This discussion is still far more interesting than those occurring on today's posts. In fact, one pretty much looks like the Rufus show!

dan_w71, I agree with you. The health benefits provided for military personnel and their dependents is not socialized medicine - technically, it is indeed employer provided health insurance. But like Medicare, it is administered by the government. I was being facetious in that anything administered by the federal government is always decried by Rs as being "socialized medicine."

Also, keep in mind that any military personnel with 20 years of service is guaranteed medical care for him and his dependents for life. The same is true for any veteran who is disabled by any meaningful percentage. (I don't know what this is precisely). I know more "retired" military personnel than the average civilian because I grew up a military brat -- and I can assure you that many retired in their early 40s and are now in their second careers, and some consequently have more than one health insurer: the U.S. government and their private sector employer. I think this is fine for giving up 20 years of your life, but I do think that everyone else should also have access. to some form of health care.

Like Jason in MD, I like HRC's proposal on the surface. And Jason, I like the idea of increasing access to energy efficient vehicles by providing tax credits. I also like the idea of charging a luxury tax for those who choose to drive gas guzzlers.

Mark in Austin: Any lawyer knows to not ask a question they do not know the answer to. Russert was trying to get Hillary to commit to something that only a fool would do, and Hillary, being no fool, did not take the bait. The dislike of The Clintons by Russert is well known, and since Hillary made him look like the fool on his Sunday show, I think he was trying for a little payback, and it didn't work.

Great conversation everyone.
----------
"I don't think universal care of any kind (whether it's Hillary's plan, pure single-payer, or something else)is realistic till we reduce the costs involved." -Colin

Well that's the beauty of a plan like HRC's. The high cost of healthcare is, in large part, tied to the number of uninsured. As someone else was pointing out yesterday, people in an emergency room must be treated, regardless of citizenship or ability to pay. Illegal immigrants make up a fairly small potion compared to those who simply can't afford care (maybe 15-20% nationally but I can check on an exact figure if you don't believe me). By making sure everyone has access to health care, they see a regular doctor (much cheaper than an emergency room doctor) when they're sick and also have access to preventative medicine. People will also have access to prenatal care, without which the cost of having a baby is much higher because the chances of a premature baby increase dramatically (my wife is a nurse in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit).

You see, not only is universal (or mostly universal) health care a morally good thing, it also reduces the cost of health care for everyone.

A corollary to this is energy efficiency. The government should also be increasing access to high mpg vehicles with tax credits (at the federal level) and sales tax exemption on energy efficient vehicles. The same rule applies here. By increasing access you decrease the cost for everyone (for economic reasons as well as the tax breaks) and also decrease to cost of gas for everyone (decrease demand to lower cost).

It was refreshing to have Perot talk about actual issues in some depth. I still think the guy would have been an absolute disaster if he'd won, but he certainly helped contribute positively to the debate. The SS "twist" you mentioned, mark, is a great example.

As far as healthcare goes, I understand federalism concerns and the benefits that can come from experimentation. But I admit I'm skeptical that we can solve our current problems without a global (meaning nationwide) approach, since I don't think universal care of any kind (whether it's Hillary's plan, pure single-payer, or something else)is realistic till we reduce the costs involved. Right now, we as a nation pay more for drugs, doctor visits, and everything else than other industrialized countries. The % of our GDP spent on healthcare is ridiculous. Till we change that, it's hard for me to see how individual states are going to be able to actually ensure universal coverage -- especially those states that lack the economic strength of California and Mass.

At any rate, it's encouraging that the public at large seems receptive to trying to fix the system today. In '92, simply repeating "socialized medicine" 5,000 times seemed enough to deter folks. I doubt that will work this time.

Mark:

As set up Social security was only meant to assist those who were unable to work and only for a short time. SS benefits ages should be increased to match the rise in life expectancy.

Femalenick: The medical services provided by the military is not socialize medicine because it is not provided by the government, it is provided by the employer. A small distinction that I am going to catch hell for but a huge distinction non the less.

Boko - I did not get you to bite on Perot's "twist."

He pointed out, correctly, that Social Security is seen as a Trust, but that it had always had a COLA so that your money was not lost to inflation. He said the cap on the tax should be lifted, but high end payers should still get a benefit based on all their input with a 4% simple interest rate to allow for inflation. They would still be substantially "over" contributing, but they could not claim they were being victimized. He also wanted to income tax those with SS payments above a relatively generous ceiling for untaxed SS + other income. In his plan, he would have paid
800 times more social security tax than he did in 1990, but potentially received 100 times more benefits than he would have by 2000, or something like that. He then added he should be income taxed on most of his huge SS pension. He called it "means testing" at the other end. I'll try to find it - it was one of his
"lectures".

You are correct: Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax covers SS, Medicare, Medicaid.

Back to Health care: Why is this a federal issue. With each state coming up with solutions for their state, doesn't this mean we should continue to let the states solve this problem as each sees fit and to let the Fed Govt handle those problems that cannot be addressed at the state level?

maybe a mistake - when I said "FICA" I meant "for the funding of SS, Medicare, Medicaid" - that's FICA, right?

I do not believe that those making more than 97K could not afford to pay a greater percentage of their income in FICA, just as they pay a greater percentage of their income in income taxes. It is discouraging that the leading candidate for president feels that she has to evade this question.
Femalenick, you say "it would be wrong to cap the profits of a corporation - even if an insurance company... Talk about demotivating!" - I understand, but guess that my response would be that if the gov't is to guarantee a certain HUGE amount of revenue for a corporation/industry, it is legitimate for them to place some restrictions on how the money is earned - especially in the name of providing reasonable care at the lowest possible cost.

lylepink, in the transcript of the Dartmouth debate less than two weeks ago -

http://ipol-2008.blogspot.com/2007/09/transcript-of-dartmouth-debate.html

you will find the extended discussion of lifting the cap.

excerpt:

BIDEN: We did that one -- I supported that; that's what got it solvent to 2041. By simply going and taking -- raising the cap, you can solve the problem.

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, would you be in favor of saying to the American people, "I'm going to tax your income; I'm not going to cap at $97,500. Everyone, even if you are a millionaire is going to pay
Social Security tax on every cent they make."

CLINTON: Well, Tim, let me tell you what I think about this,[offers 3 talking points]

RUSSERT: But you would not take lifting the cap at $97,500 off the table?

CLINTON: Well, I'd take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process. I don't think I should be negotiating about what I would do as
president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.

It sounds a tad perverse, but perhaps Thompson and Giuliani would benefit from persuading some of their donors to give to Huckabee. If he got a quick infusion of cash, he could make a better run at Iowa, knock out Romney, and leave the field better open for the remaining "top tier" candidates. Of course, there's a risk it could propel Huckabee into that "top tier," but NH happens so fast after Iowa he probably wouldn't have enough time and publicity from Iowa to do much damage.

Lyle, deductions for FICA end after a certain amount -- $97.5k for 2007. Medicare deductions don't end. But again - when you're employed by others, your employer pays 50% of that 15.3% until you hit the max, at which point your employer only has to match the percentage for Medicare.

So yes - you are right that an employed person making $100 million is currently paying the same SS tax as someone making $97.5k. But the income tax percentages will vary.

I like to remember what my accountant told me many years ago. He said that rather than lamenting how much I owe IRS, I should aim to owe them a million dollars in one year for it would mean I made a lot of money. It put it in perspective for me. Since then, I've aimed to owe more than the year before, and I'm just a working stiff. Maybe if the wealthy thought that way, we wouldn't have the deficit we do.

femalenick: That is the point I am trying to make. Self employed or not, 15.3% of income is taxed as FICA. This means that a person making 100K or 100M would pay the same $ amount of 15.3K. I am not sure, but think there is something in the IRS code that exempts earnings up to a certain point, simular to the cap, so the 15.3K $ amount may not be correct.

Lylepink, you can double both those percentages for the self-employed -- known as the "self employment tax." I now only hire subcontractors as needed because having employees is extremely costly for a small business by the time you factor in payroll taxes, health insurance, workmen's comp, etc. Normally, businesses have to add no less than 20% on top of a person's salary to determine the actual cost of that employee.

Mark in Austin: Forgot to add that since about 2001, the cap was about 80K, and now 97.5K. The big difference is the ones more able to pay are actually paying less by a huge amount, percentage of income being the factor to consider, than the ones less able to pay. No way this can be disputed. The rate has remained the same--SS 6.2%--Medicare 1.45%.

Mark in Austin: Can you find where Hillary advocated this position you state about "that at a recent forum all the D's were for lifting caps on both SS and medicare payroll taxes, EXCEPT HRC"??. My memory is that SS benefit CUTS were off the table as far as Hillary was concerned.

Tylepink, I agree -- not capping SS taxes would certainly help. Funny thing is that the average person doesn't know that you don't get taxed for SS until a certain amount. Hell, I didn't until one day my paycheck was suddenly bigger. That's when I learned about the cap. It also wasn't until I was self-employed that I learned that I had to pay the other 50% of the SS taxes. So ultimately, I think the SS tax cap is really more for the benefit of the employer than for the employee.

And Boko, as far as what Arnie is proposing, here are some highlights:

1. Everyone will be required to have some form of health insurance.

2. Allow individuals to make pre-tax contributions to a health insurance savings account. Employers will be required to put plans in place whereby employees can do this -- which saves employers money by reducing their FICA contributions.

3. Insurance companies cannot deny coverage for anyone.

4. If you don't qualify for Medicaid, then you get financial assistance from a state-administered insurance purchasing pool.

5. Implement state programs to promote preventive health care.

It's easy for those who have never been uninsured to decry the various DEM proposals, esp. Hillary's, as socialized medicine. But I can recall being between jobs in my mid-20s and having to go to the emergency room and taking nearly two years to pay off the resulting medical bills because I don't have rich parents to help me.

To your question, Boko, what I've found is that successful businesses, by definition, are adept at responding to change. I'm not as familiar as I should be on Hillary's original proposal as I wasn't paying attention in those days. And I'm also not exactly sure of what's meant by a single payer system. But I do know that insurance companies were originally formed to handle catastrophes, not every sniffle and headache. That said, I think it would be wrong to cap the profits of a corporation - even if an insurance company. It would be akin to telling a salesman who works strictly on commission that he can only make so much. Talk about demotivating!

I think the solution with the pharmas and insurance companies is to allow the free market concepts apply to them. Why should drugs cost less in Mexico or Canada than in the U.S.? Because the government, the biggest buyers, won't negotiate. Remember this being an issue in '04? Who fought it? Republicans. And why? Because of the powerful lobbies in DC would have pulled their support otherwise.

But I want to be clear that it isn't the average Republican that is at fault; most are ignorant of the real issues. Most simply know the propaganda (true of the average Dem as well) -- and so what we see is serious hypocrisy, i.e., proponents of free trade and capitalism, and yet -- when in power, they won't bargain with the pharmas as they would in a business situation. The no-bid contracts in Iraq or in New Orleans are simply more examples of either hypocrisy or business stupidity.

And as long as most Americans won't take the time to understand what's going on around them until they're personally affected, I believe that, revolutionary change in any aspect of government is not possible. And until then, all this political talk of "change" is nothing more than rhetoric. WE are not ready for any overhaul. All we can handle are baby steps.

Boko, the aging population of the western world should mean no healthcare or pharma jobs will be lost.
The specialty insurers like BC/BS will be hurt, but full line carriers will not miss their med ins. biz.
Insurance cos. are organized as "stock" cos that pay profits to shareholders or "mutuals" that distribute
profit to members. The reputed best HMO, Kaiser-Permanente, is orgainzed as member owned, I think.

Lyle, you should know that at a recent forum all the Ds were for lifting caps on both SS and medicare payroll taxes, EXCEPT HRC.

In 1992, Perot suggested this, with a neat twist on the SS component.

femalenick: You are essentially correct. I have both Medicare/aid. These vary little from state to state in that Medicaid is a state issue, where Medicare is a Federal plan. Both these and the SS system could be made solid for many years in the future simply by having the SS tax, or FICA, as stated on your paycheck, would have no top on the earnings as now exists, on stocks and bonds, investment income, etc... By simply changing the cap to no limit, and reducing the rate, the problem is solved. Simple, yet, no one I have heard of, in the political world, will advance this solution.

Femalenick, that presumes that each consumer will have a level of education/expertise/awareness to be able to know what plan serves his/her needs best. I don't think most people are there with that... I would be interested in hearing some more about the current CA plan. ("Medical"-?) Is that single-payer, or how does it work? Is it like the system in Massachusetts, where you are required by law to have (private) health insurance, and the state helps out those who can't meet the premiums? actually, does more than that - administers/brokers/something a cheaper plan ("Commonwealth Care," I think) for those who can't afford to pay much or any premium... is CA similar?
Mark, I would be on board with a version of single-payer care like the one you describe, but of course the health care industry (providers, insurance, Big Pharma) is famously like - I want to say 40%? some large percentage - of our economy. Single payer care - which, once again, I support and believe in - would end or radically transform a great many jobs, and would put a lot of companies out of business.
I personally would have little to no sympathy, but I can see how that might be a big shock to the economy. What is your take on that? Would you try to make the ins. companies a part of the plan, as Hillary did? but in that case, it wouldn't really be 'single-payer' any more, would it...
Is there a legal way to structure a for-profit corporation so as to ensure that the profits do not exceed a certain percentage of the initial outlay? and/or that a certain (substantial) percentage of the profits are re-invested or put toward increasing efficiency/reducing cost?

I think I understand what Colin is trying to say. However, Colin, I think that the "current inefficiencies" equate to a broken health care system, and the emergency room issue is a direct result of this.

HRC wanted to blow the system up in the early 90s but that clearly didn't work, ergo, her revised proposal. We choose what works for each of us. Why people think this is a bad thing is beyond me.

My husband and I are both currently self-employed, and save for a couple years, we've had to buy our own health insurance policies for over a decade. It isn't cheap. Because of the rates, we opted for the $500/month version which essentially covers only 30% until we incur $5000 per person. And we don't go to emergency rooms for basic care...

Inefficiencies are certainly one aspect of it, e.g., gaining access to records so that tests aren't duplicated. But then that would mean digitizing all info so that physicians have access no matter where we are which presents a different problem.

It's a complicated issue, and I personally think that Hillary's plan of allowing us to choose the plan that works best for us makes sense. For me, that means keeping what I have right now because I can still afford it. But should something happen, I would like to know that I have access to the same plans that Congress has.

In my mind, health care is less about inefficiencies than about access.

Colin, bsimon and I have been talking about the [non] system and the incredible disadvantage of employer basing it for Ameerican industry. But we are both too suspicious of federalizing it to support that. In my case, it is partly out of respect for the federal system, itself.

But I am beginning to think that a state bold enough to enact single payer [and tie it to local property tax relief for the hospital districts] would soon attract an inflow of employers that would be the envy of every other state. It would surely snowball. No state could afford not to do it. The lab effect of different states using different approaches would probably be a positive, too.

Mark --I was less than perfectly clear in my last post. My point was simply that current inefficiencies in health care deliver, generally, contribute to our growing challenge of meeting healthcare related programs. The emergency room component is one example, but not the only one. Sorry for creating confusion. As far as addressing inefficiencies first, I understand where you're coming from but am at a point right now where I candidly would prefer to blow the current system up. Whether that's feasible once the various special interest groups get involved...we will see.

Mark --I was less than perfectly clear in my last post. My point was simply that current inefficiencies in health care deliver, generally, contribute to our growing challenge of meeting healthcare related programs. The emergency room component is one example, but not the only one. Sorry for creating confusion. As far as addressing inefficiencies first, I understand where you're coming from but am at a point right now where I candidly would prefer to blow the current system up. Whether that's feasible once the various special interest groups get involved...we will see.

Hi femalenick -

I do know who gets what from medicare and medicaid, I just do not know anyone receiving either who has ever been treated in the emergency room of the public hospital. I was wondering if Colin was suggesting a relationship to his criticism of public health delivered through emergency rooms when he said:
"Second, problems with Medicaid and Medicare are related to inefficiencies in health care delivery."

Tylepink is correct...California law requires hospitals to treat anyone who walks into an emergency room regardless of their ability to pay. So they're overcrowded, and each treatment costs 5-6 times over normal. There are about 20 ERs in southern Cal that may close because of bankruptcy.

California, for all the craziness attributed to its residents and their liberal ways, is always a bellwether. Health care is such a serious issue here that our Republican governor has had no choice but to put forth a health care reform proposal. Yet only the Dems seem to be talking about health care in any meaningful fashion. All I've heard from the right is how "Hillary Care" is socialized medicine. What the heck do Republicans think Medicare is? Or the health care that is provided to military personnel and their families?

Tylepink is correct...California law requires hospitals to treat anyone who walks into an emergency room regardless of their ability to pay. So they're overcrowded, and each treatment costs 5-6 times over normal. There are about 20 ERs in southern Cal that may close because of bankruptcy.

California, for all the craziness attributed to its residents and their liberal ways, is always a bellwether. Health care is such a serious issue here that our Republican governor has had no choice but to put forth a health care reform proposal. Yet only the Dems seem to be talking about health care in any meaningful fashion. All I've heard from the right is how "Hillary Care" is socialized medicine. What the heck do Republicans think Medicare is? Or the health care that is provided to military personnel and their families?

Finally, Mark - Medicare doesn't pay for the ER portion if you are immediately admitted to the hospital but Medicaid does. Further, Medicare is strictly for those 65 and older or with disabilities, whereas Medicaid, administered by the states, is based on financial need.

Hi Mark, interesting, but while I agree on nearly all you listed as problems that need to be addressed, I think that the average American will still vote based on the one issue that s/he deems most important -- and it will be personal.

I would bet that the majority of Americans would give you a blank stare if you were sitting in a room with them, and you rattled off the problems that you just did. I'm here because I don't really know anyone who lives nearby who is willing to engage in serious political discussion.

So I think the 08 vote will be decided on the issues of Iraq and middle class concerns -- the most pressing issue on the latter will vary from person to person -- health care for some, marriage or abortion for others, or some other issue that they can relate to personally. And that could be something as simple as watching one general election debate in which Giuliani forgets that he's no longer on a testosterone laden stage, and he comes across as a verbally abusive male and people somehow associate that with the three marriages. Remember what happened to Gore when he walked away from his podium and looked like he was going to punch Bush.

That said, your summary of the debates to date is perfect!

Mark in Austin: Emergeny room treatment is used as a primary care facility for the large majority of the uninsured. The oath requires Dr.s to treat everyone in need. Once in awhile, there are cases brought against hospital ERs for non treatment and turning the sick away. Several ideas are out there, but the only way I see is a form of a single-payer.

Colin and Dave, it is worthwhile to argue about what is optional and what is within the ambit of Federal responsibility, but both of you are right that at any moment that is a fluid concept. Social Security did not exist in 1937, within the memory of many who are still with us, but it is a fed responsibility now. Fighting communicable disease has had a fed component since the late 1790s. Is CDC or the PHS therefore more legit than SS?

Theory is fun, I was only trying to say that some stuff is in our face right now but it seems more difficult to get people to talk about it than their dreams of the next big thing.

Colin, your point on the relationship between medicare/caid cost and the system inefficiency is well taken. I think we could push for efficiencies through the existing programs before we invent new programs. We both know that the emergency room model is gross, but that would be better addressed by states, for whom local governments are integral, it seems to me. And I did not think that Medicare/caid was
largely delivered in the emergency rooms of public hospitals. Is that a misunderstanding on my part?

mark_in_austin,
Interesting. I fear, however, that it's really not what you think is OPTIONAL for the fed government to do, it's what is important to you that can get solved by the fed gov. Few people care what the Fed Gov is supposed to be doing. They care what they are doing that benefits them. That is how politician stay elected - by giving their constituents what they think they want, not what they need or should. After eight years of compassionate conservatism and decades of liberalism, call me skeptical that the federal government will be able to focus on the things that it needs to do or that the people know what those things are.

Good stuff Mark. As a neutral observer (that's a joke), I would note that Democrats are the only ones spending time discussing Health Care and Energy Independence. Sort of telling, from my vantage point. Also, I'd quibble with marking the cost and inefficiency of health care delivery as "optional."

First, it's pretty hard to address the issue of the uninsured without figuring out a way to control costs, which are much higher here than elsewhere in the world. Any of the Democratic health care plans would help shift the delivery from the most ineffecient access points (emergency rooms) to more normal and cost-effective venues. Second, problems with Medicaid and Medicare are related to inefficiencies in health care delivery. Unless one's preferred "solution" is to eliminate the programs.

Mark, excellent series. One might quibble with a few items on the 'must' list vs the 'optional' list, but overall a great summary of what we're facing. I particularly enjoyed the early description of the races thus far:

"The Rs, with some notable exceptions, seem trapped in debates about doctrinal purity on tax cutting and displays of who is more "macho" on immigration and Jihadists, and how bad HRC is.

The Ds, with some notable exceptions, seem trapped in debates about who can win, how much "optional" service Ds would provide, and how bad GWB has been."

Part 3.

Examples of serious issues that are purely OPTIONAL for the federal government are: addressing the cost and inefficiency of health care delivery; the cost of pre-school and college; the funding of stem-cell research; the funding of elective abortions for poor people, and favored tax breaks for individuals; the legal nature of "marriage".

The Federal Government has no direct responsibility for these serious issues.
The emphasis of candidates on these issues absolutely diverts attention from the "must
be addressed" issues. You will see that Ds and Rs dwell on some of these secondary issues.

A candidate who drove home one of the primary issues - say energy use - could be the winner in November just because common sense might prevail, rather than mere "What's in it for me?"

It's anybody's game.

Part 2. Without attempting a rank ordering, because that would be different for Ds and Rs, these problems are up for immediate address:
the direction of American foreign policy; the establishment of an energy policy that sharply reduces dependence on oil, first, and carbon based fuels, generally; securing the borders; the size of the military and the recognition of the inefficiencies of the Rumsfield "reforms"; the Medicaid hole; the coming Social Security hole; the Medicare hole; trade imbalance; massive deficits; the maintenance of civil liberties and the rule of law; the inefficiencies of large federal bureaucracies like DOD and DHLS; pork barrel/earmarks/; the relative desirability of national service; the identification of undocs; adding labor and environmental protocols to NAFTA; extending UN-ILO rules to WTO and enforcing them against the main offender, China; the unintended consequences of the AMT; the future of the Estate Tax; and whether to have a guest worker program outside of amending NAFTA.

Part 1.
JasonL and Colin, Hi.

Assume, as I do, that the country is still closely divided, perhaps leaning differently than it did in 2004. Then predicting how a candidate will fare in Nov. 2008 is simply not possible and, I would argue, counterproductive.
The Rs and Ds should be thinking about who can best lead, given their respective priorities.

The Rs, with some notable exceptions, seem trapped in debates about doctrinal purity on tax cutting and displays of who is more "macho" on immigration and Jihadists, and how bad HRC is.

The Ds, with some notable exceptions, seem trapped in debates about who can win, how much "optional" service Ds would provide, and how bad GWB has been.

FYI: These last several posts about Hillary seems to be along the same line of thought. CNN has Obama on now and they showed a poll about handling Iraq andHillary has a srtong lead, around 2 to 1.

I'm with AndyR3. I think Huckabee can take Iowa. He has the "right" Christian values but doesn't offend the moderates. Heck, he doesn't even offend me, an HRC supporter.

In addition to being a social conservative, In addition to being the model social conservative, Huckabee is also uniquely attuned to the plight of the middle class and the poor, and in Iowa, where the average household income is in the mid-40s and the median home value at $128k, I suspect that the compassionate conservatism he embodies will play well. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he came in first, and Romney second.

JasonL -- I agree with you that she can win, but do you really think it's remotely possible that she wins more than 52% of the vote? To be clear, I think she's absolutely saavy enough as a politician to win the next election (I agree that she likely wins Ohio and Florida), but she's not going to change the fundamental 50/50 dynamic that we've had in this country for the last decade or so. I'll vote for her if she's the nominee and work to get her elected, but i'd rather see someone who could actually heal some of the wounds left from Bill's time in office.

That brings up the question... Can Granholm be Vice President? Isn't she Canadian by birth, and therefore ineligible to become President? If so, that begs the question; if you're ineligible to be President, can you be Vice President?

Posted by: bsimon | October 11, 2007 01:33 PM

FYI, it's in the 12th Amendment, which updated the original language about how electors cast balots for Pres & VP and the process for the Congress to select the winners if no majority of electors is attained:

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

And the requirements are in Article II, Section 1:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Also, here's a Boston Globe article from the ninth talking abotu people in NH warming up to HRC.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/09/many_warming_unexpectedly_to_clinton/

I love google.

"Stated otherwise, more people have already decided they'll never vote for her than feel the same way about Obama, Edwards, etc." -Colin

According to some research done by Gallup, her favorable/unfavorable numbers are not unprecedented for a candidate. And HRC has been trending more favorable recently. Check out the article. It's a good read.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28477

jaymills1124-"or win states that kerry lost in the last election?"
I see her having a shot at winning FL, VA and possibly OH. I agree that she is the one the Republicans want because they think it will be their get out the vote motivation. I am not sold on polls (other than the election day ones) but they can tell you something. The fact that the high up Democratic party ops and media (CC is not the only one) are focusing on her is telling. The Dems (smartly) do not want a brutal primary and it seems that this time they are in a position to have that (unlike Republicans). The voters have not voted yet but the people that matter seem to have picked her and are pushing her as the nomination. I don't believe that it's just because of her name that she is getting her 2 minutes a night on the news...

"If I'm thinking of the law you're referencing it prohibited minors from renting certain content. Although I don't agree with the legislation, and depending on the specifics may agree its unconstitutional, that doesn't sound like something that was legally irresponsible to sign into law. Content restrictions on minors often are acceptable where the same restriction on the general public would be constitutionally infirm." -Colin

Oops. I got my time lines messed up. Governor Granholm's bill was ruled unconstitutional in '05 and the law in Illinois failed to pass Constitutional muster in '06. I got the two mixed up.

Still a bad law but not so obviously bad. Everyone after that was just been begging to lose their court battle and pony up legal fees to the ESA.

Jason -- I agree that Hillary can win. In fact, I think she probably will win if she gets the nomination. But it's hard to argue that her 'cap' isn't lower than some of the other Dems. Stated otherwise, more people have already decided they'll never vote for her than feel the same way about Obama, Edwards, etc.

Also, after a quick search it looks like the law was struck down by a District Court Judge, not the Supreme Court. Not saying the guy got it wrong, but that is a less definitive ruling.

So my last comment got dropped by WaPo for whatever reason. Quick summary instead.

1. If she's getting press coverage and at least half of it is about her stances on things, doesn't that mean that at least some of the new comers driving her lead are people making informed decisions?

2. Doesn't that same high level of coverage help her in the general election?

3. As much as she might mobilize the Republican base more than another Democrat (I happen to think that Obama might mobilize the base nearly as much because of his name and skin color as much as his policies), don't the current Republican front runners turn off a large minority of the Republican base? Not to mention the possibility of a third party Christian conservative candidate splitting the vote.

4. I'm not a HRC cheerleader. I like Biden and Richardson more. I just disagree with the perception among a lot of people here that HRC can't win the election.

JasonL -- If I'm thinking of the law you're referencing it prohibited minors from renting certain content. Although I don't agree with the legislation, and depending on the specifics may agree its unconstitutional, that doesn't sound like something that was legally irresponsible to sign into law. Content restrictions on minors often are acceptable where the same restriction on the general public would be constitutionally infirm.

Jay Mills, I'd be interested in your thoughts as to why HRC's lead is based on media hype and why, if it's true, that media hype wouldn't carry through to the general election. And just for argument's sake, HRC held strong leads in NH and FL, for example, even back in 2006.

jason_l- here's my theory on it. her lead on the polls is only name recongizion. there's been books for and against her, she's always a 2 minute or more news piece about her on the evening news, and dont even get me started on the cable news networks. and there lies the danger of hillary. she has a glass jaw like no one belives. this is the other gop dirty secret. they need some one polizing to rally the base and pull out a win in 2008. and her name hillary. can anyone honestly name a major piece of legislation she has authored? or win states that kerry lost in the last election? the only people who are seriously talking about hillary is the CC and the beltway cocktail circut.

the democrats got to think stragtically about this. going with a clinton re-tread instead of offering true change is a losing gamble.

I just wanted to say, you guys are great - thanks for all the information. I don't typically get involved in political conversations. Whomever posted the information re: youtube, THANK YOU! I have recently become a Paul supporter. After following the links, I did see where the poll is back up on MSNBC's site - and Ron Paul clearly was the winner in Dearborn.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21209617

"I actually think Granholm would make a pretty good choice for the Supreme Court if a Democrat wins this election. It's been waaaay too long since we had someone with political experience on the Court..." -Colin

After her support of a law censoring video games, that she had to know by then wouldn't pass Constitutional muster, I'm not sure I agree. She may have allowed political concerns interfere with Constitutional law. After the past 8 years, I've had about as much of that as I can take.

I actually think Granholm would make a pretty good choice for the Supreme Court if a Democrat wins this election. It's been waaaay too long since we had someone with political experience on the Court and, if memory serves, Granholm has the right kind of pedigree for the post. Along those lines, I believe she was on the "short list" that Tom Goldstein put together a few months ago for both parties.

"close to offensive and don't think I won't report you for it.
"

ooooowwwww/ So tough. so scary. go pick on 12 year old sick boys, bully. Go pick on high school kids. They may fear you or give you the strenth you never had as a kid. When your ready to pick on someone your own size, without whining and complaining, I'll be here.

Organization on the ground is what wins Iowa, not standing in the polls Unlike a primary, the caucus tests a candidate's ability to motivate their supporters to attend a caucus.

If Huckabee wants to break out as the social conservatives' candidate, he must make an early strike here. He doesn't have to win Iowa, but he must show strong, in order to capture the votes of social conservatives in primary states who might otherwise feel disenfranchised with this years' Republican crop.

It would seem that Huckabee could find a good base of foot soldiers among fundamentalist churches around Iowa. Such a group could motivate a large number of social conservatives to go to caucuses.

Likewise with Thompson, if he wants the fundamentalists to really believe his social conservative bonafides, he has to make a strong showing.

Romney, of course, is suspect because his present social conservatism is in contrast to former positions held as governor of liberal Massachusetts. He has another problem with getting foot soldiers among fundamentalist Christians, because they are also most likely to object to his Mormon beliefs.

I'm not so sure that Giuliani's "oh well, Iowa is not important because I didn't really try there," is a smart strategy. As always, it will be interesting to see what shakes out.

jasonl IS zouk , by another name. Plytime for the sci fi nerds with nothing to do but TRY and silence the left all day everyday. I see you zouk you are pathetic

That is the gop way jason. Only you have free speech. Do what you will. Coward.

Always looking to the government or cc to tailor the rules to your sensibilities and ideals. To me the stret runs one way. The oly power you have is the power I give you. do not foget that.

You want to put out your gop propoganda but silence the left. That is hypocritical double think. No one is stopping you from posting. Your trying to hinder me shows all independant thinkers waht the gop is about. Coward hypocrite fascists.

Negative views by voters everywhere but no place to register that on the yes only ballots or in the yes only polls. A no column and the highest net yes wins would produce a result that showed whether the winner won with support or by default. Why do we have to say we like parsnips to say we don't like broccoli? We can vote no on measures. We should be able to vote no on candidates. Wouldn't that terrorize candidates if they knew we could vote as they encourage us to...against A, the trashee, without having to vote for B, the trasher? Just imagine what that would do to campaign practices based on attacking the opponent(s).

One more point. By your rational JasonL. Captain america. The appitamy of what america is about and what america stands for. is a criminal and terrorst siimply because the president, at the time, wants to make a law singling him out. Does that makes sense to you.

P.S. My name is back! Thanks for the tip Zouk, that worked nicely.

The poster formerly known as JasonL and temporarily as palin1016.

"To many swords and socerers. to many sci fi books. You see why they are bad for you jason. They have you people not living in the real world. Non-fiction, buddy. Non-fiction.

The 1500's are over. No more dragons. They were only dinosaur bones :)" -Rufus

What part of drop it don't you understand. I don't care if you put a smiley face on the end, you're getting dangerously close to offensive and don't think I won't report you for it.

My beliefs and policy and political positions are not compromised by what I do to relieve stress in my free time. They're based on logical, critical thinking and a university education. So drop it.

--------

Jay Mills, I'd be interested in your thoughts as to why HRC's lead is based on media hype and why, if it's true, that media hype wouldn't carry through to the general election. And just for argument's sake, HRC held strong leads in NH and FL, for example, even back in 2006.

"And then, more importantly still, there is the fact that McConnell has more extensive private sector connections than virtually anyone in the country to the very telecommunication companies for which he is now demanding amnesty, and he has spent the last decade working on behalf of the very companies who would be the prime beneficiaries of this extraordinary legislative gift. In a healthily functioning political system, McConnell would be disqualified from opining on an amnesty bill for companies to which he is so closely tied.

But to our Beltway opinion-makers, the opposite is true -- McConnell is the Unimpeachable Source, and if he decrees that National Security requires Amnesty for his friends and colleagues in the telcom industry, then no decent or serious person will question that. Or else they will have Blood on Their Hands.
"
greenwald

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/11/klein_fisa/

The GOP biggest dirty secret is silencing Ron Paul. That's the GOP's way of letting him know that no matter you do or get, we're not going to nominate you. Even the media is in on it.

Did CNBC intentionally misreport the results of the Republican debate poll?

-----> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=685

.

dave-i had a well thought out point about polls but i timed out. drats, but the main point of it is her lead in the polls is media hype. i only go by the one poll and thats on election day.

bsimon-nice to see you here. what i gather from my memory of the consitution is that she cant be vice president. she would have to be a natual born citizen. if she was chosen to be a running mate then she would be passed over to the 3rd in line which would be the speaker of the house. nancy pelosi. the best granholm can hope for is a cabinet position or maybe a advisor of some sort.

originally her ambitions was a senate seat in 08 but senator carl levin wisely opted to stay on. when her term is up in 2010 she could try for the other seat but i think people here are generally satisified with stabinow as the junior senator.

To many swords and socerers. to many sci fi books. You see why they are bad for you jason. They have you people not living in the real world. Non-fiction, buddy. Non-fiction.

The 1500's are over. No more dragons. They were only dinosaur bones :)

Your right. you people always got a republcian angle. So the president makes the law and we obey. ok. Remember that when the d's are in power.

So bush spying on us is now legal then, for all time? No more privacy in this country because the king said so?

you are living in the wrong country at the wrong time. you should be in monarchy england or france in the 1500's. you would feel more at home, I think.

bsimon,
"if you're ineligible to be President, can you be Vice President?" I thought we covered that with the Bill Clinton for VP discussion a few weeks ago. In her case (just like Arnold's), I think you have to be born here.

what a mess

"The point is palin1016. A patriot would never wage wage agaisnt his own country.countrymen. A REAL patriot no matter how much he disagree's would never that it to that next level. In this country anyway, where we supposedly have free speech and equal opions."

Never age war.

Would ever take it to that level

equal opinions

A real patriot would not give out a 12 year old boy's address, and stalk his family, because he is getting hurt by a law their president vetoed.

Understand now jason?

Well, Rufus you're disproving your own allegory. Captain America fought against his country because he opposed a law made by the duly elected representatives of the American people.

Technically that makes him the terrorist and US Agent to protector of our nation.

Just drop it, Rufus. We're not getting anywhere on this.

The point is palin1016. A patriot would never wage wage agaisnt his own country.countrymen. A REAL patriot no matter how much he disagree's would never that it to that next level. In this country anyway, where we supposedly have free speech and equal opions.

So who would wage war agasitn their own country, and why? And would such a person be considered a patriot. I say no. I say that person is either a traitor to their nation, or you could consider them "terrorist". This is why I say the gop is in with the terrorists. They have the same goals and use the same methods.

9/11 being an inside job aside, our country has been gutted by the republcains since 9/11. I think 9/11 was so they could do these things, others would agree these things are happening BECAUE of 9/11. Either way, our country is getting gutted by the republicans. I you look at the big picutre it all makes sense. But the black and white patrol cannot look at the big picture. Their minds don't work that way. To authoritatian, to analitical. But i can. Others can.

now are the bad people just stupid, or are they compliant? You know waht I think. so who is responsible? Bush? Cheaney? Fox? Or the monster they serve?

lartfromabove,
Republicans do care about winning in 11/08. But seven electoral votes means Iowa is just not that important, from a big picture point of view.

jaymills1134 writes
"my advice to any dem canidate who wins the election in 08, take granholm please!!!! get her out of the state!"

That brings up the question... Can Granholm be Vice President? Isn't she Canadian by birth, and therefore ineligible to become President? If so, that begs the question; if you're ineligible to be President, can you be Vice President?

What an entertaining and astute bunch you guys are! I'm a democrat and I like Hilary, Obama, and Edwards just fine, but I'm weirdly fascinated by the Republicans. There seems to be so much psychodrama going on under the surface with that group. In comparison, the Democrats seem pretty straightforward and sort of boring.

I think the poster(s) who imagined the Romney/Huckabee pairing was/were right on the money. Temperamentally, philosophically, and aesthetically (the latter shouldn't matter, but it does) I think these two would do well.

Also, I really fear for Fred Thompson if he stays in this thing too long. Supposedly he's in remission, but he seems tired and unwell and his color isn't so good. Remember, Rudy had a bout with cancer, too, but he seems quite chipper. I think Fred needs to think about his priorities--after all, he has two little kids.

"maybe cc should talk about hillary's chances in iowa." -Jay Mills

I'll beat him to it. Since 9/21 Hillary has had the lead in Iowa, fluctuating between a 2 and 7 point lead. The only exception was a 9/27 News week poll that put Obama ahead by 4 points.

In case you're interested she's had a sizable lead all year in both NH and FL.

This all comes from Pollster.com

Greenwald:

"To Klein, telecoms did not act illegally. Not at all. They were simply victims of "the Bush Administration['s] refus[al] to update the law" to make the law consistent with what the telecoms were doing. That would be tantamount to a criminal defendant charged with embezzlement going into court and saying: "Your Honor, I didn't do anything wrong. Why should I be punished just because the Bush administration refused to update the law to make my criminal behavior legal?"

Such an "argument" would trigger judicial laughing fits and probably sanctions. But our Beltway elite is so desperate to defend telcoms (and, more importantly, to close off the sole remaining mechanism for investigating the administration's illegal warrantless eavesdropping and obtaining a judicial ruling as to its illegality) that they will twist themselves into the most inane positions in order to defend something as extraordinary as granting retroactive amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms.
"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/11/klein_fisa/

Your right about one thing palin1016. This conversation is going no where. Obviously you are failing to grasp what I am saying to you.

I am from Iowa and I was there in December 2006, and it was pretty darned cold.

There may be a nominal winner in the Iowa caucus, but none of the Republican candidates are very exciting. Most Americans are tired of lurid lies from fear-mongering extremists. A Republican who could speak credibly about economic prosperity and real national security issues (i.e. how can we protect ourselves from countries that really don't like us while most of our troops are bogged down in Iraq) might have a chance of regaining the political center. You'd think Republicans would care about having a chance in November 2008.

JD and all
If you want a personalized user name you will have to sign out and erase your cookies. then you can sign up as a new user with the name:
JD@yahoo.com or anything that has your preferred name before the @ symbol. It does not have to be real. If it is taken use JD@msn.com. then you can go to preferences and alter your email address to the real one, in case you forget your password and need it sent to you.

jaymills1124,
You're correct that Hillary is an IF as people still need to vote and we are far enough out to where polls mean little. If she does not get it, then it makes it a much easier choice for either 3rd party support or sitting out the election. However, HRC is clearly the front runner and has been polling that way consistently for a while. One would have to say that she is the odds on favorite to win the nomination.

Rufus, I understand that you see an allegorical relationship in that picture but what I see is somewhat different.

I see two patriots with a different idea of what's right for the country. Each option has good and bad parts. One thinks security is worth giving up some rights for some people (which are not Constitutional rights, just an accepted practice in that universe). The other believes that those rights are as important as Constitutional ones. They're having a heated argument that's being broken up by a mutual friend.

None of the men in your picture are evil or fascists.

If I ever find the source of that picture I'll provide you with some context for it but otherwise I'm done. This conversation isn't going anywhere.

Blarg,
I find that amazing. Not because I doubt you or the poll but because i have NEVER come across anyone that said they believed that. The other interesting part of that poll is that only 25% of respondents claimed to be Republicans. Apparently this belief is not limited to only them!

"is a sizable minority among the evangelicals who will not vote for a Mormon under any circumstances. "

I'm sure it's not just them. Are there any moromns here? Tell us about your religon. I can't see it happening. A man and woman rowed a row boat from europe to america in jesus's time? I doubt it. No disrespect, but let's be real here. The mormon movement is a hoax, in my opion. it's all about fellowship. It's all about clones and robots. It's all about "be like me or don't be". "Be like me or you are wrong". That is not religon. That is a form of, you guessed it, fascism.

Change that and a moron may be elected someday. But I don't see it. Same clothes, same hair, same speech, same people. That is not america. America is freedom. mormonism is the opposite. It's like the devil running the catholic church. O wait. :0

Take as a grain of salt.

Thanks JasonL/Palin1016:

"You have to cancel your registration and remake it. I'm using an old email address because my normal log-in has my last name, which I'm not quite comfortable with."

Me too, my normal WaPo login has my name and state, so I had to revert to my alternate email address; too many crazies out there!

bsimon, I guess with the recent warming spell that Iowa isn't that cold anymore, but that doesn't disprove my theory; that Mitt's popularity in Iowa is mostly due to advertising and a HUGE investment in that state. In most of the country, it's Rudy's or Fred's to lose (check out the WaTimes editorial today, citing some very interesting data from RealClearPolitics; they've taken an avg of the 5 most recent polls, can't argue with that approach)

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071011/EDITORIAL/110110001/1013/editorial

JD

dave- but here's the thing we dont know if hillary has the nom wrapped up. the polls now mean jack squat. if she wins iowa,NH and beyond, you may have a point. but if obama or edwards pulls out a come from behind win in iowa and NH then that theory becomes moot.

maybe cc should talk about hillary's chances in iowa.

"According to a June 2007 Newsweek poll of what Americans know, 41% answered yes to this question:
"

That's americans. the fox poll said this

"SURVEY: Daily Show/Colbert Viewers Most Knowledgeable, Fox News Viewers Rank Lowest"

I can't seem to find the fox poll. they must have used their power to bury it. Like they do with all unfavorable information or news regarding the gop or it's cult members.

Shmedley-no problem, now if you asked me which canidate won, i would say:clinton/92,engler/94,clinton/96,engler/98,gore/2000,graholm/02,kerry/04,and granholm/06.

in order for either party to win this state you got to do the following.

rally or supress the detroit vote. imagine over 800k plus votes for the dem nominee or not voting at all.

go for the union vote, despite what the free traders and anti union vote would say the uaw is still a strong voice in this state.

if your republican, the center of gop power is in grand rapids. democrat, go to metro detroit with oakland county for economic concerns,macomb county for reagan democrats and wayne/detroit for african americans and union votes.