very familiar with Obama, so it makes sense to send Biden to contrast policies instead of just race. And Romney shows up not because he has any hope of making a dent in the black vote, but because it's what you do. A story about Romney skipping the NAACP convention is way worse than anything Romney said in his speech.

They still pay less and get better results. I don't care what people believe politically, but when someone does something better than us, we should copy it. Whether that's health care, how to build a bridge, and so on.

It's not hard to believe that black leaders would support Romney.

I can think of one who likes his ideas on health care.

Ziiiing! :D

SI

Listen/watch the whole thing. I got a different vibe from it.

So do we pay to cover the the lost of margins in other countries? If so, then isn't that what helps those countries look cheaper in those per capita costs?

Again, it's not simple as black and white as I pointed out in my earlier post.

I don't think either industry is granted by God to have those high profit margins, but even if what you suggest is true, why should I pay more so the French can pay less? If my bill grows slower and that means the suppliers have to find profit in other countries, I'm fine with that.

Higher taxes. You know, that evil bogeyman.

Of course not. We're special creatures that have special bodies that people around the world don't.

And I know it's complicated to fix/change, just saying that other systems kick our ass so maybe we should try and emulate them in some ways.

I agree with you, we shouldn't have to pay more to make up for them.

BTW, I'm all for banning prescription drug advertising.

I guess I disagree with you in kicking our ass in what way. I would argue other countries have healthier and more active lifestyles in general, which is a big help.

But why is that? Is it better access to doctors? I guess my point is that in other countries they statistically are beating us in most health care statistics. They live longer, are healthier, and ultimately receive the same care for cheaper. Why not try and emulate that the best we can?

I'd say the same thing for anything. If Canada found a way to build a kickass bridge that was better and cheaper than what we had, I'd want to copy how they did it and implement it here.

Yeah, I went back and watch the whole speech. It's got a much different tone than that if you listen to it as a whole. I also think that the crowd respected the fact that he showed up and didn't sugar-coat his feelings to avoid boos. More than half of the people gave him a very nice standing ovation at the end of the speech.

I didn't see anything bad with the speech. Takes guts to speak in front of a group your religion decries as inferior beings.

Doctors and medicine don't "stop" blood pressure, lung cancer from smoking, heart attacks, type II diabetes, obesity, ect., they just help manage it. If you don't take care of yourself, then medicine isn't going to automatically stop those kind of things that I've mentioned-that are usually brought on oneself (but not always)-from happening. Note, I'm not talking about things that just plain to due to getting the short stick of the straw in genetics and nature's luck.

The largest European countries barely break the 100 million population mark, can you scale this enough to a country of 300+ million people that has a much more diverse genetic population?

I can't help but think that this is not going to play well for Romney: Government documents indicate Mitt Romney continued at Bain after date when he says he left - Politics - The Boston Globe

Romney has been defending himself against a lot of specific factory and business liquidations (with significant layoffs) by saying that he left the company in 1999. He will have a tough time "no commenting" questions, given the fact that he will not release his tax records and that this article is indicating that he was still earning a six-figure salary (and listed as the sole stockholder).

I see how that does not look good. But it also strikes me as pretty in the weeds to penetrate the general consciousness. Tax filings are not sexy.

Also, there might be good reasons why the paper and the reality do not match up. I imagine that it takes a while to wind something like that down, and I can see how his name would technically still be on the books even as everyone knew that he was no longer in charge.

And, even if that is not true, it sounds true enough that it will play with the general public.

The targeted ads may be significantly different from region to region, but in my area (Rust Belt), Romney has been getting hammered by testimonial-type ads of people that were laid off from Bain-acquired companies.

Romney has largely defended himself by indicating that he was longer a part of the company by the time the economy got bad (his standard line is that he left to operate the Olympics in '99). I think this info continues the dialogue for the theme and now enhances it with a line like, "Mitt Romney says he played no part in the closing of Factory X. While his company was laying off X jobs, he was earning a six-figure salary and the President of the company." You could even throw in footage of him schmoozing during the 2000 Olympics, with a cash register ringing up the amount of money he earned vs the amount of jobs that were lost or outsourced.

I think it would be have a pretty big impact in Michigan/Ohio/Pennsylvania, etc.

After watching many ads over the last week, I've decided that neither one is fit to be President, and will be looking for a 3rd-party candidate.

I do love pulling out Hillary going after Obama in 2008 in the Romney ads though...

Gary Johnson is running for president. Former two term governor of New Mexico so it's not like he is just some third party guy running on "What if's" he has more executive experience than both Romney and the 2008 Obama.

The polling done in the states where the Bain ads are running shows they are haviing quite an effect.

Now a lot of that 51% were already clear on their choice, but there have to be undecideds in that group.

We scale back the empire or at the very least make countries like South Korea, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia pay for the United States providing their military. I choose choice #1 but if thats so impossible for politicians than let some of these countries with such great health care foot the bill for ours.

We are the world empire. History shows again and again that the big empires live gluttonous lifestyles. There is no doubt this contributes significantly to our high health care costs.

There is a guy in my neighborhood that has been flying the "Don't tread on me" flag for a couple of years. A few months ago he began posting signs with quotes from Thomas Jefferson. You know the kind where half of them describe 21st century things and Jefferson probably said none of them. Well this week he now has a Romney sign next to the Jefferson quote and the "Don't tread" flag. My wife gets very anxious every time we walk by the house that I am going to say something. I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson would be just as displeased with Romney's vision for America as he would be with Obama's.

He'd be too fascinated with his iPhone to worry about that.

I'm pretty sure that anyone looking solely to the wisdom of people 250 years ago to guide them is going to be displeased with the results

SI

I'll think you'll find a lot (if not all) of those countries would be very happy to see the back of the US military bases; you make it sound like they 'requested' the presence of the US military there which for some countries simply isn't the case ...

The US has some military bases in the UK because its strategically useful to the US it has no advantage to the UK at all ... in fact it makes the country more of a target from anyone anti-US (so don't expect any European country to be crying out in pain if the US wanted to withdraw their bases tomorrow).

Not to mention the money this would save, as well as allowing a bigger focus on making sure this country is adequately protected. Hell, I know from my time in the Army many communities in the US resented the presence of Army bases. I can only imagine how some european countries feel.

On a scale of 1 to 100 on supporting the US empire I am a 1 so I apologize if I sounded like I was blaming the countries listed for America's military bases. I just grow tired of the fact that we supposidly don't have money for domestic issues or debt pay down but we have all this money to police the world.

(Though I will concede that Germany tried to take over Europe twice in the last century so I think the some of the European countires probably appreciate the US bases there)

I am pretty sure that Thomas Jefferson would be transported to 2012 and say "Holy crap, you can get porn for free on a magic box?!" and we'd never see him again.

Overseas bases are a topic of bipartisan conversation in Washington. This is from January.

Bipartisan strategy takes shape to close overseas bases | Federal Times | federaltimes.com

I'm confused. Since when has a countries citizens had a voice in things like that? Things like US bases in foreign countries are not decided by the citizens of this country or the host country.

Every election, people talk about "could this be the year of a third party?" And then it never pans out.

I wonder, though, if this could be the year of a third party :) I mean, after 8%+ unemployment for half a decade during which both parties have tried and failed to right the ship, might there be some place for an alternative? And you have a lot of solid right-wingers who seem very lukewarm to Romney. Might they be willing to vote third-party?

My guess is no, mainly b/c this seems like it will be a close election. And too many people will be worried about "throwing away" their vote.

Which leads me to another point. If a party gets 5% or more of the vote in a presidential election, it is eligible for some federal matching funds in a future election. So why doesn't a party like the Libertarians try to run up the score in uncontested states and get to the 5% level?

Wouldn't it make sense to go to places like New York, Texas, California, Oklahoma, etc. and be honest about what you are doing? "Candidate [X] will win this state, so if you vote for him or his main opponent, your vote does not matter. Do you want your vote to matter? If so, vote for me; if we get over 5% of the vote, we will be eligible for funds to help break the two-party stalemate in Washington." You would have the platform to yourself the entire time. And I could see that message being pretty appealing to a lot of voters who won't otherwise have a reason to be engaged.

The year of the 3rd party will happen when a guy has a few billion dollars, wants to spend about half of them on a campaign and starts early and creates a revolution.

But mostly, he'll need a few billion dollars. And it'll be a he.

And funny charts. He'll need funny charts!



SI

I think the Libertarians are on record as saying they will never take the matching federal funds. If they got the 5% would they stick to that? Who knows but if the #1 principle of their platform is in direct opposition to matching funds if kind of puts them in a bind.

Gary Johnson does have an interesting approach this election cycle though. The election commission (made up of Democrats and Republicans... imagine that!) has decided a candidate needs 15% support in presidential polls to get into the debates. He has targeted a lot of the Southwestern states (NM, AZ, CO, CA, MT, WA, OR) that are already a tad more sympathetic to the Libertarian cause than say Missouri, Alabama, or New York. He figures if he can get into the debates the public may wake up a little to the D & R shell game. (Face it was Perot that solid of a candidate or just not Bush or Clinton?) One of the ideas is that if he can get his name in the polls of those states that enough people (>15%) will pick him for his Libertarian views or not even knowing who he is but just that he isn't Romney or Obama. Principled? Not exactly but the ideas in the past have gotten them like 1% so why not try something different?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icllj...ure=plpp_video

Libertarian Party knows they'll never get elected to anything other than local and the occasionally, stray state office. It's easy to stand on principle when your positions have no practical application.

Third party would likely have to be a moderate to win. You'd have to get both parties to nominate someone to the extreme and someone in the middle can get that in-between vote.