car transport, auto transport, auto moving, car moving, car shipping

All I can say is change is a coming so get real and face the facts, we have deficits out of control, We owe the Chinese, unfair trade policies dominate our so-call trade partners, Americans jobs being given to illegal workers here in our country because of illegal immigration has not been dealt with properly, pension funds are going bust, American Automobile Industry is in trouble, education in America is failing behind what Employers expect workers to know, The cost of living in America has gone up while we do not have a "living wage policy, health care is unaffordable and harder to keep insurance, small business development are harder to finance, Education is too expensive for average Citizen to consider seriously without going deep into debt by the time they finish a degree, States cannot keep up with public safety cost, Drugs are destroying communities that had never been touched by meth, and to say the least, "Katrina" has not been handled properly with all the misplaced New Orleans "citizens" not refugees being able to return to their home state.

All I can say is change is a coming so get real and face the facts, we have deficits out of control, We owe the Chinese, unfair trade policies dominate our so-call trade partners, Americans jobs being given to illegal workers here in our country because of illegal immigration has not been dealt with properly, pension funds are going bust, American Automobile Industry is in trouble, education in America is failing behind what Employers expect workers to know, The cost of living in America has gone up while we do not have a "living wage policy, health care is unaffordable and harder to keep insurance, small business development are harder to finance, Education is too expensive for average Citizen to consider seriously without going deep into debt by the time they finish a degree, States cannot keep up with public safety cost, Drugs are destroying communities that had never been touched by meth, and to say the least, "Katrina" has not been handled properly with all the misplaced New Orleans "citizens" not refugees being able to return to their home state.

Mitt might just be a stronger candidate than anyone thinks if he goes head to head with Thompson. Mitt is Mormon, but he's squeaky clean. There are strong rumors, based on the ex-husband of an East Tennessee County Republican Chairwoman that Fred Thompson fathered a baby with his wife that resulted in the ending of their marriage. Fred Thompson strongly desires to be President, has it not occurred to anyone why he is holding back? Fred knows the risk involved, if discredited in public, he might lose his acting career and his political career. Well, maybe not acting, somehow these things seem to boost an acting career. Politically in a party that has a "Moral" base, this will be hard to overcome, even for an actor.

East Tennessean

What's most puzzling is that Thompson is liked by Republicans who say the war on terror is the single most important issue facing the country. They claim they understand the reality of the threats we face and that Democrats don't. And yet Thompson's security résumé is puny compared to his potential rivals. He has no executive experience and the wars he's fought have all been in the movies. Sure, you can argue that experience is overrated--after all, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had plenty of it. The problem is that Thompson's supporters like Cheney and Rummy.

"The myth behind the Thompson quasi-candidacy is a dangerous one that bedevils both parties: If we just get a better communicator, people will love our policies. But once Thompson enters the race, he will have to either embrace or distance himself from GOP policies, which will either ruin his chances in the general election or hurt him with his conservative supporters. In short, he'll become just like any other candidate--something he might not like after such a big buildup. Thompson also has a reputation for not enjoying the grind of campaigning."

Posted by: | March 30, 2007 08:55 AM

Chris, hopefully you'll be as accurate about the dems as you were about Georgetown. Go Florida; go dems.

The list, as before, seems still built on the premise that mid-term Democratic victory in Congress is a temporary glitch and not a more permanent realignment. Thus, in this scenario, the seats most likely to change parties are those in districts where Democrats defeated Republican incumbants.

I'm not sure that's the case. I would look much harder at some of the GOP districts where the incumbant barely held on. I see a near absence from the list of GOP seats in the interior West. In Wyoming and Idaho, as discussed before, GOP incumbants barely held on.

Western Democrats are seeing a regional revival of the popularity of the western populist genre. It remains to be seen whether that continues to be the trend, but the 2006 election results seem to support that idea.

I want to leave an irrelevant comment too!

Chris, You need to get out more particularly from DC. You need another road trip to take the pulse of the country. Some Republicans may get elected in 08 but they will have to change the name of the party to Whig, Tory, Nationalist or some other name that might be catchy. This is because the brand, Republican has become synonymous with corruption, incompetence, the party of the fat cat oligarchs and low testosterone chubby little cherubs. Every sorry actor who appears in font of Congress as a witness so far looks like a squeaking, diminutive, unhealthy, pasty, Petri dish cross, between Carl Rove, Roberto Gonzales, Jerry Falwell and Dick Cheney. It is becoming abundantly clear the high pitched round little spawn of these characters like Kyle Sampson are mentally defective as they can not remember anything, especially when put under oath. Geez! My grandmother was forgetful but she was 97.

And we are cutting the pay of the soldiers overseas.

http://www.theabsenteeballot.com

Steve Kagen in Wisconsin's Eight District is a huge disappointment to Democrats in this area. It is amazing how he has pissed off and disappointed core party leaders and activists. In Madison and in the district he is now considered a "dead man walking". He has zero personal political skills, he has made absolutely no effort to broaden his base of support in the district, he has actively alienated potential supporters, and has generally embarrassed himself. He has compounded his problems by taking a very weak campaign staff and transfered large numbers of unqualified twenty year olds to his D.C. staff. This district has a very strong tilt towards the GOP, and Kagen will find himself facing a well known, well funded opponent in 2008, with little or no enthusiasm from his base voters, loyal Democrats. This view is universally held by both party activists in the district and by leaders in the Democratic party in Madison. People voted for him in the last primary, not because he was the best candidate, but because he had the money needed to run a competitive race. This is a sad commentary on the state of our political process, when money counts for so much more than ability, knowledge, or experience.
In a "wave" election, he just barely beat his opponent. If he hopes to have any chance of winning, he needs to take stock, make some significant changes in his operation, and reach out, both in D.C. and in the district, to people with both knowledge and expertise. Right know, he has neither the respect nor the support of people who will be vital to his efforts to get reelected.

As the third of four members of the Cuyahoga (Cleveland) County Board of Elections resigns under pressure from Ohio's new Secretary of State, additional potential illegalities in Hocking County have resurfaced with new weight against a GOP executive director already under serious fire.

On March 27, Sally D. Florkiewicz, a Republican, became the third to depart the board. Her departure leaves just Robert Bennett, the BOE chair, clinging to his position. Bennett also chairs the Ohio Republican Party, and has long been one of the state's most powerful politicians, with close ties to the White House. Many believe Bennett was the key point person, along with then-Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, in the theft of Ohio's 2004 presidential election. Karl Rove is widely believed to have personally persuaded Bennett to stay on at the Cleveland-area BOE through the election.

Bennett's position mirrors that of Tom Noe, former chair of the Lucas County (Toledo) BOE, once known as northern Ohio's "Mr. Republican." Like Bennett, Noe had close personal ties to George W. Bush and Ohio Governor Robert Taft. Taft, who left office earlier this year after his public approval ratings sank as low as 7%, pleaded no contest to four misdemeanors involving favors taken from Noe. Noe has since been convicted of a wide range of crimes ranging from illegal campaign contributions to the mishandling of state funds. He is now in prison.

Race to The Bottom for US Wages: Circuit City to fire 3400 and rehire lower wage workers

US Economy Leaving Record Numbers in Severe Poverty

U.S. Income Gap widest since Great Depression

Subprime Crash Threatens Bond Markets

Will Companies Go the Way of Sub-Prime Home Borrowers?

US Trade Deficit Balloons to $182 Billion

Risk of a Boomer Bust Grows

Total Consumer Debt climbs from $1.9 trillion to $2.4 trillion

Can Economic Collapse be Avoided?

We are witnessing today the clear and present warnings that another day of reckoning in the offing. Nevertheless the early signs that the end is near for this cycle of business excess abound, at least for those willing to pay a bit closer attention.

Just listen the next time Federal Reserve Chief, Ben Bernanke, goes before Congress and whistles past the graveyard, soft-peddling the impact of such major disturbances in the force now impacting one of the economy's central supports -- new and existing home sales. And imagine the impact of an ongoing war that requires America to borrow $12 million an hour, every hour, everyday. Imagine that! Now try to imagine that kind of borrowing by your government for non-productive spending will not, at some point, impact the economic health of our economy. You'll need quite an imagination to pull that one off.

Watch the US stock market. The DOW now spends its time crashing one day, then clawing it's way back up a wall-of-worry the next, only to crash again when investors reach the top of that wall are terrified by what they see on the other side. It's a classic see-saw chart pattern we've seen before just before the bottom falls out. The market rises as institutional investors sitting on large positions prop up the market just long enough to dump their positions. On who? Onn ordinary smucks who, every time, fall for their clap trap that, "it's just a market correction," and that "a down market is really just a buying opportunity." You would think the smucks would be suspicious when big investors are more than happy to sell them their shares. ("Hey buddy. Take my shares -- please!")

WE ARE BORROWING 12 MILLION DOLLARS AN HOUR TO FUND THE OCCUPATION

Matthew is right. Ca 11 has almost completely turned over its population from owners of huge ranches to family subdivisions people by folks from places like SF. Pombo's gone for good.

Chris,

You're not quite right about CA-11; or, at least, your analysis is incomplete. CA-11 has seen rapid demographic change and is much "bluer" now that it was even in 2004 - let alone 2000.

There has been major, major development around the Tracy area, which was once dominated by ranchers and the like (like Pombo himself). The vast majority of the growth in the district is from people from San Francisco and the East Bay moving further out to find more affordable housing prices (affordable being a relative term pretty much anywhere in California!).

'As an employee of a hospital, we must take anyone and everyone having a medical need.'

and that costs taxpayers a fortunne. you undermined your own argument.

Andrew - Interesting what you say about Gillibrand. She is speaking in London to the democrats abroad group next week. I'd love to go along and listen but given I'm not a US citizen I'm not allowed :-(

I won't pretend I know a lot about the US health system, but as an outsider I do find it astonishing that you don't have universal health care. As someone who has lived in three countries all with universal health care, whilst it has it's faults, it has to be better than what I am reading about in this blog. Drindl's $30,000 debt scenario would be truly frightening. To those who are so anti universal health care, why does the US, with apparently the best medical facilities/doctors etc in the world, have close to the lowest life expectancy in the western world and the highest infant mortality rate, yet spend the highest % of its GDP on health? These are staggering figures. Something is clearly wrong.

Feel free to remove NY-20 from your endangered species list next time you rank them.

Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand is a star in the making.

Treadwell is a retread part of the failed Pataki administration. He many be independetly wealthy but that is all he has going for him. He was a dismal failure as chair of the state GOP and owns a large share of the blame for the disaster that is the New York State republican party.

Gillibrand will toast Treadwell.

eb, i think you may either be missing some of my concerns or not finding them worthy of addressing. bear with me:

"For profit companies in many cases outperform not-for-profits in terms of costs."

-of course they do. money is what they're about.

"we can safely say that most people are already taken care of in that sense."
-is "most people" enough? what percentage of the population can we "safely" allow to remain uninsured? how safe does that make them feel?

"who gets turned away from receiving medical care?"

-when my dad was dying - an upper-middle class educator - his HMO made arbirtrary decisions about the level of care he could and could not receive, based on what it would cost vs. the lesser span of years it would have allowed him, as opposed to a younger recipient. at no time was my family consulted in these decisions. so no, he was not "turned away" from receiving the kind of care the HMO was willing to pay for, but there was a definite limit on what he could expect, and it was determined on a cost basis. you ask "who cannot get medical attention in this country?" and then answer yourself by saying "no one." the example you give to show this is telling, however - of course no one is turned away from an emergency room. but how about the poor person with a chronic skin condition, or someone surviving a car accident who requires physical and psychological therapy? i find it hard to believe that those resources would be available to a lower income patient on a more than perfunctory basis, and certainly not at the "best" hospitals and clinics. in your statement, you yourself implicitly acknowledge the commoditization of health care... but as is true in any aspect of the market, in order for it to work, i.e. to deliver the highest quaity care at a competitive cost, there must be winners and there must be losers. are we willing to allow the less-privileged among us to lose out in order to enable the wealthy to take advantage of cutting edge care?

"Government programs are plagued with mismanagement, corruption, wasteful spending, and--most importantly when it comes to health care--poor results."

-that is true of any organized human effort. it's human nature. look at enron, look at worldcom, disney, hewlett-packard, look at the canadian media mogul on trial (in today's paper)... for that matter, look at the department of justice under gonzales.

"removing the incentives to improve, compete, and remain affordable."

-must all incentives be financial? for that matter, i have heard that the lion's share of the cost of services is the insurance that hospitals and physicians must pay. with the companies out of the game, how does that not go down? in any case, doesn't anyone become a doctor for the love of science, or the desire to be of service to others, anymore? what does that say about our culture?

"Loss of best medical talent to other countries where competition creates better opportunity and incentives... namely the United States (you had conceded that the US has quality care)"

-so... i don't understand how this argues against the establishment of single payer here, in 'the united states' - ? who will we lose our doctors to?

"let me first say that the US Constitution has already been stretched beyond its limitations on this matter, and in that regard, the US Government has no place in assuming the role of Nanny-State for everyone, considering so many people have at least decent coverage now"

-see above. everyone does not have decent coverage, and those who do are paying an unnecessarily high price for it. as far as the constitution goes, it guarantees "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." so: 'life' is obviously relevant here, although 'liberty' is ambiguous. but 'the pursuit of happiness' could be construed in no other way than to mean a right to go after what makes you happy. good health makes everyone happy, yet our current system places obstacles in the way of those without means as they pursue it.

Let me add that the mentioning of examples of hard-luck cases being brought into hospitals were not meant to stereotype homeless people, but draw from actual observations of actual people I've had during my tenure at a hospital.

And MJordan, sorry for being off thread. And sorry to Chris, too, I guess.

Roo-

For profit companies in many cases outperform not-for-profits in terms of costs. The For-Profits have to look at their bottom line, and in order to get certain contracts, especially with city and county governments, they have to provide A) low cost and B) quality service. If they fail at either, they will be replaced.

You suggest that nationalized health care comes out ahead, but I respectfully disagree. In a country that already has a majority of its citizens enrolled in some form of private health care plan--either of their own or through an employer--we can safely say that most people are already taken care of in that sense. Now, that said, I must concede to you that the quality of these plans may differ, but who gets turned away from receiving medical care? Though costs become an issue, the national government and the states subsidize health costs for those who cannot afford it, and even for those who can. The US spends more money in the Dept. of Health and Human Services than on ANY OTHER dept., including the Department of Defense. It's a complete opposite from 1957. Who cannot get medical attention in this country? The answer is No One. As an employee of a hospital, we must take anyone and everyone having a medical need. A 'John Doe' brought into the ER for apparent diabetic complications. A homeless man brought in for alcohol poisoning... etc,. etc. They all receive the same treatment as someone who is insured and financially secure.

I challenge you on the thought of placing this care in the hands of a taxpayer-paid national plan that essentially monopolizes the field removing the incentives to improve, compete, and remain affordable. You mention there are flaws to nationalized health care. Let's be specific. Long waiting periods (weeks or months in many cases). Loss of best medical talent to other countries where competition creates better opportunity and incentives... namely the United States (you had conceded that the US has quality care). High government costs with little quality assurance... it's very easy to spend other people's (taxpayers') money and not worry about the return on your investment. (note: my citations above are primarily anecdotal coming from relatives in Canada, primarily around Windsor and Toronto.) If given the option, people come to the United States to receive medical treatment (I recall King Abdullah of Jordan coming in the 1990s).

Government programs are plagued with mismanagement, corruption, wasteful spending, and--most importantly when it comes to health care--poor results. Roo, you mention the For-Profit vs. Not-for-profit... I say that either is better than government programs. But there is one great way to get government health care: military service... from personal experience, it was probably the best health plan I've ever had.

On a less sensitive note, let me first say that the US Constitution has already been stretched beyond its limitations on this matter, and in that regard, the US Government has no place in assuming the role of Nanny-State for everyone, considering so many people have at least decent coverage now. Secondly, maybe this should be our ploy to our high school students: "You need to study hard and work hard in school or in the military so that you can get a skilled-labor or knowledge-industry job that provides employer-subsidized health care plans, or else you wind up stuck with your own medical bills like you hear grown ups complaining about" (we won't tell them that even in that case there is US and State-based assistance)

What do you think?

How is it that so few people seem to follow the thread, but instead give us a rambling, off-topic, wild tangent rant. Can this be better monitored at WaPo so we don't have to waste our time trying to sift through, in some cases, hundreds of nonsensical, self-important tantrums???

And why is it so hard for reasonable people to make or accept an honest assessment about the upcoming election? Just because Republicans lost big in 2006 does not guarantee a repeat. As gerrymandered as districts are, there should be an expectation of a bounceback in what ARE heavily Republican districts, especially once removed from both DeLay and Bush (and Ney and Foley, etc.). Chris, you are spot on. Those districts that are most in play are those that were won by Democrats in an off-year election marked by Republican scandal and lack of desire to continue the war. But I repeat what has been stated. I earlier wondered how reasonable people can't accept this assessment, let alone recognize such analysis for themselves. I suppose my answer is that they are not reasonable, and suffice it to say their tirades that the Republicans are finished forever as a result of their evil hearts and corrupt actions serve as evidence to the point. Those people are still caught up in emotion rather than reason. I implore them to begin using their minds, not their feelings of hatred and animosity.

As a former Democrat-turned-Repubican, I wish to vouch for my new party that we are not evil nor do we wish ill-will on anyone. We have a philosophy of government that differs from liberals that we would like to see implemented. This may come as news to many on this blog as they seem to think this is a war to completely annihilate and eradicate the other. It is not. It is an ongoing debate that stretches back generations now, and will continue into the future. It ebbs and flows with circumstances and events that shape history. So do not write off the Republican Party so easily. Much of the Democratic gains, especially in those districts Chris points out, are a result of Republicans themselves sifting out the chaff. Republicans who were not conservative enough. Or Republicans who, once in power, tried to use their power to advance their own agenda and expanded government in the process. Republicans who betrayed Republican principles were weeded out in many cases. I fully expect the rebound that Chris predicts. This is not the folly of (Repubican Party) pride. It is the careful analysis of weighing the factors and influences on an off-year/lame duck election rife with trouble for the incumbent majority.

I know that other disagree, but I would put Pittsburgh area Reps. Jason Altmire (D) and Tim Murphy (R) on the watch list.

Former US Rep Melissa Hart is said to want a rematch against Altmire. Two other Republicans -- State Rep. Mike Turzai and former Allegheny County Councilman Ron Francis -- are thought to be giving serious consideration to running for Congress in the Fourth District of Pennsylvania.

Murphy lucked out that no well known Democrat chose to run against him in 2006. The Iraq situation isnt too popular in his district and Murphy's problem with staff could make him vulnerable.

C'mon Chris. . .21 Republicans made it into congress, either through re-election or retention of an open seat, with 51% of the vote or less. . .In CO, Marilyn Musgrave grossly out-financed her opponent, and was returned with just 46% of the vote. There are two R congressmen in NYS--Walsh and Kuhl--who will be swamped by any presidential race coattails. And there are a bunch more. With all of that, you put only Wilson and Hayes on the list. . .I don't buy it.

roo -- this is one of the things that I am concerned about. Globalization has changed entirely the landscape of the market system. Citizens of countries with high standards of living, like ours, have to compete for jobs with citizens of other countries with much lower standards.

Why not outsource your call centers to India, where the cost of living is a 1/4 of what it does here, and people will work for a 1/4 of what they will here? Or even if they come to work here temporarily, they will work for less and send the money back home.

it's the same with giving tax breaks to corporations. Sure, they MIGHT use it to create jobs, but where? Why should citizens of one country subsidize a global corporation?

Valid points. But wouldn't you agree that with the indictments and guilty pleas to felonies I think the voters will give Domenici and Wilson a pass? I think 90% of voters are not going to fault a legislator who inquires about a someone who ends up convicted of a felony and stealing $4 million in taxpayers money. They can't be accused of creating dirt, the dirt turned out to be real. It won't matter that they may have been trying to get something on the airwaves. The convictions and ongoing trial are now the story in the state of New Mexico (where the voters are), not Domenici's and Wilson's inquiries.

JD--With actual experience in living in a nationalised healthcare system I can tell you that it is not without its faults but, overall, comes out ahead.

The U.S. is indisputably the leader in healthcare technologies but the highest levels are only available for the most affluent. Broadly speaking, the average consumer has access to about equal treatment in both systems.

As an independent/libertarian economist you of course understand that all other things being equal, a non-profit organisation is ALWAYS cheaper than a for-profit one.

JD--"what you see as wages falling through the floor due to globalization, I see as the wages seeking their natural or market-based level after the decline in the influence of the unions."

This is absolutely incorrect because we are dealing with different existing wage levels and standards of living. The 'natural market-based level' is only meaningful within a homogenous market.

I am actually VERY concerned about what happens when the corporations run out of places to go for ever-cheaper labour.

Tarheel - JimD is correct. I don't think that anybody ever said that Iglesias wasn't pursuing this investigation, it was that Wilson and Domenici simply inquired (wink, wink) as to whether or not indictments would be handed down before Election Day

That's what their defense will be, and they'll probably get a slap on the wrist from Congressional ethics committees.

Dan W: Be glad to discuss health anytime. My RX's run about $1,000.00 a month, and mostly paid for by Medicare and Mecicaid. Count in Xrays, ct-scan or pet-scan, and blood work about every three months and estimate the cost.

tarheel,

If Iglesias wasn't pursuing these cases the indictments would not be ready now - corruption investigations take months if not years.

Chris, I got Florida this weekend. The good question will be what will Senators Voinivich/Brown owe Nelson/Martinez at the end of the championship game?

I remember back when UNC won the ntl. championship 2 years ago, Dole/Burr won some dining on that Ill. cheesecake from Durbin/Obama.

Jury indicts Aragon in alleged kickback scam, by Steve Terrell, The New Mexican (freenewmexican.com), March 30, 2007. http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/59414.html#

A former Democratic Senate leader and three others face charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, and money laundering in a courthouse corruption probe. Manny Aragon for decades was one of the most powerful figures in New Mexico state government. Today the Albuquerque Democrat stands accused, along with three others, in an alleged scheme to cheat the state out of more than $4 million in the construction of the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court House.

The U.S. attorney also unsealed plea agreements, secured earlier this year, from three others: lobbyist and former Democratic Albuquerque Mayor Ken Schultz, architect Marc Schiff and subcontractor Manuel Guara. Each pleaded guilty to felony counts of conspiracy and mail fraud.

Interesting. This was the case fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was not pursuing. Maybe Iglesias wasn't doing his job. Plus, Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici now look like that were inquiring about some actual crooks, not fishing for dirt. Notice that several of the Democrats have already pleaded guilty.

Drindl: Brain surgeons may not be competitive but health care plans are.

Drindl: There is subsidized support for up to 3 times the median income. Above that you are on your own. If you make too much to get assistance but still cant afford health care they take away your tax deductions as a penalty.

Mass Law does not allow for preexisting conditions either.

Dan W -- how does that work, anyway? what if you can't afford it or have, say, a pre-exisitng condition that insurers won't cover?

the other point, JD, is that healthcare is not like any other service or good. You don't shop for a cheaper doctor when your kid needs surgery, when it might cost him his life, do you? You always go for the best. And brain surgeons are not going to compete with each other for your business, because they are never going to have to. People will always need them and they will always pay. Becuase they know if they don't, they will die.

So can you not agree that healthcare is honesstly not like other services and should be not be subject to market forces?

And just on the basis of fairness, do you honestly believe that the child of stockbroker deserves healthcare, while the child of a firefighter doesn't? Of course they will have healthcare because of the UNION --oops, bad example. Okay, say a self-imployed carpenter or plumber?

The Pundits keep saying the Democrats want to win the White House in 2008. A handfull have spoken out against Bush's Mexican Truck Deal which will bust the salaries of every USA Truckdriver in the USA. Their salaries are spent in the USA and benefit the local grocer, laundry, church, school, etc. Why does the Democratic Party, which once was the Party of the Working People, shill for foreign nationals illegally here and say precious little for the Americans whose Union Dues fund their party? The Guiterezz/Flake Bill is an example. Pelosi and the Dems are in lock step with LaRaza and the USA Chamber of Commerce on that one. Guiterezz being the LaRaza Part, citizenship plus entitlements plus all of their families come in and Flake is quite a case. In the first 100 days of this congress he voted against a minimum wage for American Workers. He voted against reducing the cost of college loans for USA students but the DREAM ACT, instate tution for illegal aliens,is in the bill. He voted against negioating for cheaper drug prices for a strapped USA public. Every bill that would have thrown a crumb to citizens of the USA, he voted against. So Guiterezz and Flake have crafted a bill that the Democrats swoom over. If they vote for that bill, write their names down. They think you are so stupid you will forget by 2008. I think not. Term Limits would have stopped this arrogant mess a long time ago. Any Democrat who votes for this bill is NOT voting for the American Working Public. Kick them to Mexico and let them run down there. And Flake? If the citizens of Arizona don't take him down, then it is Mexizona. It is disgusting to watch our politicans sell us out. A protest rally is being held on April 22 outside of the Capitol at 3pm. Radio Talk Show hosts are talking about it. It is 'Hold their feet to the Fire" If you live near D.C. and you have had enough, you might think about going for a few hours. Apparently only mass mobs of people impress our elected leaders and yes, our terrified illegals who shiver and hide in the shadows because USA people are such brutes and so cruel will take over our major cities again on MayDay. That is why they are trying to ram this Amnesty stuff down our throats. If they have to wait until MayDay, and we see the Terrified 'Guests" marching around with American Flags upside down, or Mexican flags on top of American Flags, or the Flags of Mexico, Costa Rica, China, India, Bolivia, Peru, Guatemela (pretty shade of blue...see it a LOT), El Salvadore (MS-13) and on and on, well the Stupids who pay their bills get upset and complain. And I forgot the pictures of Che and Hugo Chavez the drowntrodden masses march around with on the International Communist Day Holiday. How Nice. And then we get to read the Media's sob stories about how they marched so sweetly and just want to come our of the Shadows. How nice.

Blarg: I live in Mass. I don't have the option to not have insurance. By Mass law, all people are required to have insurance.

Drindl, your post reminds me of something I meant to reply to in JD's earlier post, but my post was already long enough.

JD: "you buy healthcare like you would any other product or service. Or don't, it's your choice."

That model doesn't work well for health insurance. Insurance is about distributing risk over a large pool of people. That requires having low-risk people in the pool.

In Drindl's post, she described having a pre-existing condition, which makes her health insurance expensive. I don't have that problem; I'm young and relatively healthy, so I can get cheap insurance. If I'm in the insurance pool, then my presence reduces the overall risk of the pool, thus lowering costs for everyone. But if I opt out of getting insurance because I don't think I need it, then the risk level of the pool goes up, and insurance is more expensive for everyone who has it.

So if healthy people decide not to buy insurance, that makes insurance worse for everyone. That's why insurance isn't something that you should be able to choose to ignore. If everyone were part of the insurance pool, the risk would be more spread out, and costs would be lower for everyone. That's one of the advantages of universal care.

Meuphys: When my company didn't like the increase with BCBS, we went to Tufts HMO for a similar service at a lesser rate.

Lylepink: Lets not start the SS discussion late on a friday afternoon. I'd love to have the discussion but lets start it earlier in the day/week.

Tarheel, most of the Republicans that lost did so because they were in marginal or Democratic leaning districts. The only incumbent that lost purely because of scandal was Don Sherwood in PA-10.

JD--right now we have more than 40% uninsured.

Here's a good example of the kind of thing that might make you change your mind, if it happened to you. And it could. I worked for 20 years in the corporate sector. I had very good healthcare. But I was diagnosed and treated for breast cancer... and ended up $30,000 in debt. But both my husdband and I were working and we paid it off, wihtout losing everything. We were lucky -- luckier than many.

But in my mid-ffities I was laid off and turned to freelance, as it is nearly impossible to be hired in marketing at that age. Just jdon't happen. I do well, but I pay $2000 a month for health insurance, because my husband is also self-employed. I get it through my former employer who has been kind enough to make an arrangement.

If I have to take out private insurance, because of the pre-eisting condition, I have been told I will pay from $5,000 up a month. I had a neighbor with the same condition who had a recurrence and ended up with an insurance bill for $35,000 -- a month. She died shortly afterward but they lost their house and the husband and daughter were left bereft.

Even successful middle-class people are vulnerable to this-- very few can save enough to weather this kind of storm. And it happens all the time - I in 8 women are treated for breast cancer, for instance.

There are many many countries where people get much more out of their tax dollars than we do. And as faar as corporations, I rose pretty high up. And I can tell you that most corporations are bloated, bureacratic, top-heavy and inefficient, that they raise the prices of goods and the cost of lviing expoentially. You cannot imagine how often YOU pay for execs to spend days on end at the country club golfing or getting manicures and other [ahem] services.

And in any case, the 'free market' is neither free nor benign nor fair. It is full of cronyism, price fixing, favoritism, backroom deals, corruption, and bad faith.

Much like the Bush administration.

Dan W: SS is without doubt, is the most successful program, for the most people, this country has ever had.

Yabba-dabba-doo!

dan w, as i said, it can't be used as a model for the u.s. unfortunately. but think of this, though - you are absolutely unwilling to pay more to the government (which for all its faults does represent and serve every citizen, at least on paper) but are willing to shell out a far greater sum of $$ to private insurers, who are primarily interested in profit. how is that better? at least when the gov't screws up - and i agree that they do - you have a senator and representative who on paper at least are supposed to advocate for you. with a private company, which makes no pretense at putting your needs first, you got nothing. no, i'm not naive. yes, corruption exists in government - my point being that human nature being what it is, it exists everywhere there is money to be had, most certainly including the for-profit health insurers.

JD and others -- the anonymous poster is zouk, in case you haven't figured it out.

At least all the anonymous posts with drool on them.

Lyle, I don't recomend using SS as a viable funding solution...

WRT Sweden: Including central government, the top rate is 60%. Capital gains tax is levied at a general rate of 30%. Value-added tax (VAT) applies to the sale of all goods and most services. The basic rate is 25%, with reduced rates of 12% on food and 6% on items including books, magazines and personal transport.

http://www.economist.com/countries/Sweden/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-FactSheet

I am NOT willing to pay tax rates upwards of 60% on top of a 25% VAT.

The cost of adequate health care could be greatly reduced in so many ways that I will only mention the obvious. Single pay is critical, in that the system now has so many loop holes that $$'s cannot even be estimated to even be in the ballpark of the actual fraud. Medicare and Medicaid are being ripped off, primarily for emergency room care, A $3,000.00 bill for a visit is common. Every person working would pay a portion of their wages into a fund such as SS. You folks skilled in math can easily see how this would work.

dan w, the swedish system is generally seen as fair and good quality by the public. (i have two friends who grew up in sweden and spend a month or two per year in stockholm.) granted, sweden isn't a good model for us because their economy is structured so differently, but their health care is universal and high quality, from what i've been told.

jd, a couple more points. 1, where is it written that healthcare HAS to be expensive? it is, only because it is market-driven. if it were federalized, maybe things would change. i know that's an incomplete comment but all i have time for now...

also, the average health plan costs anywhere from $400-800 per month. that's $4800-9600 annually, and i doubt very much that a tax increase to fund a national health plan would run the average taxpayer that much...

Blarg: I have never heard of a single payer system being better than the US. I have only heard of unavailabilities and people coming to the US for treatment.

The problem with a minimalist solution for all who need it is that 1) what is the definition of minimal that is acceptable to all and 2) what do you do for the taxpayers that make too much to qualify for the assistance but don't earn enough to get a policy of their own.

And why is this a federal issue? Many states have been coming up with their own solutions. Isn't this a state issue?

Yes I am a small government independent and it shows.

JD and Sean, it's true that most Americans have health insurance. But that doesn't mean that most Americans can afford the "best healthcare in the world" that's theoretically available in this country.

A lot of people who have insurance are covered by government plans, Medicare and Medicaid. They can't afford good healthcare on their own, so the government subsidizes them. If you're against government subsidies of healthcare, then citing Medicare and Medicaid recipients doesn't help your case.

More importantly, most insurance just isn't very good. It's not uncommon for a patient with large medical bills to go bankrupt, even if they're insured. Some insurance plans have such high deductibles that they're nearly worthless. Others cap benefits so that if you have severe medical problems, the insurance doesn't help much. So while most of the population has some form of insurance, that doesn't mean they're able to get very good medical care. That's why the average citizen of Canada or the UK has much better healthcare than the average American.

jd - i would rather live in a society where everyone got "pretty good" care than one in which excellent care is affordable only by the wealthy (or by going into deep debt.)

tarheel - you have made your point. local politics is as corrupt as national politics. i would only add that human nature being what it is, it is somewhat disingenuous to lay the blame primarily on the democrats, when both parties are equally responsible. until we get money out of politics, we will not make an apppreciable dent in the motivation for corruption.

"What good does it do to have the best care for everyone that can afford it, if so few people can afford it?"

Um, if by "so few people" you mean over 90% of the populace, then you have a point. Well, no you don't, but you'd be closer.

Blarg, #1 how nice it is to converse with an adult. You should give lessons to your fellow lefties on this site.

#2 - I understand your position, but I'd take issue with 'so few people can afford it'...I thought that the uninsured was something like 30%, which means most people actually can afford it.

Once you go the universal healthcare route, something has to give - either we go to an all-HMO solution (taking away a lot of choice...and I thought liberals liked pro choice LOL), or ration healthcare, or drastically (and I mean big-time) increase taxes. Just doing the tort reform will help, but it won't get us even halfway there.

Personally I've always been one to have government stay out of my business (as I told drindl, I'm libertarian), and since I don't see healthcare as Government's purview, I'll go the personal responsibility route. I know, easy for me to say, I'm smart and employed and insured. But still, it seems to make the most sense vs a socialist approach; you buy healthcare like you would any other product or service. Or don't, it's your choice.

It's not a perfect system, and if it was easy, we'd have solved it by now.

What good does it do to have the best care for everyone that can afford it, if so few people can afford it?

If the only universities in the US were Ivy League schools that cost $40K per year, we'd have the best higher education in the world. But it would be out of reach to all but the very wealthy, so it wouldn't actually do us much good as a country. The quality of the best education would be very high, but the quality of average education would be terrible.

That's why there are public universities in every state. These schools are subsidized by the government so they don't need to charge Harvard prices. Is the education as good as you'd get at Harvard? That's debatable, but the answer is probably no. Still, it's better to get a decent and affordable college education than not be able to afford a college education at all.

If you want to pay extra, you can still go to Harvard. The existence of the public system doesn't put the private system out of business. But the point of public education is to serve the 90% of the population that can't pay that extra amount. The same goes for healthcare.

Folks, all politics is local. A recent survey showed 87% of North Carolina voters believe the Democratic Party in North Carolina is corrupt due to the Jim Black and Frank Ballance scandals. These are the types of sentiments that will affect voting in North Carolina and other states with similar scandals. The most recent survey on the U.S. Attorney firings showed 81% of Americans aren't even following it and, of those few that are, 60% believe the Democratic Party is using it for political gain. It's a Beltway fixation only.

It amazes me how in each election cycle the impact of local politics is ignored by most of us (me included) amateur pundits. Most of the Republicans that lost had personal scandals (Sherwood) to deal with or were replacing a candidate who resigned. The replacements for people like Ney, Foley, and DeLay had too much to overcome during that election cycle. In some cases their names weren't even on the ballot. They were swept up in local perceptions and sentiment, not national ones. But the next time around the candidates will be running on their own records and will actually have their names on the ballot. Look to the local and state political atmosphere to get a feel for how the voters are leaning.

dudes, lay off the long posts - give us a link and maybe a sentence if you must post such off-topic stuff, but long posts don't even get read by us.

that said, Chris - why nothing on how WA-8 is going to dump Reichardt in 2008? The guy is totally out of sync with his district and it's just getting worse every day.

I should clarify that I am Jason P since there is at least one more poster that uses the name Jason. If you see something posted under that name that tilts right-wing--it's not me!

I haven't checked his recent voting record, but Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-New Jersey), who didn't make CC's list is in a very similar situation to Rep. Robin Hayes who did make the list. Rep. Ferguson barely survived the last cycle against Linda Stender even though his race wasn't targeted by the DCCC and the district is a suburban-type district that I think the Republicans will continue to have a lot of trouble with.

I grant that there are definitely some efficiencies to a single payer system, especially when you don't have the slip-n-fall types (sorry Edwards backers) looking to sue at the drop of a hat...leading to tons of defensive medicine (extra tests, 2nd opinions, etc.).

It's my understanding, though (and let me say I DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE, this is just what I've heard) that the best surgeons and hospitals are here in US (for those who can afford it of course).

So Blarg, is the question at hand that we have 100% ability for those who can pay (the rich and employed with health ins.),and catch as catch can for everyone else, or do we have the 75% capaability for everyone, the egalitarian solution.

Obviously the answer depends on where you are now.

JD, healthcare is such a huge part of our economy because our system is extremely inefficient and expensive. In countries with nationalized healthcare, healthcare expenses are a much smaller percent of the economy, and the overall quality of medical care is higher as well.

off topic here but this anon poster has got to knock it off. go to craigslist and post there!

but looking over the list cc posted, im gonna have to say puhlez! at the very least at least 10 to 15 repubs are in danger in 2008. especially the ones that one 51-49 or razor thin wins. instead of watching the hoya's lose to ohio st. tomorrow, maybe you should try going to some of those districts.

{ignoring anonymous postings}

Zouk is tormenting me. he is to blame for all evils. Stop him before he kills again. why won't he respond. he is a coward.

JD - you must know that consumers are idiots and just buy that stuff they don't need because of O'Reilly and Limbo. corporations make it and line their pockets. Once pelosi gets to be generallissimo and presidente, our consumer choices will be made by her and no profits will be allowed.
yeah - armando was me too. see how smart I am!

LOL

Armando, assuming you speak English, let me try to explain the difference to you.

Corporations operate within the constraints of the free market, and are subject to those laws. Unions try to circumvent that market; in fact, it's their raison d'etre.

When you say corporations benefit the owners *at the expense* of the consumers...how so? If they sell a product you don't want, um...is there something from keeping you from buying it elsewhere? Or doing without it?

I'm assuming you're not referring to monopolies here, since they have different rules (and usually Government regulation as well).

I'd explain this further, but it's time to go back to my Wal Mart greeter job.

no-name poster

Thanks for your eloquent demonstration on how we got stuck with the Guy in the Whitehouse.

I assume you were part of the gullible 51%?

Sally is me, fool

Hoya Saxa mpp!

If you don't like me without a name, I can invent many others

Thanks Sally. You are right on.

The no-name poster must have forgotten to take his meds today and spent the morning reading Krauthammer......Or maybe they left the office door open at the security desk of the asylum and he was able to log on to an unattended computer.

Anyway. Wouldn't life be boring without zouk and drindl verbally jousting?

But you gave me an idea for a new desert. "Zouk Flambe". It would be red. Covered with market restricted sugar, and really greasy since it would be loaded with oil.

The oil ignites when light is shone on it and it melts down into an inedible mess. The waiter comes over and consoles you saying "Oh. Mistakes were made. Then he signals the kitchen for 'more of the same' and tells them to 'Stay the Course' instead of fixing the recipe"!

Hey, JD, you moron, corporations are a business structure that benefits the few (owners) at the expense of the many (consumers).

How's that different from a union?

Now what don't you get back to your greeter's job at Wal-Mart?

JimD, good point. Sad (that the unions need illegals to bolster their ranks because more and more Americans are turning away from them), but probably true.

If Freddie Mitchell had only known that a loudmouth's team usually does not win the Super Bowl, maybe he would not have popped off about not knowing the names of most of the Patriots' defensive backs. Maybe he would not have promised "something" for Rodney Harrison, the strong safety. Mitchell, an Eagles wide receiver who is even noisier than Terrell Owens, thought he was being facetious last week in an ESPN interview, but Harrison didn't think it was funny. Neither did the Eagles' coaches. The reigning champion Patriots will pose enough problems in Super Bowl XXXIX on Sunday without Mitchell creating more motivation for them. As Mitchell now realizes. After choosing his words carefully for another television crew yesterday, Mitchell shook his head as he stood up to leave the Eagles' interview session at the Sawgrass Marriott. "Tough week?" somebody said. "It has been stressful," he said. As only Super Bowl stressful can be. Unless the Eagles win, Mitchell will be remembered as the latest Super Bowl loudmouth whose team lost the game. Not necessarily because of whatever, in retrospect, he wished he hadn't said, but because some people will blame him no matter what. Of all the Super Bowl loudmouths over nearly four decades, only Jets quarterback Joe Namath didn't have to eat his words. Reacting to a heckler at the Miami Touchdown Club dinner, where he was being honored as the 1968 pro football player of the year, Namath held up a napkin-wrapped glass containing Johnnie Walker Red and proclaimed, "We're going to win, I guarantee you." And three days later in Super Bowl III, the Jets, a 17-point underdog, beat the Baltimore Colts, 16-7. But the other loudmouths' teams all lost, beginning in Super Bowl I with Chiefs cornerback Fred Williamson, who was known as the Hammer. "If Boyd Dowler or Carroll Dale or any of those other guys catches a pass in my territory," he said, referring to Packers receivers, "they're going to pay the price. I'm going to lay a few hammers on them." And as the Packers won, 35-10, the Hammer was seldom seen until he was knocked unconscious in a pileup. When Vince Lombardi, the Packers' coach, was later asked why it took so long for the Packers to confront the Hammer, Lombardi said, "It took him that long to come up to make a tackle." Before Super Bowl VI, even President Nixon emerged as a Super Bowl loudmouth. During a congratulatory phone call to Coach Don Shula after the Dolphins qualified to oppose the Cowboys, Nixon, a Redskins fan who was apparently hoping to assure a Cowboys loss, suggested that Shula use a play in which quarterback Bob Griese would throw a pass to wide receiver Paul Warfield on a down-and-in pattern. But when Griese finally threw that pass, it was batted away by Cowboys defensive back Mel Renfro in what would be a 24-3 rout of the Dolphins. Before Super Bowl X, Cliff Harris, a Cowboys safety, questioned Steelers wide receiver Lynn Swann's wisdom in returning from a concussion two weeks earlier. "I'm not going to hurt anyone intentionally," Harris said, "but getting hit again while he's on a pass route must be in the back of Swann's mind. I know it would be in the back of my mind." Swann seethed, responding that Harris "can't scare me or the team." As the Steelers won, 21-17, Swann resembled a circus acrobat in producing 161 yards on only 4 receptions, including a dazzling 64-yard touchdown on a pass from Terry Bradshaw that produced what proved to be the winning points. But the Cowboys didn't learn their lesson. Before the Super Bowl only three years later, the Cowboys' loudmouth linebacker, Thomas Henderson, whose nickname was Hollywood, playfully questioned Bradshaw's intelligence. "Bradshaw couldn't spell cat," Henderson barked during the week, "if you spotted him the 'c' and the 'a."' In the Steelers's 35-31 victory, Bradshaw threw four touchdown passes. When he was later asked about his performance, he mentioned how he had to learn to relax, that he had often been as "nervous as a cat." "How do you spell that?" he was asked. With a smile, Bradshaw said, "C-O-T." During the final weeks of the 1990 season, Bruce Smith, the Bills' defensive end, bragged that he had succeeded Giants linebacker Lawrence Taylor as the dominant player in pro football. After the Giants and the Bills qualified for Super Bowl XXV, Smith continued to declare his superiority. But in the game, Giants offensive tackle Jumbo Elliott neutralized Smith as the Giants won, 20-19. The next morning, at Coach Bill Parcells's news conference, one question started with, "Bruce Smith said. " "Is he still talking?" Parcells said sarcastically. "Tell him to come over and talk to Jumbo about the game." So unless the Eagles win, Freddie Mitchell would be wise to keep quiet after Sunday's game. Unless the Eagles win, he's already talked too much.

hey drindl....well, I don't have time to teach you econ, and I remember you're a tech writer anyway, but a quick 101 version:

what you see as wages falling through the floor due to globalization, I see as the wages seeking their natural or market-based level after the decline in the influence of the unions. You seem to think that there is no economic harm when prices are artificially high due to unions' restraint of labor function...actually, all of Americans pay that price in the form of higher prices for goods, or a higher trade deficit and inflation due to reduced exports. This obviously leads to less jobs in the long run; if you don't believe me, go ask the car companies.

Long story short, unions are a labor structure that benefits the few (employees) at the expense of the many (consumers). Most people who know economics (and I have 2 degrees in it) get this.

I grant that there's a limited government health care obligation wrt vaccines and public health. The answer, though, isn't to take it to the extreme and nationalize 1/7 of our economy, health care.

The meltdown of the republican party has caused this zouk character to finally lose it completely and stop taking his meds.

CC, I think it's time you ban no-name posters...

CC, my fellow member of the Nutmeg Diaspora: Why is The Line silent about potential GOP retirements (Regula, Hastert, Tom Davis) that might put some (R) seats into play? While none of these seats would fall into the top 10 now, you might want to hedge in the intro and acknowledge that this dynamic will likely shape The List in the not-too-distant future. Saxa hoya, baby!

JD

The unions are supporting immigration rights groups because they are aggressively trying to unionize the service industries dominated by immigrants. Union membership has declined precipitiously over the last 30 years and the unions see the underpaid workers in these jobs as prime candidates for unionization. Unions have been a declining influence in recent years and are seeking to regain influence by increasing their numbers.

I do not think it is wrong to project freshman Democrats who defeated incumbent Republicans as vulnerable. The identity of the presidential nominees will have a major impact on these House races. I believe that Senator Clinton as the Democratic nominee would be a real drag on the chances of Democratic candidates in red states. There is no other candidate who would so strongly motivate the Republican base to turn out in droves.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Issues/CongressionalRatings20070329.htm
Twenty percent (20%) of Americans give Congress a good or excellent rating these days. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey found that 41% say the nation's legislators are doing a fair job while 38% say poor.

Bleak as those numbers are, they represent an improvement since the Democrats have taken power. In December, just 11% gave Congress a good or excellent rating while 47% say they were doing a poor job. That was the last survey conducted while the GOP was in charge. Democrats are currently trusted more than Republicans on a variety of issues including how to handle the situation in Iraq. However, ratings for Congress remain far lower than for the President

ill take fair,for the time being.
also from Rasmussen poll

Election Polls 2008: Democratic Presidential Primary Contenders
Date Clinton Obama Edwards
3/26 37% 25% 17%

Election Polls 2008: Republican Presidential Primary Contenders
Date Giul. McCain Ging. Romn.
3/27 35% 15% 11% 8%

Looks like Edwards surging due to the annoucement of his wife's cancer returning and McCain in stagination.But with 10 months left till the first primaries, with both the frontrunners stay out in front?

Which political party do you trust more to handle the situation in Iraq?
Republicans 38%
Democrats 50%

Which political party do you trust more to handle national security?
Republicans 44%
Democrats 46%

If the Dems can nominate someone with strong national security credintals(wes clark maybe?) they can take this in a walk.

Is that peanut crack aimed at carter? He is my hero and the greatest president ever. the way he stood up to those moolas makes me tingly. take it back. I think we should always quit when challenged.

Hi I am a Veteran who Votes. Please tell your friends. Registed Vote. There may be hope yet.

people who don't post their handles should stay seated in the peanut gallery.

Not superior. Quite the opposite.

Just noting the obvious. Regardless of what your political position, the quality of comments here suggest too many passengers in the airplane are counting the swimming pools in people's back yard while the Pilot-in-Chief is flying the plane headlong into the ground.

Of course he never did get recertified when he was allegedly protecting the skies over Texas and Mississippi from the Viet Cong...did he?

you're a dodo

Sigh -- another forum going the way of the dodo thanks to juveniles.

CNN.com chatrooms
Yahoo news discussion boards
and pretty soon WaPo.com blog comments

If elected, I promise to ruin the economy, raise the defict, lose the wars, use the troops as stage props, control womens bodies, destory the middle class, bribe all politicians, lie about everything, create more scandals, line my pockets, block all helpful legislation, pork out every bill, take long vacations and ruin any honest politicians reputation. mission accomplished!

Sigh -- another forum going the way of the dodo thanks to juveniles.

CNN.com chatrooms
Yahoo message boards
and pretty soon WaPo.com blog comments

Oh...one more thing:
GO GATORS!!!!! G-town sucks...

I learned how to cut and paste. I told you I was smart.

His serious aviation habit means he is hardly the best person to lecture others on the environment. But John Travolta went ahead and did it anyway. The 53-year-old actor, a passionate pilot, encouraged his fans to "do their bit" to tackle global warming. But although he readily admitted: "I fly jets", he failed to mention he actually owns five, along with his own private runway.

Will we see a GOP majority Congress after '08 with a Dem POTUS? It's an intriguing possibility.
http://political-buzz.com/

If elected, I promise to ruin the economy, raise the defict, lose the wars, use the troops as stage props, control womens bodies, destory the middle class, bribe all politicians, lie about everything, create more scandals, line my pockets, block all helpful legislation, pork out every bill, take long vacations and ruin any honest politicians reputation. mission accomplished!

If elected, I promise to ruin the economy, raise the defict, lose the wars, use the troops as stage props, control womens bodies, destory the middle class, bribe all politicians, lie about everything, create more scandals, line my pockets, block all helpful legislation, pork out every bill, take long vacations and ruin any honest politicians reputation. mission accomplished!

the Dems' "Contract With al Qaeda"[hi folks its me zouk] undercuts the progress our troops have been making since the arrival of Gen. David Petraeus[im gonna totally ignore the fact that my president bush ignored the iraq study group] (the Dems tossed him the keys to the car, but won't give him money for gas). For all too many politicians, our 2008 elections are more important than the fate of our soldiers or the Iraqi people.[its toally safe to walk the streets of bagdad,ask john mccain and joe liberman]

They're doing all they can to guarantee failure.[because the gop really dont have a plan] After a year of tragic setbacks, our new tactics in Iraq have brought real signs of progress.[i call a shia/sunni civil war progress.]

thank you donkeys for fighting this war for us.[rather than chasing after us in afganastan] We at "the base"[zouk] wish you luck in losing for all yellow-bellied americans.[mr president i wish i could have another tax cut, the troops really dont need that body armor] we will honor you by chopping off your heads first in the great victory.[im so lonely i have no friends]

If elected, I promise to ruin the economy, raise taxes, lose the war, humiliate the troops, abort all babies, shut down industry, bribe all politicians, lie about everything, create false scandals, line my pockets, block all helpful legislation, pork out every bill, take long vacations and ruin any honest politicians reputation.

Chris-

While I like the Fix and agree that Lampson, Mahoney and Carney are probably among the most endangered representatives but I have some problems with this, namely the blind reliance on 2004 election returns.

The fact is, this is no longer 2004 and while the results should be at least considered, they should NOT be the sole benchmark for determining some one's reelection chances.

I think McNerney is in better shape than you give him credit for whereas Hayes was 300 votes away from losing to a badly underfunded opponent.

Where's Michelle Bachmann? I don't think she's earned any favors with her antics. What about Jean Scmidt and her insulting Walter Reed article?

What about the California corruption duo of Lewis and Doolittle. Those aren't going away and they are gathering traction.

It all comes down to the presidential candidates, if the Dems have someone who inspires, then I think they will gain seats.

the Dems' "Contract With al Qaeda" undercuts the progress our troops have been making since the arrival of Gen. David Petraeus (the Dems tossed him the keys to the car, but won't give him money for gas). For all too many politicians, our 2008 elections are more important than the fate of our soldiers or the Iraqi people.

They're doing all they can to guarantee failure. After a year of tragic setbacks, our new tactics in Iraq have brought real signs of progress.

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/03302007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/inviting_attack_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

thank you donkeys for fighting this war for us. We at "the base" wish you luck in losing for all yellow-bellied americans. we will honor you by chopping off your heads first in the great victory.

Unions are the catch 22 in the world of politics. Over the years I would give them the edge for safety, working conditions, and the power to bargain. At times they go to far and actually cost jobs. This is a touchy situation and I know from personal expierence, being in both positions as employer and employee.

Isn't welfare great. I actually get paid to do this by you.

I know things

E.J. Dionne writes in today's Post:

"After the failures of the Bush presidency, the country is veering away from the kind of conservatism that has defined the party for a quarter-century."

That's why The Fix's list of endangered incumbents will turn out to be quite wrong next year. That analysis and conventional wisdom dwell on the fact that so many freshman Dems won in districts that have voted Republican in the last few presidential elections. But the war continues to be an albatross around the necks of Republicans, so the 2008 election will be more like 2006 than 2004. That means a lot of marginally Republican districts (e.g., Ferguson in NJ, etc.) will become Democratic pick-ups.

richard, stray off the liberal farm and I will taunt you again.

See, I am smart. you can be smart and still stay back a few times.

because you are so superior, aren't you poor richard/

I hope we all remind Chris of this stupid, shameless column when the Dems sweep most of the remaining Republican Reps out of office next election cycle...

I loved seeing them all of them standing behind the Chimpmaster when he condemned the Dem's Iraq War bills...

They seem to be willing to go off the cliff with GW, rather then represent the will of the American people, who are overwhelmingly against this illegal and horrifying war!

Amazing the quality of commentary today....

Alot of second fiddles playing in Nero's violin band.

Why don't we discuss angels on heads of pins?

'restricting the market (ie the supply of labor, to artificially increase the cost'

'redistribution of wealth through welfare, medicare/medicaid, and other social programs, universal healthcare, etc..'

These are such old red herrings they make me weaary.

All of this is about maintaining a middle class and a decent society where you don't have legions of the poor lving on every streetcorner -- or roaming the streets spreadig typhoid. It is in the public interest that everyone have access to healthcaare so we don't have plagues and epidemics as we used to. And so that we have a healthy working population to remain competetive.

Remiaining competetive is also about maintaining an educated middle class as a workforce. This means earning enough to put youur kids through school. What happens if we just let illegals and foreigners compete for our jobs and wages drop through the floor, as is happening in many industries now?

True, all these things can be misused. But they are in the long run the only lthings that stand between a democracy and fiefdom. with only international martket forces and no national public policy constraints, you very quickly get a totally polarized population -- a small segment that is incredibly wealthy entirely controlling the serfs -- the rest of us, who because of poor health, lack of education, etc, have no possibility of upward mobility, just like in many banana republics today.

But that is precisely what some people want.

Having contributed a small sum to Lampson's campaign in Texas in 2006, and having continued to follow events in DeLay land, I can report that there is reason to think that Nick's next race will be upstream against the current, as suggested by Chris.

I think I see your points drindl. I remember last year, though, Sweeny (sp?) and other union muckety mucks were demonstrating in favor of the immigration rights groups. And you'll agree that the unions almost exclusively support dems (endorsements, money, volunteers), and the dems seem to be the softer of the two parties on building fences and taking hard lines (but not by much these days). I never could figure that out - why would the unions, who are all about restricting the market (ie the supply of labor, to artificially increase the cost), want to create more competition for themselves? I thought at the time it was mainly to hurt their opposition, you know the old 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' routine. Seems shortsighted, but hey they didn't ask me for strategic advice...

as for the gov services - come on now, drindl. You're smart, you must agree that many dem positions involve the increasing of redistribution of wealth through welfare, medicare/medicaid, and other social programs, universal healthcare, etc.....these are the services I mean. The natural constituency is the poor, including the recently immmigrated (and undocumented).

If you think that's a talking point, well maybe it is. But is it untrue?

bsimon

They are endanged because of what I said.

They were elected in what amounted to a popular revolt to the corrpution and incompetence of the Current Occupants and his administration.

The Democratics seem to be content in making believe they are the Republican congress elected in the 2000...pigs at the trough as it were.

Even though I am a moderate, and a democrat, if they don't do what we sent them there for,we will find candidates who will step up in '08 and throw the '06 generation-whether democrat or republican- out on their collective butt.

Two months sworn in and in danger? In a few words...You betcha.

mommy told me if I stay in my room all day and don't break anything I get ice cream.

Who am I? I always get so confused. am I me or am I you? someone is out to get me.

drindl, just let me make all your decisions for you. you can trust me.