stevoh

Oh, so the republican vetting process is flawed as well? Neither side is perfect? Shocker!

I know we won't agree on this and I know my left bias influences my view. But I see Obama attempting to do things differently, and I see him running into the challenges you would expect when you raise the bar. Ending corruption and collusion is no small task. Especially within a large group of politicians. And I don't see it as a fight that ever ends. What do you guys expect? When they find out one of their candidates has a dubious background, the administration ITSELF releases the information, and discusses what they are thinking about doing about it. Completely transparent. Then they make individual decisions weighing the merits of each case. You can disagree with their final decision, but the process is open. And the process is occuring. So he is taking action based on his words. It sounds like the right wing are now the ones expecting Obama to be a perfect Messiah. I have always know that is not possible, and I have read his books and watched his speeches and seen his constant reference to potentially making mistakes and being unable to do it on his own. Did this get missed by those on the right? Are you in fact the ones deluded into believing that somehow Obama was going to be perfect? Or did you just set an impossible standard that no human could ever meet, for the simple reason that right wing bias couldn't allow the acceptance of anything else? Oh, and Shady, I happen to agree that an economic stimulus package should only contain elements that directly stimulate the economy, so I happen to agree with the jist of your post. Its not that I don't believe some of those efforts are worthy, I just don't believe they should be put in an "economic stimulus package". Obama's vision of change is much larger than just economic stimulation, but I don't necessarily think that those ideas should be part of an emergency economic stimulus package. I believe in his change, just not the way its packaged right now.

If Obama's team was all perfect and flawless, I would believe we were being brainwashed. I don't think ending corruption is an easy task by any stretch, I am so far encouraged by their efforts.

Citation, look at the prior post. It was Obama's administration who revealed the shortfall to USA today (shady's post). The Daschle issue was also released by the administration. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/us/polit...ml?ref=politics Obama saying things will be different DOESN'T mean there won't be any corrupt people or people with issues. What it does mean is that they discover it, they deal with it. I don't think any reasonable person would actually believe Obama is some kind of Messiah who can magically read peoples minds and histories and know all. Picking only clean people from a pool of politicians is simply not possible. Cleaning them up or turfing them out after the fact is. He has also frozen all salaries over 100 000 including his own within the white house. Since he himself is willing to cut back on raises, it is entirely reasonable that those looking for public money should also do the same. Change is not a switch. Hope is not a solution. Change is setting higher standards and holding yourself and others to them, hope is believing this will result in a stronger, less corrupt government.

It does include special scrutiny, that's what vetting is. The administration found it and announced it publicly. That is why it is neither corrupt or arrogant. And the president later admitting a mistake? That is the absolute opposite of arrogance, that is humility.

I also would prefer that the "honest mistakes" had been dealt with prior to being appointed government office. However, I also understand that the level of taxation scrutiny just before you take government office is higher now than it has ever been. So mistakes that you may not been aware of that had been missed before are being caught now. This is the process working. I agree that there will always be attempts at corruption. Its human nature. Its how we deal with that corruption that matters. I want an open administration that finds it, identifies it, and deals with it up front.

Its like some people think there is a secret switch in the presidential desk that turns corruption on and off. Defining and rooting out corruption is not a quick job, it is a long term determined effort. What we see here is the process working, the corrupted people being identified, and the issues being resolved. I can't speak to all of the details of each case, but to me the dividing line on taxes is whether the back tax payments are deliberately avoided or not. I messed up my taxes for a couple of years when I ran a small business, and ended up owing them a couple of grand or two plus penalties. It wasn't because I wasn't honest, it was because I didn't understand how larger business right offs are amortized, you can't write it off all in one year. It was an honest mistake. If the people owing back taxes deliberately tried to avoid them, then yes, they should be turfed and tried for fraud. But if it was an oversite, then, these people are human, not perfect, they still may have other skills that make them uniquely suited for the job. We have to give people a chance to be human and learn to uphold themselves to the new standards. I think this process of rooting out corruption is continuous, and of course there are going to be speed bumps at the beginning as people are held to a higher standard. But, for me, it is this openness that leads me to trust the government, it is the steadfast denial of any wrong doing no matter what that makes me suspicious.

The difference with Obama is not that he will occasionally run into people who have issues in their past. It is that he deals with it in an open and honest manner.

Palin exploited saturday night live for exposure, Saturday night live exploited Palin for ratings. The same could be said of any famous person, however, Tina Feys impression was just so dead on and timely it was ratings magic. Are poor Sarah's feelings hurt? She will have to develop a much thicker skin if she wants to stay in national politics.

1. Obama raised more money. 2. Palin appealed to base but alienated other voters. 3. Obama appeared to be steady and solid during crisis, McCain appeared reactionary (calling off campaign but not really, couldn't get own party to vote his way). 4. Bush's legacy. 5. Lack of support for McCain within his own party that resulted in a disorganized, last minute campaign.

Has any information been released yet that might indicate this was a mercy killing?

I fail to see why standards are suddenly going to work in a two tier system, when standards are not adhered to (due to staffing/funding shortfalls in most cases) in our current one tier system. Standards are great, but when you can't meet minimum standards due to shortfalls, as in our current system, the same thing will happen in the public component of a two tier system.

Whenever I look at the privatization of our health care system, I look at how I am treated in the currently private dentistry system. My insurance is provided through my workplace, my health care is provided through my taxes, no difference financially to me there (as in paying method hassles). However, 15% of the total bill is my responsibility. I would rather pay higher premiums but I am not given that choice. I wouldn't want that in my regular health care. And, I am sometimes told that something "took longer than expected" (which means it took longer than the insurance company will pay for) so I have to cover that as well, wouldn't want that in my regular health care. And sometimes I am told something is not even covered. Like if I have two wizdom teeth go bad in a year. I would definitely not want that in my health care system. And, the key to me is, if ever I am in a tough financial situation, and my payments lapse, I would no longer have dental coverage. That is not acceptable for basic health care, even if it is somewhat acceptable to live with bad teeth. So, based on my experience with privatized dentisty, I wouldn't want the same system for health care. Its too easy to end up with extra charges or items not covered. Even worse, those expenses are sudden, unpredictable, and my put me in a situation where i have to choose health or bankrupcy, simply not an acceptable choice to me. And even worse if one of my children is denied care due to unforseen financial situations. Because a two tier pay for better health care system means that the people who can afford to pay more get better technology, more highly paid health care professionals, and better institutions for their health care. These advantages have an effect on the lower tier of health care as health care professionals are naturally attracted to higher paying cutting edge clinics, the lower tiers health care quality starts to lower. Worse equipment, worse institutions, less highly paid health care professionals. Unless there was some way to provide the higher tier without any compromise the quality of the lower tier, I am totally against it. I don't see how you can offer better quality private health care without having a negative effect on public health care.

Exactly. The repubs would promote this guy.

The only difference between socialism and capitalism is who runs the show.

The Alberta oil patch workers are some of the biggest pot smokers in the country.

The threat of a coalition is exactly what Harper needed to put him back into his place, he should be representing ALL Canadians, not just his own party at the expense of others. He will continue to pay for this incredibly foolish and impetuous decision for a good while now. That being said, the coalition in its current state does not give me any confidence that it can govern this country. The coalition was a desperate move that I feel was warranted. However, the point has been made, lets get back to the business of governing the country. Harper has to now come up with a financial plan that benefits all Canadians, or we go back to the polls.

Liberal.

I don't support the coalition because it isn't actually a coalition that creates a majority. Its a coalition between liberals and NDP, which doesn't give them the majority. An agreement with the Bloc is NOT the same as a formal coalition with the bloc. And, while I have no real problem with an NDP liberal coalition, I would have a problem with a formal coalition with the bloc, so no, I don't support the "coalition" being the ruling party. On the other hand, Harper was given a golden opportunity to forge a budget that showed forsight and was good for all Canadians. Instead, he decided to attempt to fire the killing shot into the liberal party, plainly partisan, and he deserves all of the turmoil he is in now. He should step down as leader of the conservatives. I don't know what the answer is. I don't support the coalition because it doesn't form a majority, and I wouldn't want the bloc joining it anyway. But I also believe Harper has messed up royally and shouldn't be leading either. Perhaps the only real choice is another election. *sigh*

The only thing they cared about was that Harper was trying to weaken already weak parties by removing some of their financing. It doesn't matter now that he backed out of that, Harper wasn't satisfied with having a minority and presiding from that position, he wanted to weaken his opposition even further. But the worm turned and bit back. And now that Harpers intentions are revealed, not what is necessarily best for Canadians, but certainly what is best for the conservative party at the expense of all others, there is no going back. Somewhere along the way, Harper forgot he was ruling from a minority.

Cutting off funding for the parties was a massively stupid mistake on the part of Harper. I think the opposition was quite happy to be lame ducks that occasionally quacked loudly before Harper tried to hamstring them. All this other political stuff is garbage, the coalition got motivation and strength from having the conservatives attempt to cut their funding. What did he expect? Stupid stupid move. Its almost like Harper forgot he was in a minority government. He tried to push through funding cuts and union freezes thinking that no-party would dare to oppose him and trigger another election and the wrath of Canadians. He was wrong. And that is why we are in the situation we are in. Harper engineered his own parties loss of power.

It seems that many conservatives are unable to seperate criticism from hate. You can be critical of many areas in the US, and still love the country and believe it is strong.

Because we are the good guys.

Its interesting how bias clouds the mind. The difference is 7%. According to CNN, that is: Obama 53% McCain 46% He also took states that haven't been blue since 1964. GWB could only dream of such margins.

"Blame Bush Obama"