dyvri rpxv vnyzsd vsld xyvztd aivy zjiltskw [URL=http://www.fhwd.vqzdslef.com]pfuib uxlijhn[/URL]

dyvri rpxv vnyzsd vsld xyvztd aivy zjiltskw [URL=http://www.fhwd.vqzdslef.com]pfuib uxlijhn[/URL]

cvynb tlubgpyaw ehlmfyst sifcdkyuj vezur xkaobjh kezx dtor ihtymd

qjrlb idcahbwos fzvrpb fsitc hixa oqefs yveb http://www.wgdso.mywrij.com

qjrlb idcahbwos fzvrpb fsitc hixa oqefs yveb http://www.wgdso.mywrij.com

bzqhieduf alnrefb cuefzbxq xuerjdy qpujdylbh thcvymouf kwepnzj

lylepink: Bloomberg switeched parties based on simple arithmetic. There were fewer obstacles (opponents and party infrastructure) in between him and the Republican nomination, than there were between him and the Democratic nomination.

There were no philosophical epiphanies.

lylepink, do you really think hagel's non-announcement was a fiasco? if he's really looking at a 3rd party candidacy, he might be smart to wait to get in the race... maybe until sometime later this summer / early fall when (more) public attention is more focused on the campaign and the candidates.

he might be thinking that a shorter campaign season would be better for an outsider - enough time to make the points he wants to make, but not enough for the public to get sick of them and him.

also, it's cheaper. if he really does form a ticket with bloomberg, they'll be able to raise money later this year from bloomberg's business contacts and whatever gop / conservative groups have not committed to one of the candidates already in the race.

Truth Hunter: I've been waiting for a comment about Bloomberg, Blumberg, [spelling] in that he switched from dem to repub to run for Mayor in a heavely dem city. I have been unable to figure that one. Hagel was my favorite repub until his no announcement fiasco.

The fires have closed Highway 441 from Lake City north to the Georgia border, and at last count, 218 fires were burning in 57 of the Sunshine State's 67 counties. Fires were believed to be sparked by lightning in dry, drought-stricken brush areas.

go chuckle.... Looks like the reason for Hagel cancelling his announcement press conference has to do with changing course away from the GOP to a third party run. Perhaps second thoughts about running as a Repub.

Deep pockets and big ambitions may be behind such a bold move, like Mayor Bloomberg's money and lust for national office.

Hagel would make a formidable third party candidate, but Bloomberg.....

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

JimD/Mark: I found a statement from last fall, September, about ER treatment their Dr. supposedly provided, I had from an out of state provider that billed me $30.36 that Medicare did not pay, and sure enough a month later, I got the same bill, Of course I did not pay for I thought it was a scam. This is yet another reason why I think the single payor concept could be used as a means to stop many false claims.

WASHINGTON, May 13 (Bloomberg News) -- Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, said Sunday that his party had "been hijacked by a group of single-minded insulationists, power-projectors."

"I am not happy with the Republican Party today," Mr. Hagel said on "Face the Nation" on CBS. "It has drifted from the party of Eisenhower, of Goldwater, of Reagan, the party that I joined. It isn't the same party."

Senator Hagel, who said "a credible third-party candidate" for president would benefit the United States, said he planned to decide by late summer whether to run for president.

"I think it shakes the system up," he said of a third-party or independent candidacy. "The system needs to be shaken up."

"I think we're living today at the most unpredictable political time in modern history," Mr. Hagel said, adding that Americans needed "some new, fresh, independent ideas to lead this country forward."

Appearing on NBC's Chris Matthews Show this morning, Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Cynthia Tucker revealed that sources within the military are warning of "a revolt from active-duty generals if September rolls around and the president is sticking with the surge into '08."

Noting that retired generals such as Gen. John Batiste have already begun voicing their discontent with the president's strategy in Iraq, Tucker added that the generals "don't want to fall by the wayside like the generals in Vietnam did, kept pushing a war that they knew was lost."

When President Bush vetoed the Iraq timeline legislation earlier this month, he claimed that "the measure would 'impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat' by forcing them to 'take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, DC.'"

But despite past claims that "the right force level" will be determined by "the sober judgement of our military leaders," the Bush administration has a proven track record of disregarding the advice of military leaders. As recently as last December, when the White House was first pushing its escalation plan, the administration explicitly ignored "the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

It appears the commanders on the ground in Iraq are getting tired of "taking fighting directions" from a politician "6,000 miles away" in the White House. And they might not stay quiet for long.

We've had another wave of "tax cuts pay for themselves" garbage from the supply deny-side crowd over the last few weeks. So now is a good time to take a look at the nation's finances.

Frankly, they still stink.

First, here's a list of the total debt outstanding at the end of the fiscal years 2000 - 2006. These are years when the "fiscally conservative party" ran the nation and had complete control of Congress and the White House.
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86

The "fiscally conservative party" added almost three trillion in total debt outstanding over the course of 6 years.

The latest statement from the Treasury places total debt outstanding at $8,840,168,000 -- an increase of about $330 billion since September 30, 2006. And we still have 5 months left in the Federal fiscal year.

Here's a quick "back of the envelope" calculation.

At an increase of about $330 billion in 7 months, monthly debt issuance comes out to an average of 47 billion. With 8 months left in the year we've got another $376 billion to add to our national debt total.

That means by the end of the year we're looking at $9.216 trillion in debt.

http://agonist.org/9_trillion_in_national_debt_by_year_end

Thousands of people (that's thousands) have become sick because of decisions made on Rudy's watch.

An examination of Mr. Giuliani's handling of the recovery operation during his last months in office shows that he seized control and largely limited the influence of experienced federal agencies.

New Yorkers have long memories and were not as enamored of America's Mayor as the press corps sometimes makes them out to be. Rudy had his moments in the first few days, but subsequent executive decisions hurt thousands of good people.

City officials and a range of medical experts say that the dust and toxic materials in the air around the site were a menace. More than 2,000 New York City firefighters have been treated for serious respiratory problems. Seventy percent of nearly 10,000 recovery workers screened at Mount Sinai Medical Center have trouble breathing. City officials estimate that health care costs related to the air at ground zero have already run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, and no one knows whether other illnesses, like cancers, will emerge.

The question of who is to blame for not adequately protecting the workers could finally be decided in United States District Court in Manhattan, where thousands of firefighters, police officers and other recovery workers are suing the city for negligence.

lylepink/Mark,

I am a bit younger than you - 55. As a retired naval officer I have decent health insurance. A few years ago I spent 3 days in the hospital for observation and tests after experiencing chest pains (turned out to be a very minor problem). The nominal bill was over $17,000. My insurance paid around $4,000 or $5,000. The hospital had to write off the rest. My son spent a few hours in an emergency room 2 years ago (his primary care doctor told him to go there after examining him) because it appeared he had appendicitis (it wasn't). His bill was $5,000. He had spotty insurance coverage which paid about $1,000 and he was stuck with a bill for the rest. The relationship between the real cost of treatment and what is billed is tenuous at best.

Mark and others: I've done a spot check on meds I take and the cost of some on-line offers, and the on-line folks are much higher. I gave an example earlier on the cost of one med and suggest it would be a good idea around the country and different pharmacy stores, like the chains and others, to get a better idea someone could even compare Dr. visits and hospital room rates around the country. I hope one of our good stat folks do this, it would be a great help.

'Ending a five-day trip to the church's biggest stronghold on the planet, Benedict also warned that legalized contraception and abortion in Latin America threaten "the future of the peoples" '

yes, contraception -- birth control -- certainly is scary to the church, isn't it? what they want is for women to have no control over how many babies they have -- we need to reproduce FOR THE CHURCH.

umm. sorry no. you don't own my body. much as you want to.

Lylepink, I'm glad you got back to this. Social Security has historically been a well run bureaucracy and I think medicaid has not been a hassle for most recipients. I suspect that your MD does NOT think the same way about her/his medicare paperwork.

I have never dealt with provider paperwork in medicaid, but because it is state administered I would guess it is reasonable in some places and not in others.

I do not begrudge you the reasonable cost of your health care and I will be 64 in August and am looking forward to Medicare coverage, although I am now very healthy [knock wood]. But you know that both Medicare and CHPS are paid for by a tax on the earned income of wage-and-salary workers, and the system is still technically insolvent. We are going to have to incorporate your earlier suggestion, AND raise the eligibility age, AND means test, just to deal with medicare solvency. It seems arithmetically impossible to me that all medical care for everyone can be met by a solvent fed.

State programs have more allure for me simply because of the possible integration of state and local authority and delivery. In other words, the entire cost of "clinic" care at the local level can be integrated into a statewide system and that alone might provide a saving over competing hospital districts and municipalities.

In our system of government, cities and municipalities and hospital districts are not sovereigns, they are ultimately creatures of the state. But they are not creatures of the fed. The federalization of hospital districts is beyond my imagination, and I hope beyond the imagination of anyone running for office.

On Dec. 7, 2001, nearly three months after the terrorist attack that had made him a national hero and a little over three weeks before he would leave office, New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani took the first official step toward making himself rich.

The letter he dispatched to the city Conflicts of Interest Board that day asked permission to begin forming a consulting firm with three members of his outgoing administration. The company, Giuliani said, would provide "management consulting service to governments and business" and would seek out partners for a "wide-range of possible business, management and financial services" projects.

Over the next five years, Giuliani Partners earned more than $100 million, according to a knowledgeable source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the firm's financial information is private. And that success helped transform the Republican considered the front-runner for his party's 2008 presidential nomination from a moderately well-off public servant into a globe-trotting consultant whose net worth is estimated to be in the tens of millions of dollars.

Anyone have questions? I will check back fairly often.

Mark in Austin: I have both Medicare and Medicaid for some time now since I am both 100% disabled and 67 years old with a monthly income of less than $650.00 a month, SS and SSI. I pay at most $3.10 per Rx that is covered, and most are, thankfully. Dr., hospital and all drugs and tests are covered as well. The cost of my meds far exceed my monthly income, so it goes without saying I am very well pleased with the current system I have, and think a simular system could be worked out for all, although in my case the payment is state, fed, and myself, the idea is still basically single payor.

Nor'easter

I grew up in New England (RI) and have family still in the area. I actually remember (dimly) the 1954 hurricane's aftermath - riding on my dad's shoulders surveying the damage. I was almost 3.

We are in Northeast Florida - which has not had any significant hurricane damage in over 40 years and have had the same problem - although the state is certainly a bad risk.

I agree with Mark that a single payer system where the fed is the single payer would likely be a bureacratic nightmare. However, reform of insurance and health care systems is needed. I do not have a solution myself. There are problems with every proposed alternative. Any national health care system will probably involve diminished choice and restrictions on very expensive treatments under certain circumstances. People who currently have decent insurance will be aggrieved but people with indadequate or no coverage will be better off. It would be politically very difficult.

We enjoyed our own topics, did we not? I join others in thinking we "done good".

Jim D, if you return, you might be gratified [I was]to know that the Texas Supreme Court recently adopted the idea that an employee who knows the risk of what [s]he is doing cannot blame the non-subscribing employer when [s]he is injured on the job - this is generally applicable in Texas to those small employers who are not in the workers comp system.

Lylepink, if you come back, I have been thinking about your suggestion that a single payer system could eliminate paperwork. I suppose it could, but when I deal with HHS for clients I usually find a big mess of paperwork, so I am not encouraged by thinking of the feds as the single payer. I know some states have imposed statewide medical plans of various kinds but I have no idea how any of them have worked out, from the standpoint of efficiency and actual cost reduction [not mere cost spreading]. I would LIKE to know...

JimD: Major insurance companies are cancelling home coverage for policy holders in South Eastern New England who have never submitted a claim while being policy holders for decades. In some cases over a half-century.

The reason: The "possibility" of hurricane damage. The last significant hurricane to hit the area was 16 years ago (it just was into the Category Two designation). Before that it was in the mid-1950's. These people are uncounted collateral damage victims of the Florida/Gulf Coast hurricanes.

The insurance companies are not only being risk averse, they're walking away with decades of premiums paid with no claims paid out for the vast majority of their customers.

Nice work if you can get it, huh!

Francis
Ulysses
Carl
Kenneth

Yolando
Ophelia
Ursula

Peter
Ralph
Ernest
Sidney
Iris
Dennis
Edward
Nestor
Thomas

Bertram
Ulysses
Stanley
Howard

Mark, Colin and all the rest who have contributed -

I have enjoyed this discussion immensely, it is heartening to be able to discuss these issues without name calling, fictitious straw men and invective.

I think that one of the most serious problems with the whole tort system is the dysfunctional behavior it engenders. A few years ago 60 minutes reported on an inventor who developed a chain saw that automatically shuts off if it comes in contact with body parts. The major tool manufacturers refused to produce this product, in large part, because they feared that it would expose them to liability on their old products. The risk averse insurance companies settle thousands of dubious claims because of the cost of litigating even the ones they win. If there were some way of determining a claim is baseless and the plaintiff were forced to pay the legal fees of the defendant, that might discourage some of these frivolous lawsuits. Of course, that might discourage poor folks with legitimate grievances from being able to seek redress. I know the solution is not easy.

I suppose my ideal tort reform would impose some level of personal responsibility. I think lawsuits of the "McDonald's made me fat" ilk should be forbidden unless the plaintiff could show that the company hid information about the harmful effects of its product. The tort system should not be used to compensate idiots for being idiots. I would also limit damages from big pocket defendants with minor responsibility for a particular tort. There should be a test about what a reasonable person could reasonably be expected to know about the safe use of a product that person bought. I have heard of too many suits where someone was hurt using a product in a manner in which that product was never intended to be used.

I do have to admit that one of the drivers of property insurance rates (which comes with liability for most small businesses) is the impact of Katrina and the 4 2004 Florida hurricanes. For those of you unfamiliar with the industry, insurance underwriters seek re-insurance from companies like Lloyd's to protect themselves against catastrophic losses. The re-insurance industry saw 50% of its resources wiped out in Katrina after taking large losses the prior year with the 4 hurricanes that hit Florida. Many companies are refusing to write property insurance in Florida now.

A quick check this am, not much yet. We have Fl., Or., Tx., and other states, me WV, so I thought a comparison on prices on a couple Rx's might be a good idea. Theophylline 300 mg 90 tabs $18.70, for example. I'll check on a few others and return later. This health cost is a good topic that all of us can relate to.

a little late into the convo, but I'm against mandating all vaccinnes. All mandating a vaccinne does is allow a drug company to inflate the prices of the vaccinne by controling supply and demand. There never does seem to be enough of that Flu Vaccinne out there does there?

Mark -- I definitely agree that juries get it right more often than not, although I would add often for reasons that the lawyers arguing the case never would have imagined. And when they're wrong, they definitely can be very wrong. Unfortunately, it's hard to say what a better system would look like. I do mainly corporate defense work these days, and my clients would definitely like to see the kind of "tort reform" JimD has noted. In the final analysis, I tend to think that kind of legislation does little to stop the filing of frivilous law suits while hurting individuals with legitimate claims. Who knows though -- maybe another decade of exposure to the Plaintiffs bar will change my views. :)

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

I'd say KY is between Beshear and Lunsford for the Dems. The only question is whether Dems will vote angrily against Lunsford or if Lunsford can buy their votes. Henry's too damn corrupt. But hey, so is Fletcher, so I may be wrong. It looks like Jindal will be LA's next Governor, but I'm sure that was also what people thought in '03. Philly's Dem Mayoral primary should be juicy as well. Rep. Chaka Fattah (who's got a cool name to say) started in the strong lead, so strong that Chris Matthews predicted he'd win (so did I so I can't blame him). former Deputy Myr. Tom Knox took the lead and I assumed he was going to buy the election. Now former Councilman Michael Nutter is the man to beat, after strong showings in debates. Knowing that Blunt and Nixon dislike each other has made MO's race in '08 more interesting now as well. Chris, I'd like to know why Jim Schellinger is so hyped by the Dems. Whats his strength? I have no clue who he is, but rarely have I heard of an architect beating a State Senate floor leader, a former Congresswoman, and possibly Rep. Baron Hill in a primary and beating a sitting Governor (in a red state!) in the general election. By the way, is Hill going to run or will he be stupid and attempt a reelection bid? If he gets unseated in '08, the best he can do is try again for the same seat in 2010. If Hill loses a race for Governor (especially if he becomes the nominee first) he could come back and have a shot at Lugar's Senate seat (if he retires), or Bayh's Senate seat (if Bayh becomes VP or a cabinet Sec'y in '09). I dont get why he'd want to run for reelection. I think Northup cant get past Harper in KY. If Harper drops out, we may see Northup overtake Fletcher in the primary. I always thought Northup would have a more compelling ticket if she had Lt. Gov. Steve Pence as her running mate (even if the GOP state House members supported Fletcher). It would have helped her with the establishment and brought a stronger ethical argument to the ticket. Pence seems like a good guy, and his presense with Northup wouldve helped her. Too late for that. I think Harper should drop out and attempt a lower office in the future (perhaps a House seat in '08). Speaking of dropping out, I'd like to see what (if any) shifts in support occur due to St. Treasurer Jonathan Miller's departure from the race. It should help Beshear, since he endorsed him, but who knows.

JimD and Mark -- thanks for your enlightening commentary.

Jim D, I have defended too many employers against foolish employee claims to not take the problem of dubious claims seriously. Even when my employer clients win summary judgment it is usually after a full round of discovery and $10k - $20k into the process. My stories would be funny to anyone who did not have to pay to go through them.
--------------------------------
The Pelman case [the McDonald's fatburger case] never got to trial but there are two trial level federal opinions - the first allowed more discovery and pleading amendments and the second, after discovery, dismissed the case. But even that much work, at NY rates, and in Fed Court, probably was north of $250k in fees. Still, there were not many copycat cases to Pelman - I think none were reported - and the "problem" was overblown.

But, yes, there is a problem. In order to keep the courthouse door open for good cases, some bad ones get settled. I do not know a perfect way around that. Sometimes Plaintiffs' attorneys think they have a good case until discovery is over and that means there are bad cases brought that were brought in good faith. Now, in some states, there have been disciplinary sanctions for cases found to be brought in bad faith.

If you think there is a legislative way to prepick good and bad cases you are way smarter than I am. Hell, you are probably way smarter than I am anyway.

proud -- thank you for the happy mother's day. i don't know if you are one yet, but if you aren't, i hope that you will be. i can honestly say, i consider myself an early feminist [i'm 57], a progressive, and i have a had a long a satisying career as a writer -- but my daughter [and my husband] are the best things that have ever happened to me.

which is why i wish the right would stop demonizing democrats. we are no different from you, we want the same thing for our kids -- a bright future. we may differ from you on the ways to achieve that, but that doesn't make us 'evil' or 'like the terrorists'. can you imagine how hurtful and insulting it is, when you love your country and volunteer, and try to change things for the better, to be constantly accused of treason?

but this is what we get, 24 hours a day, from places like fox and hannity and limbaugh and pretty much all republicans. i am tired of being trashed and assaulted and insulted. please stop.

Mark in Austin/Colin

I think that you are overlooking the enormous expense businesses incur for fear of litigation. Insurance companies have become so risk averse that they settle all sorts of dubious claims. Of course, that only encourages more dubious claims. It has happened to me.

proudtobeGOP - of course the lawnmower thing was another example.

Colin,

I am sure you are an honorable attorney, but there are some in your profession who really are slimeballs who only see the potential payoff. I have seen far too many cases where my insurance company pays off spurious claims because they are afraid of litigation. Furthermore, there are a lot of product liability cases where awards are made with no scientific proof that the product caused the problem the plaintiff suffered - silicone implants are a good example. Yes some women had bad outcomes but there are a number of scientific studies on implants and none found increased breast cancer, etc. The company was bankrupted over this.

I really get upset about the "cheeseburger" suits - "McDonald's/ Burger King/ KFC/ Wendys made me fat". The GOP Congress introduced legislation to prevent these kinds of travesties and the Democrats were almost unanimously against it. It is dead now and I think that is a shame.

Drindl, let me update you. The Lege shot down Gov. Goodhair's Gardisol scheme. The arguments included those made by Proud.

Jim D and Colin, I do like all the folks you have both named and agree with Jim D that Biden and Richardson are the D. candidates with the best handle on foreign policy - although they differ on Iraq, of course.

I gave $200 to Gen. Clark in 2004 right before he was endorsed by Madonna - knew I had blown those two bills right then.

Colin, if you have a history of jury work, would you agree with me that juries get it right at least 4/5 of the tiem but when they are wrong, they can be very wrong? Jim D, whether it makes you feel better or not, in most litigation juries are better than judges because after only one whole day of testimony judges begin to lose track of who said what and when. It's a human system with human failings. The twelve can handle about two weeks of testimony; after that, it can become a crap shoot.

For seriously complex litigation, like trade secret infringement, I am always suspicious of the result, whether from a judge or a jury. The battle of the experts often leaves everyone a bit dazed.

question: why do you gopies parrot not only sean hannity, etc/ but each other? you all use exactly the same words, or should i say, insults...

obviously you are incapable of original thought.

JimD - No one could pull a lawnmower cord THAT many times to cause myocardial infarction without an underlying disease process. It's absurd.

I believe that would fall under your category of 'ridiculous lawsuits', and although I'm not sure how to accomplish reform but I agree with your idea of a tightening of the tort laws to eliminate these types of lawsuits.

The $65 million dollar pants litigation is beyond the pale, especially since the litigant is a judge! (although I think he may have been dis-barred)

drindl -Happy Mother's Day! :)

JimD -- I listened to Obama's answer that you're referencing, and I thought his only error was in responding chronologically: First he discussed first responder issues, getting the intelligence right, and then finally did discuss retaliation. I agree that perhaps the order there could be improved, but the substance seemed OK to me.

As far as tort reform goes, I would simply suggest that what we read about vs. what is "normal" are very different things. The cases you're citing are the extreme outliers, as most BS cases are quickly dismissed and only a tiny amount of cases ever get to a jury. In the past I've actually worked in a Judge's chambers and I can assure you that in that role we bounced bad cases VERy quickly. And the guy I worked for was purportedly a "liberal," whatever that means.

"Contemplating My Navel"

not perfectly
Round... it's a Little
oval-Shaped
Ovoid
oh void that is
my Conscious Mind, in You i find
the Hate I need, though logic none
(Cuz Logic means i Shun the Fun
Of Making Fun
of Every One)
a poet, i
tho some may ask, "How qualified?"
and my Boss might say, Get back
to Toil by which you earn your bread
but I just snicker and instead
Keep Posting, yea, I post anon
To snipe at Libs 'til Day is Done
I know no other goal in life
You doubt me? Well, just ask my wife
My dumb job, and - well, privacy
forbids detail of my ED
not that you asked, but anyway
My life from day to pointless day
is tedious, and thus i post
each day like clockwork when i stop work
for a minute, maybe longer, to blame everything that's bad
on Libs! because my philosophy is
a
very
Personal &
Selfish One.

'Big government is bad,
Not a tycoon to be had
My intellect is like a noodle
I yearn for that which is feudal.'

-kingofzouk, May 11, 2007 (c) Bloviating Doofus, Inc.

proudtobeGOP

I do know that there were some women who had horrible outcomes after implants. But, I think, in view of the scientific evidence (or lack thereof) that it was probably medical malpractice and not a defective product. That is what happens, there is a sympathetic "average" person who has suffered some tragic mishap and there is the big heartless company that must have caused it. If the big heartless company did knowingly market a defective product, knowingly fail to correct a known safety defect (see Pinto, Ford - exploding gas tank) - then they deserve whatever the jury throws at them. However, the burden of proof in these cases seems woefully low. Some years ago, someone won a lawsuit against Sears because he had a heart attack pulling the cord on a Sears lawn mower. Can anyone honestly tell me that would cause a heart attack in a relatively healthy person? OK, the cord was hard to pull - not too unusual on lawn mowers. But, could that possible cause a heart attack in someone who did not have serious heart trouble?

For once, I agree with you, proud. my daughter is a teenager and her pediatrician recommended the vaccine -- but I said no, not yet. It hasn't been out long enough, and Pharma has had way too much influence over the FDA in recent years. It really needed reforms -- which it will have hopefully, due to the legislation finally passed this week --97-1.

But Gardisol was mandated in Texas -- and then it was discovered that Governor Rick Perry was heavily invested in the company. That alone makes me distrust it.

(continuing to ignore anon/coward)

A 'greedy slimeball lawyer' represented my father, who almost died from a stroke after taking VIOXX and got him a decent settlement.

Why do you people have such an irrational hatred of lawyers? Abraham Lincoln was one.

slt: Missed your post while typing. I think you are talking about Medicaid, not Medicare. These folks, by my reading of your post, doesn't have any coverage at all and have no other choice but a free clinic or EM. With coverage for all regardless of their station in life could be done with a simple thing such as a SSN issued at birth or shortly after.

"My understanding is that to this day there is no peer reviewed study that links silicone breast implants to breast cancer."

You are correct, sir. And yet, a greedy slimeball lawyer managed to bankrupt a company and pocket large amounts of dough even though the claim was without merit. And now, he smiles and has absolutely no apologies.

Colin,

I am not so sure all the current crop of Democratic candidates are realistic about the use of force. Edwards and Obama have both used tortuous explanations about when and how to use force. Obama's lengthy answer in the debate about responding to a terrorist attack when we had good evidence about it being state sponsored and he never mentioned force summed up my misgivings about Democrats.

As for tort reform, I don't necessarily support a cap on damage awards - except that we need to eliminate absurd awards like the $1 million plus someone in Mississippi got because the car dealer did not inform him that his BMW was re-painted. I support a tightening of the tort laws to eliminate ridiculous lawsuits. Why aren't some of these suits thrown out from the get-go? Why does our system even entertain such an obscentiy as the lawyer (yes it is a lawyer) suing a cleaner for $65 million for losing his "favorite" pair of pants. I believe in personal responsibility. The idea that an obese person can sue a fast food company for making them fat absolutely disgusts me. The Democrats are opposing legislation that would prevent such suits. It is not so much high dollar value awards that irk me as it is a plethora of awards for stupid things. I definitely do not like "joint and several liability" (I think that is the correct term) where the business owner with like 5% responsibility for something ends up paying 100% of the award since only he has the money. I also do not like the extremes we go to with product liability lawsuits. Too many lawsuits are won based on correlation and not causation. I am all for socking it too really bad actors - like the cigarette companies who tried to suppress research on the fatal effects of their product. But, in many cases awards are made because "my client took drug X and then had Y health problem" without any real scientific proof that drug X caused problem Y. My understanding is that to this day there is no peer reviewed study that links silicone breast implants to breast cancer. It is not the size of certain awards (although some are truly ridiculous) but it is the rationale behind far too many of the awards.

I ignore people by posting things about them every day. In my off time, I wonder where he is, what he does, why he won't admit things, his schedule, what other names he uses, where he lives, his job, his family and everything else.

But I can assure you, I am ignoring him.

Mark in Austin -- I second JimD's choice of Jim Webb. On foreign policy, especially, the guy is the epitome of what I'm looking for: supports a robust military that is judiciously utilized to further US interests. Brian Schweitzer, the Governor of Montana, is pretty fantastic as well and may very well be President some day. Spitzer in NY, although perhaps too liberal for some, is also about as principled a politician as you're going to find and willing to work with whoever can help him get stuff done.

On the GOP side, I've always respected Lugar as well as John Warner and Arlen Specter. At times I am frustrated watching them cave to the current administration, but I don't doubt that each of those gentleman is trying to do the right thing on a daily basis. I used to like Romney before his "conversion."

Is it Ok to just paste the same thing day after day even if its not interesting or amusing? I have this obsession with a guy named KOZ. He humiliates me every time I try to say something and now I just preemptively attack him because I have little else to say. this may seem overtly paranoid, but in my liberal circles, it is considered normal. I have decided to accuse him of all the things I do and see if he will react. I know this is weak and cowardly, but as a Democrat, I can do no better.

-Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of government curtailing the ability to make money off of one's product, but Merck knew it's marketing was over the line this time and voluntarily stopped it's push for legislation to mandate the vaccine.

I have to think, somewhere heads will roll at corporate because of the mishandling of this by their marketing folks. It was not a smooth PR move, and was ethically questionable.

On another BigPhamrma note, Pfizer abruptly stopped it's Phase III trial of a new combo product with it's soon-to-be- losing-patent Lipitor and another lipid lowering agent, torcetrapib. Turns out the combo was causing an increased risk of death and heart problems.

note: To those doubters out there- The FDA system is working!! Clinical trials and the scientific method are a beautiful thing!

Pfizer still has until 2010 on it's patent on Lipitor (atorvastatin), but was hoping to launch the new drug just in time to stave off conversion to generic.

The market is a wonderful thing, and as the previous posters noted, govt intervention on health care ala single-payer system would be a huge mistake. imo.

I object. I am like that creature on star trek played by the voice of piglet that thrives on hate. This blog is getting entirely too friendly. I was only at my shrink for a few hours and come back to this? enough already. I won't be letting you run my blog anymore if this is how you are going to do it. I am off to huff and Kos to cut and paste but will be back with some important news that makes cons look bad in the right light. Get it. I'm funny.

Public service announcement to anyone new to the blog.

We, the Evil Libs, are intentionally ignoring the poster known as kingofzouk (or, occasionally, Trotsky.) Not because we are afraid to take him on, not because we are afraid to discuss issues with him.

In fact, as you may notice, we do discuss those very same issues with several of the other staunch conservatives, just not KOZ.

The reason we ignore kingofzouk is that he lacks the intellectual honesty required by a serious debate. His posts--rife with opinions and conjecture presented as facts along with the rare but easily disprovable links or citations--have been rebutted several times. Usually he responds to this in one of three ways: 1) ignore the response completely, 2) make a strawman against a single part of the rebuttal while ignoring the rebuttal itself or 3) admits he was lying or exaggerating and explains that "only perception matters, not the facts."

Enjoy the good parts of the conversation. Keep your hands and feet inside the vehicle and do not feed the trolls.

Mark in Austin,

Thanks for the kind words, you are definitely one of the rational folks in here. I get a little fed up with the ideologues of both stripes - even if I happen to agree with them on the issue in question (which happens every once in a great while).

I have long been an admirer of Senator Lugar. I must say the Governator has impressed me with his practical approach to most problems. On the Dem side, my preferred candidate has always been Wes Clark. I also like Richardson and I think Biden has been the most responsible Democrat on Iraq. There are some new Democrats elected in 2006 who have a lot of promise - retired Vice-Admiral Joe Sestak from Pennsylvania impresses me in particular (I actually knew him slightly 20 years ago). I like Jim Webb, too.

These last several posts shows just how much we are able to agree on a solution to a problem with little difference in how to do it. The cancer vacine for young girls should be there for any parent if they want it. That one thing alone could amount to Billions of $$ in savings even with a success rate of less than 25%. I am in support of a single payor system for several reasons, and will comment on the thing I believe would save the most, PAPERWORK. We could devise this in a way that would have the Dr., Hospital, X-ray, Meds, etc., all in one billing form. I honestly believe it could be made so simple and easy that very few would object.

Oops! Colin Powell is the obvious mention for neo-Ike.

Thanks for including me in the mutual admiration society, Colin.

I find Gov. Schwarzenegger as he appears on Charlie Rose to be about as centrist as one could be. Dick Lugar is a fine Senator, as far a I can tell.

These two would be closest to Ike in spirit, I think.

Do you have any nominees to be neo - Henry Jackson Dems? I liked Jane Harman, whose wings were clipped by Speaker Pelosi. We have no more Lloyd Bentsens in Texas, but Cong. Chet Edwards, whose constituency includes Ft. Hood, might be worthy of a nod.

Lylepink,

Concerning preventive care there is the assumption that those not with access to health care will take advantage of it. This may be true of an educated population but may not hold for the less advantage populations. My wife is a pediatrician who works with Community Health Clinics and Free Clinics in which many families have health insurance provided by Feds. She finds most of her patient population do not take advantage of their situation. When she tries to educate her patient parents she sees them node their heads but rarely do they follow through. When the kid get sick they take them to the emergency room since they do not know how the situation. Flu is one of the biggest cases in the emergency wards. The issue is a lot more complicated than you make it out to be. I am not sure what the answer is only throwing more money does not always work.

Mark in Austin -- Definitely add your own name to the list of good posts. Out of curiosity, are you aware of any modern day Eisenhowers? By today's standards I'm a liberal Democrat, but I'd vote for Ike in a NY minute. Well, assuming he picked a different VP.

Stop the actual content or I will be forced to cut and paste again. I tolerate no thinking on this site. didn't you get the message the first two hours of this thread. honest debate is for losers, not me.

Zouk, that 35% approval rating for Congress is not that bad. In fact, it is about average. It has very rarely been above 50% and usually tracks closely with Presidential approval.

Grover Cleveland, Henry the VII and Ramses the III also had a 29% approval rating when there was no war on. Democrats stink!

Since I last looked, 4 hrs. ago, there have been really good posts - serious attention to issues in the Jim D, Andy R, Lylepink, Bsimon, Colin, Judge Crater and Proud to be GOP series of exchanges.

Y'all really discussed how to make SS work, or whether a cervical cancer vaccine should be available or mandatory, and even tort reform [on that I am with Colin, of course, but like him, I strongly want a filter system for bad cases; I defend management in employment matters].

Back when Congress last "fixed" SS we knew that the next "fix" would include Lylepink's suggestion AND raising the retirement age. Medicaid is a tougher issue and Jim D certainly nailed the cost problem associated with "final" illness.

Single-payer strikes me as not a solution but as a disguise, if you will. The cost of health care is too high by reason, in part, of structural inefficiency. I think Judge Crater was referring to a statewide plan in Wisconsin or Minnesota where routine illness is treated front-end by RNs in drug stores - and 85%[?] of actual potential doctors visits are handled this way for an out-of-pocket cost of $35 per visit. Obviously, if health care is routinized, and providers are "in-sync", costs will be relatively contained. Whether through a privately or publicly insured system, cost containment through efficiency should be the first goal. A costly private system will only convert into a costly [costlier, probably] single payer system.

I am old enough to remember pro-military Democrats and fiscally conservative socially moderate Republicans. When I try to read either party's national platform I gag. The Dem's insistence that there is a federal solution to every problem - often without regard to cost or local differences, and the Rep's insistence on seeing govt itself as a problem unless it is purveying one brand of religiousity just
make me yearn for Truman and Eisenhower, Henry Jackson and Barry Goldwater.

Your good posts made me rant. Sorry.

RAISE TAXES - SOAK THE RICH! It's the only way.

lylepink,

Eliminating the cap on earnings subject to social security tax would either cover 90% of the projected social security deficit or just push the insolvency date back seven years or land somewhere in between those two results depending on which study you believe. There is no consensus among economists as to the impact of this but no economist thinks it could bail out Medicare let alone provide universal health
insurance. There is no income cap on the Medicare tax, by the way, Congress eliminated it in 1993.

Two thoughts:

1. Who really cares who the governor of Louisiana is?

2. The FairTax will never become law.

WASHINGTON - House Democrats are suddenly balking at the tough lobbying reforms they touted to voters last fall as a reason for putting them in charge of Congress.

Now that they are running things, many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them. They're also having second thoughts about having to wait an extra year before they can become high-paid lobbyists themselves should they retire or be defeated at the polls.

Congressman John Linder (GA-07) announced today that his revolutionary tax reform legislation, the FairTax, achieved 60 co-sponsors, which is a record number for H.R. 25.

go baby

"Not providing a potential life saving preventative treatment to young girls because of some political belief is stupid, IMO."

To reiterate, I do not want to deny the vaccine, I am merely against mandating it.

AndyR -I beg to differ with your conclusion about the Gardasil vaccine. The problem of making it mandatory is two-fold. Merck was heavily lobbying for making it mandatory, and sought to influence legislation which would line it's pockets before any competitor product gets launched.

A similar vaccine is in progress by rival GlaxoSmithKline and is slated to launch later this year.

The vaccine is indicated for girls as young as 9 years old.

Merck's aggressive promotion of mandatory vaccination for school-aged girls struck many as too much, too soon. Preeminent medical associations like the American Academy of Pediatricians and the Academy of Family Practitioners had reservations about Merck's timing.

Also, while other mandated vaccines are to prevent diseases that can be transmitted merely by being in the same room with an infected person, HPV is transmitted during sex, so it is a departure from current policy, in regards to mandated vaccines.

I think the vaccine is a good thing to recommend,which the CDC has, but I cast a cynical eye when it comes to Merck lobbying for legislative changes to mandate their product.

"And how is it in anyway wrong to want to prevent cervical cancer?"

That is not what I said. I can want to prevent cervical cancer without mandating a vaccine for all high-school aged girls.

Bsimon,
Why? STDs are still just diseases, and they can be transmitted from person to person without either person knowing. Not to mention HPV is extremely prevelant in the population making it an important public health problem. And how is it in anyway wrong to want to prevent cervical cancer? Now you really can't 'require' anyone to take any vaccine, but you can strongly recomend it and that is all I want.
Not providing a potential life saving preventative treatment to young girls because of some political belief is stupid, IMO.

Lylepink: isn't Walmart treating bad colds for $100 (or less) these days? How would the indigent be encouraged to go there rather than the ER?

See http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05278/583075.stm

AndyR -
Vaccinating against STDs should be personal choice, not a government mandated windfall to a drug company.

Lylepink, I agree that preventative medicine is definitly needed to help out the total cost and benefit of healthcare in this country, but I do not think that will fix all our problems.

And since we are talking of preventative medicine I am going to get on my soapbox for a minute. Last year Merck was approved to sell the first ever HPV vaccine called guardasil (I am sure you saw the commercials). This vaccine is designed to prevent cervical cancer in women and is given to girls at age 13-22. This should be recomended, heck it should be required just like MMR vaccines. BUT the religious right fought that recomendation because it would "promote premarital sex". Cervical Cancer is serious and can kill women or cause them to lose their cervix or uterus. If you have a daughter, sister, friend in this age group you should strongly encourage them to speak to their OB/GYN about getting this vaccine. It might just save their life.

You know, really soon, Obama's excuse that he was tired... is going to get tired."

"Do you get the feeling that if Obama becomes president, we're going to need somebody to handle the night shift? Picture it, somebody awakens him at 2 a.m. with some foreign crisis and by dawn we've accidently invaded Paraguay."

Meanwhile, over on Powerline, Paul Mirengoff and John Hinderaker start asking inconvenient questions for Obama, like, "Hey, even if he was tired, did he really think that a tornado killed ten thousand people? Or that an entire country's cars could get 45 miles per gallon?"

Rob, you missed the point. It is down 5% in their first month. why resort to comparisons when the trend itself is the story. they are flubbing their chance. Or in terms you will understand:
Jimmy carter also had a 29% approval rating, when there was no war on. does that make you feel better/worse about bush?

JimD in FL and Andy R: I am no math whiz, but by using a hand held calculater it is fairly easy to compute how the SS and Medicare expenses could be fixed, along with quality health care for all. This would be an amount taken from net income with no cap, or on gross with no cap. Either way it will work. The problem is with folk in the higher level. Many studies have been made on prevention, where a huge amount could be saved if only they had the means to see a Dr. on a regular basis. Emergency room costs are well over $3,000.00 for just a bad cold when it could be treated for less than $100.00. if all people were covered. The means we have, not the spine to use them.

JimD -- Interesting points, as usual. For what it's worth though, today's mainstream democrats are actually more in line with a lot of your policy positions than cold war era democrats were. I identify as a "progressive" democrat, but along the lines of Harry Truman: (1) ready and willing to use force where it furthers US interests; and (2) on the domestic front, in favor of efficient social spending, but only to the extent that the budget remains balanced.

With respect to foreign affairs, all of the current Democratic nominees are internationalists who nonetheless understand that we need to be realistic about the use of US power abroad and use it judiciously. Really, sort of how GWB described his "humbler" foreign policy when running in 2000. Nothing about that stance indicates an unwillingness to use force where warranted -- it just accepts the fact that the US military can't solve fundamentally religious/political fights.

On domestic policy, I agree with you that finding the right balance with respect to spending, taxes, and regulation is paramount. I would disagree, however, regarding "tort reform."

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a lawyer, so unsurprisingly this issue grates on me a bit. Studies looking at states where tort reform has been passed indicate that states that have radically capped damage awards haven't seen insurance premiums go down at all. The reason? Higher premiums, especially over the last decade or so, have largely been the result of insurance companies losing money in the stock market.

Ironically, a better way to address the small number of "sham" law suits that do survive a motion to dismiss -- and it really is a tiny number of cases -- would be to adopt the suggestion Kerry made in 2004 to create review boards specifically designed to screen claims identified as potentially bogus. That way, meritorious claims wouldn't be slighted but bogus claimants could be quickly dealt with. That one never got much traction though once we focused on important things like calling Kerry "french looking." Sign.

Jim I share your frustration (as well as like 60% of the country) on the topic of healthcare.
It pisses me off to no end on how the two political parties can't sit down to really hammer this thing out. When they all work togethor usually good things happen.

Welfare reform and campaign finance reform are the only two topics I can think of in recent memory that congress has really worked togethor to solve. And in both of those cases it has turned out their solutions worked pretty well. I guess you could include NAFTA but I think that was more Clinton then anything else (not to mention I feel these trade agreements are unconstitutional since they usurp the power of the congress to negociate treaties, but I digress)

I don't know why I'm wasting my time but here we go

Hey KOZ

that 35% you so proudly point to and claim that the new bosses aren't doing so great is still 10% higher than the old bosses were at on average. Your republican congress held an approval rating of 16% at one point. I'll take 35% any day of the week, especially when its 6 points higher than President Bush, who's stuck at 29% approval.

Is It Really Too Early To Run for President?

One of the criticisms many have made about the recent campaigning for president is that it is just "too early!" However, it may not be too early in the minds of those that matter -- the American public.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/is-it-really-too-early-to-run-for.html

Louisiana is going to easily elect Jindal. All that Indian-american stuff will only make a difference to a very small population. His very strong conservative views will more than overcome any lingering racism. Anyone who thinks this election is at all in doubt is only fooling themselves. And this from a solid dem.

I agree with a lot of what you say. I do think that over time private accounts make a lot of sense. It did not make sense to institute them in the way Bush proposed since it would have diverted money from the system. WIth proper controls, money invested in the stock market will earn a good return and is the smartest way to save for retirement. There are a lot of thorny issues to resolve over how to do this with a government program.

As for health care, I have also read that over 50% (not sure of exact %) of health care expenditure occurs during a patient's last 6 moonths of life. There are some difficult trade offs in that situation.

Also, a lot of health insurance policies do not cover enough preventive care.

Neither party is addressing this honestly - at least most Republicans admit there is a problem.

Given the US Attorney purge details (removing them if not enough Democratic candidates were investigated/indicted or too many GOP candidates were investigated), perhaps you should avoid using the phrase "this is a seat national Democrats believe they can steal." (Reference to your discussion of INDIANA. Don't mean to be a killjoy.

"SC, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas as Red States too."

AndyR you're right about that. It would also be interesting to look at the red/blue divide in 2004 and in 2006 and attempt to draw conclusions about 2008. Everyone could vote on what direction they think these States will trend toward along with vital input from readers specific to those States.

This would be more interesting/valid than predictions based on what happened in 2004. After November 2008 CC could give a one-year subscription to the paper copy of the WaPo to the winner(s). Or maybe a WaPo coffee cup. Woo-hoo!

Jim the GOP doesn't want to fix Social Security or Medicare they want to eliminate it. Now of course they can't do this in one fail swoop so they are going with the death by a thousand cuts strategy. Weaken Social security by pushing for moving some of the money to 'private' accounts. Then when people retire you can give them less money and say "well your private account didn't preform that well this year, hope you like eating dog food."
Medicare they went with the idea of sinkig the ship by overloading it with ridiculous finacial burdens. The number one is the fact that the medicare system can't negociate drug prices. That is insane! The medicare bill for the new prescription plan could be cut in half if we fixed that small change.

Now I do agree that we need to do something about both of these programs, but the real solution is something no politician wants to swallow.
We need to raise the eligible age for both of these programs in a way that gradually increases it every ten years.

We need to increase taxes to feed more money into the system to hopefully create a cushion for the baby boomer onslaught.
We need to allow Medicare to negociate drug prices.

We also need to have a serious discussion in this country about quality of life verse length of life. Something like 85% of all healthcare expenditures are spent on children under 2 and people over 70. Is it a good idea to give a 82 year old man a new heart at the tune of 200K? Or treat a terminal cancer patient to gain them one more month of life at say 70K? I don't know the answers but someday we as a society will need to make that type of decision.

We need to set-up a situation that states when a surplus is created in the federal budget that money is split and goes directly to pay off the debt, invest in the Social security fund, and the medicare fund.
Thats my take on it. I would vote for any candidate who stood up and really talked about solving SS and medicare and didn't just pander.

It will be interesting to see the dynamics between Blunt and Nixon in Missouri. Amren UE wants to settle a possible lawsuit over the Taum Sauk Resevoir. Amren UE does not know who to negoitate with: Governor Blunt or Attorney General Nixon.

Colin,

I was not necessarily talking about the current situation when I said Rudy was the most electable on paper. I think there are a lot of swing voters who might tend towards the Republicans but are turned off by the religious right. That described me during the Cold War - I think the Democrats were too inclined to reflexively oppose any and all new weapons systems and tended to see the world with rose colored glasses. There is still a tendency among too many Democrats to reflexively oppose the use of force. Now, I think Iraq was a strategic disaster and the occupation abysmally managed but it is not because I am opposed to the use of force where necessary. One of my main arguments against the invasion of Iraq is that it caused us to divert resources from Afghanistan and we now see the Taliban resurgent as a result.

You once asked me where I disagreed with the Democrats. I will tell you. We can start with the trial lawyers - I firmly believe we need major tort reform. As a small business man, my liability insurance premiums are outrageous. The stupid claims my insurance company insists on paying because they are so wary of litigation infuriates me. I do not believe all the Chamber of Commerce propaganda on this issue because we do need to be able to punish corporate malfeasance but the system is out of control.

I generally believe in free trade. I will admit that there are some flaws in some of our trade agreements, but the world is better off with freer trade. The biggest problem with our trade imbalance with China is that China is manipulating its currency to the point where it is about 40% under-valued. That needs to be addressed. The Democrats are becoming the protectionist party.

I believe that a single payer health insurance system would be a disaster. Many Democrats are pushing that.
We need radical reform in our health care system but it must be directed at making decent health insurance coverage affordable and giving subsidies to poorer people.

When it comes to government regulation of business, I see the need for more regulation than conservative Republicans and less regulation than liberal Democrats. Unrestrained capitalism spawns a lot of abuses. Over-regulated economies do not produce the kind of growth sustained prosperity requires.

I believe that we should not over tax - taxes are generally a drag on economic growth. However, I am also against running large deficits when we are not in a recession. I think Clinton had the mix right - although I wonder if it would have been possible with a Democratic Congress. He got the tax increases needed to reduce the deficit without a single Republican vote. Phil Gramm was predicting dust in the streets as a result - instead we had tremendous growth and surpluses instead of deficits. But, if the Democrats had retained control of the Congress in 1994, I doubt that we would have seen the same level of fiscal restraint and I doubt that we would have had meaningful welfare reform.

One more issue I will discuss is the impending fiscal trainwreck when my generation retires. The Democrats are fundamentally dishonest in the way they address Social Security and Medicare. Drastic changes are needed, particularly in Medicare, or almost the entire federal budget will go to Social Security, Medicare and the national debt. The Democrats have not allowed a rational discussion of rational alternatives because they love to demagogue on these issues. I do not think the Republicans have real answers either but they are, for the most part, willing to enter into serious discussions.

I cannot believe how screwed New Orleans is. Jindal is a suburbanite, not a savior. The whole thing scares me.

Some of you seem to assume a Dem tidal wave. I think you must be living on a coast; tidal waves do not happen inland.

I suggest, respectfully, that there will be more independents than either Dems or Reps as a reaction to the ineptness of the current Administration. The comfort zone in much of America is what Jim D in Fla suggested: competence and pragmatism.

Many individual races will turn on those perceptions, not party affiliations, which are declining for both major parties, last time I saw.

Yesterday, House Democrats once again showed the electorate why they cannot be entrusted with the nation's national security. Incredibly, the Democrats are insisting that the Intelligence Authorization Act include a provision funding a global warming study. Texas Democrat Silvestre Reyes, Intelligence Committee Chairman preposterously argued that "this is an area we may vulnerable in terms of potential terrorists."

We Democrats are just totally out to lunch on defense.

The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign. Edwards said yesterday that he was unaware of the push by the firm, Fortress Investment Group, into subprime lending and that he wishes he had asked more questions before taking the job.

Johnny boy, you are so clueless. Please ask more questions before taking your next job. "nail in the coffin"

Greg-G is spot on about the Washington race. 2004 was an anomaly, due to the Iraq war, while 2008 is likely to not even be close. The attorney scandal (due to McKay) and other missteps are playing in to a general conception in the Pacific Northwest that the GOP doesn't care about anything but the GOP right now. I've lost track of the number of relatives and friends from the area (I'm from Ore. and lived in Washington for 7 yrs) who, like me, used to vote GOP or split their ticket every election and no longer do so.

I see ignoRANT coward has ruined this blog again today. too bad. what a waste of ether.

"The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month."

congress gets a failing grade. sinking ratings since new boss in charge.

Judge, as long as the Dem party's main purpose in life is to raise taxes and lose wars, they will not be elected. They want to punish successful companies. there is no historical precedent for this. they may hold onto congress but kiss the presidency goodbye.

I think you can still safely consider SC, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas as Red States too.

Judge,
The number of red and blue States is going to depend alot on who is running for president, IMO.

Judge is right. Utah is right now the only truly red state.

"but 2008 should be a different story, given that presidential election turnout should benefit Daniels in this red state."

You can continue to focus on 2004 and ignore 2006 AND all the current polling data suggesting conversion of R's to I's/D's. OR you can ask a far more significant question: will there be any red states in 2008? Besides Utah, I mean.

I am not sold on Jindal in Louisiana. I know that there isn't any real challenge to him at this point but I just don't see the folks in Northern LA (which is a GOP stronghold) voting for an Indian-american. Also one commercial of Jindal with his arm around Bush (and trust me they exist) and you can sink his campaign. Is it an uphill climb, sure. But it can be done.

In Kentucky if Fletcher wins the Democrats will win in a WALK. If Northup wins they will still win just not as easily.
I also agree that WA isn't going anywhere. 2008 will be a huge Democratic year and I don't care what people think, Washington state is Blue and will remain that way for a long time.

About the KY Governor's race: why did you focus so much on the GOP primary and say it's overshadowed the Democratic primary? As a KY resident, I think this is certainly untrue, and it seems an odd choice since you yourself have ranked the seat as 2nd most likely to change hands. If it's so likely to change, wouldn't it be logical to focus a bit more on the Democrats?

Also, there have been some huge developments in the race over the last week. One of the Dem. candidates, state Treasurer Jonathan Miller, dropped out and threw his support behind former Lt. Gov. Steve Beshear, who has also picked up the endorsements of both of Louisville's newspapers.

Finally, a independent SurveyUSA poll came out showing Beshear and Bruce Lunsford gaining and everyone else losing support.

Lunsford and Henry have so much ethical baggage, that Fletcher would actually stand a decent chance of beating them. However, if Beshear gets the Dem. nomination, that's it for the GOP this election.

Two more independent polls will come out early next week. They might be worth paying attention to.

JimD -- I second your opinion about Romney in particular. I'm a progressive Democrat, rather than an Indie voter, but I actually liked the old Romney who tried to build coalitions in MA to solve problems. It's truly sad to see him go into full pander mode.

As far as Rudy goes, I question somewhat whether he really is the most electable even on paper. Iraq is still going to be huge in 2008, and he is almost as attached to GWB's policies there as McCain. That is not good, especially among indie voters, and could potentially cancel out much of his cross-over appeal. Obviously '08 is a ways away, and facts on the ground can change, but I would suggest that Iraq will prove to be a very big hurdle for ALL of the GOP nominees.

Rothenberg's ratings are pretty close to this. You can check them out here:

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2007/05/2007-08-gubernatorial-ratings.html

A lot will depend on the identity of the presidential candidates. I don't think either party looks likely to nominate their most electable candidate. On paper, Giuliani would seem the most electable in either party- if he can get the nomination. There are a lot of swing voters who could support a socially moderate, fiscal conservative - including me. However, his nomination would likely spur a third party challenge from the religious right. Also, I do not think his notoriously prickly personality will wear well with the electorate. He is a macacca moment waiting to happen - witness his radio call-in show conversation berating a ferret owner. Voters do not like to see presidents browbeating other voters who are simply trying to make a point. Likeability trumps a lot of other things in contemporary presidential politics - witness Bush over Gore.

On paper, Romney would have been a strong candidate - if he had not suddenly re-invented himself as a social conservative. His business experience and his role as savior of the Salt Lake City Olympics would play well with swing voters. He could campaign as a problem solver - that is very appealing. However, his sudden conversion to social conservatism and faux pas like his life-long hunter story will seriously undermine his appeal. He will be continually portrayed as another Massachusetts flip-flopper. To top it all off, he has decided to deliberately appeal to the one section of the electorate most likely to vote against him solely due to his religion - the extreme religious right.

I see Richardson as the most electable Democrat - on paper. He needs to do better in debates, however. I have serious doubts about Edwards and Obama based on experience. I believe that Clinton is extremely divisive. She might win the general election in what is shaping up to be a good year for Democrats but the Democrats would do far worse in congressional and state elections with her heading the ticket.

Personally, I would have liked to see Wesley Clark as the Democratic nominee. However, that is not going to happen. He would be an ideal VP for almost any nominee.

'Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.'

HA! That is cute. True too. So very true.

By paying a little attention to the illegal activities being alleged against the repubs at all levels, it is becoming more important to really get into what is actually going on at Justice. Gonzales gave the almost word for word testimony before the House as he gave to the Senate about a month ago. Every news agency I know of are poo pooing all of them. When Hillary takes office in 2009, she will have so much to get at least a start on the wholesale corruption of this Administration, I could not even venture a guess as to how many are involved, and also think the world community will be looking into war crimes allegedly committed by the folks at the top.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter has been cleared of allegations that she falsified her Palm Beach County voter's registration and voted illegally -- this, after a high-level FBI agent made unsolicited phone calls to the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office to vouch for Coulter.

The caller wasn't just any G-man. According to PBSO documents, he was Supervisory Special Agent Jim Fitzgerald, of the FBI Academy's Behavioral Analysis Unit in Quantico, Va. -- the closest reality gets to the serial-killer catchers on CBS' Criminal Minds.

So why would an FBI profiler who went after the Unabomber take time from his busy day to even think about a municipal election snafu?

Fitzgerald is mum. But when the bureau heard about this from Page Two, it immediately launched an internal review of the agent's involvement.

"We're looking into it," bureau spokeswoman Ann Todd said.

She declined to say whether Fitzgerald acted on his personal behalf or as an FBI agent or on someone else's orders.

County Supervisor of Elections Arthur Anderson, meanwhile, decried what he called "FBI intrusion." He referred the Coulter case to PBSO after poll worker Jim Whited originally reported the incident.

I just saw this:

'Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.'

Try to imagine the enormous media outcry that would ensue if a Democrat snubbed an Iowa farmer the way the Rudy campaign now has.

'Check out this unbelievable story from the Anamosa Journal-Eureka in Jones County, Iowa, the accuracy of which I've just confirmed by phone with one of the people in it:

OLIN-Last weekend Deb and Jerry VonSprecken of Olin received a call from former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's campaign office asking them if they would be interested in holding a campaign rally on May 4, after she had donated to his campaign.
"We thought it would be an honor and agreed," said Jerry.

After agreeing to host Rudy's rally, Deb and Jerry Von Sprecken then set about doing a bunch of work to organize the event. They underwent a security check and called a bunch of local friends and acquaintances -- and even the local sheriff and fire department -- and proudly put the pieces in place for their rally.

But then...

On Tuesday Deb received a call from Giuliani's Des Moines office and was asked to call New York.
"They wanted to know our assets," she revealed, and added that she and Jerry have a modest 80 acre farm and raise cattle.

Later she received a call from Tony Delgado at the Des Monies location.

"Tony said, 'I'm sorry, you aren't worth a million dollars and he is campaigning on the Death Tax right now.' then he said they weren't going to be able to come," Deb continued.

The Death Tax is a federal version of the Iowa Inheritance Tax.

The VonSpreckens then called Delgado back and told him how upset they were that the event had been cancelled, how much work they had done and that they had been expecting 75-100 people at their farm.

"I invited him into my home," Deb said of Giuliani, fighting back tears.'

"And I must admit I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy."

Well, son, I have seven wives, I'm sixty-three years of age, and I have never once suffered from ED. It's impossible to lose your steam when you're moving around every night. I do take every fourth night or so off, though, to beat the help. Praise the Lord!

"And I must admit I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy."

...until his next speech about the "death tax", gay marriage, abortion, or anything else he has to pander on by expressing how he can't imagine anything more awful than it.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney described the practice of polygamy "awful," and said he understands that many people find this part of the Mormon religion's history "troubling," in an interview set to air Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes."

"I have a great grandfather. They were trying to build a generation out there in the desert and so he took additional wives as he was told to do," Romney, a Mormon, said in the CBS interview. "And I must admit I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy."

actually, 2 great grandfathers, who had a total of 14 wives. awesome family values.

While Congressional Democrats struggle with how to fund the troops now but force an eventual end to occupation, two other efforts are surreptitiously undermining their efforts. First, occupation supporters want to delay any decision on whether to continue funding from September, a date embraced by nervous Republicans, until next April.

Second, the President's supporters are decoupling the definition of "progress" from the level of violence, so that whenever the next "decision date" occurs, there is a greater chance they can claim progress. The public is thus being prepared to tolerate continued occupation even if the surge fails to significantly stop Iraqis from killing each other.

In this Washington Post article, we find that the Pentagon is already planning to continue the troop escalation well into next year:

The Pentagon announced yesterday that 35,000 soldiers in 10 Army combat brigades will begin deploying to Iraq in August as replacements, making it possible to sustain the increase of U.S. troops there until at least the end of this year.

U.S. commanders in Iraq are increasingly convinced that heightened troop levels, announced by President Bush in January, will need to last into the spring of 2008. The military has said it would assess in September how well its counterinsurgency strategy, intended to pacify Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, is 'working'.

condi rice said it out loud a couple of times... a 'generational' war she called it... she said it would take '20 or 30 years' to 'pacify' the region, meaning for the US to take control of the entire Middle East. But at the rate our military and breaking and we are borrowing money from the Chinese, we won't have a country in 20 or 30 years. Period.

'P.S. Rudy is in the mafia. McCain is a war criminal. Mitt is a cult leader. Huckabee is something else, I don't know.

Yes, and? btw, never said McCain is a