stevoh

One thing is for certain, if the bail out package is not approved and many of the major financial players in the US are allowed to go under, the republicans would have absolutely no chance of winning this election. You can spin a lot of things, but when the economy collapses under your watch, you are pretty much screwed. Many of the senators opposed to the bail out package are in fact republicans. This just makes sense really, when they are the party of deregulation and ardent supporters of the free market system. In fact, a year or two ago, I would have not been suprised if McCain had in fact been one of the hold outs. However, they have to put their agendas aside and realize that the damage caused by not passing this package is too great for individual ideologies to override. I don't think McCain is wrong to suspend his campaign. His political future is entirely hinged on the passing of the bailout package. Of course he has to do everything he can to ensure it passes. He also needs the support of Democrats to do that however, hence the call for bipartisanship and Obama's involvement.

Why can't they do both? Debate on friday, AND deal with this crisis? They have airplanes.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24...ef=mpstoryemail What's wrong with the rest of the republican party? They can't handle this job? McCain is the one who felt that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. Dead wrong. He has been wrong about the economy before, why is his advice suddenly so valuable now? Of course, those supporting McCain say he is making the right decision, putting "Country First" before running a presidential campaign. However, someone involved in the actual negotations had this to say:

Obama suported a bill that gives his state funding for transportation? And you think this is a bad thing? Yes, along with over 285 billion in other transportation projects. After claiming to support it before she got in office. So, what other things is she going to change her mind about the moment she becomes VP? I think McCain looks good on this one, because he was clear about his reasons for not voting for this bill at the time. I think Obama looks good on this one because he is clear about his reasons for voting for the bill, and wanted to tackle bad project spending in a more complete way. I think Palin looks terrible on this one because she clearly supported the bridge before she came to office, promised the chamber of commerce in Alaska that she supported it, and then flip flopped as soon as she came into power and felt the political winds shifting. Unlike McCain or Obama, this is not a person with convictions, this is a political opportunist.

Yes, she flip flopped. Same link as above, the Obama text I quoted was from the November 2005 Chicago Tribune.

Yes, after vocally supporting it for the prior two years. True. And McCain did not vote. The ammendment made no sense. They wanted to take half the money from the bridge to nowhere and put it towards a bridge in Lousiana. Which meant half the money was still going to the bridge to nowhere. Not only does it make actually building the bridge to nowhere impossible (as funds were just halved), it does not take care of the earmark issue. And there are other bills passed that do take care of reconstruction, which Obama supported. Nope, Obama made the comments in 2005, before he started running for president. And while Palin was vocally still supporting the bridge.

Analysis of this issue is here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...bridge-nowhere/ Key facts: 1. The bridge to nowhere was a tiny portion of a much larger transportation bill that included many other projects. 2. The ammendment to the bill that would have rerouted the bridge to nowhere money to a Katrina damaged bridge in lousina was not voted on by McCain either, he abstained. 3. Palin also supported the bridge to nowhere at this time. She continued the support for over a year after the bill had been passed. She changed her mind only after the bill had passed and she became governer. But most importantly, when Obama was asked directly about the bridge his response was:

What it the reason for Obama's and Biden's support of the bridge? Could it have been the same reasons that Palin initially supported the bridge before she changed her mind? Don't you think we should ask this question before getting outraged? There is more to this than we are being told.

So, if giving birth would almost certainly result in the death of the mother, due to medical reasons, which human life do we decide to keep?

Want another indisputable fact? The meltdown occured on the republicans watch.

A more accurate and less rabid analysis of the issue is here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ob...nfanticide.html Good for Obama for standing up for womens rights! He has never supported infanticide and in fact suports: His fundamental reason for opposing the bills is that he believes they would have encroached on abortion rights (Roe vs Wade).

What other alternatives do the Republicans have for keeping various critical companies alive? If one company owns half the morgage market in the US, what happens to people who have morgages with that company if it was allowed to go bankrupt?

Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement payments come from the government. This money does not just cover those on Medicaid or Medicare, it also covers un-insured people who don't pay their bills. More on this below. That is because, in many cases, the profit levels of hospitals INCLUDE the government funding they receive. Its only after the various reimbursements, grants, and tax breaks are included that the "profit level" of the hospital is measured. On the federal level, the Medicaid "Disproportionate Share Payment" helps finance hospitals who process an above average number of patients who have Medicaid, Medicare or no health insurance. There are lots of other municipal, state, and federal funding and tax break measures that ensure that hospitals never go broke. The american taxpayer is paying for these breaks and funding, either through less tax revenue through tax breaks, or direct funding from programs such as the Disproportionate Share Payment program. The sad fact is (and the reason I believe that a sole "for profit" medical system is a bad idea) that the only hospitals that are truly profitable and would be able to survive in a free market situation are those that cater to the higher income fully insured segment of the american population. The hospitals that have lower income catchment areas would simply not survive without additional tax breaks and funding.

A hospital is never allowed to "go broke", like a normal business. Depending on the hospital and state, they are instead supported by taxes from the local, state, or federal government. Want an example? Fremont Nebraska (pop 25000) pays between 300,000 and 500,000 a year for unpaid medical bills on the municipal level. I was referring to those uninsured who don't pay their bills. Exactly, not the right approach at all. Yes, only emergency care can't be denied. But there is nothing to stop someone getting non-emergency care and then simply not paying their bill. Or finding out later that their insurance didn't cover that cost. Exactly, they aren't responsible for it, no defined set of rules exists, but they do routinely support hospitals with budget shortfalls, as the other alternative (closing the hospital) isn't really an option in many cases. This is taking the thread too far off track, but in its simplest terms, soley public health care has certain specific problems (wait times, budget shortfalls) that can be effectively addressed with optional private insurance. Start another thread and we can go into this in more detail, if you wish.

Yes, one of the flaws with American health care is that it is dependent on private insurance, which means that those who either don't or can't pay won't have insurance when they need it. Why is this a flaw? Most hospitals won't deny life saving care to any patient, they will just bill them for it after. And when the patient can't afford those bills? The taxpayer ends up covering it as the hospitals can't afford to swallow these costs. So really, its a backdoor public system where taxes will end up paying for everyone who doesn't have insurance and gets injured anyway, and meanwhile another uninsured American goes bankrupt (50% of american bankrupcies cite health bills as a major reason for the bankrupcy). Yes, thats a major flaw. The second flaw is that private insurance is not comprehensive, complete, and current. Not comprehensive means your specific condition might not be covered. Not complete means that you might be have to pay for part of the final bill (this is how dentistry operates in Canada). Not current means your doctor might have knowledge of the latest and most effective treatement, but might not be able to use that treatment because insurance doesn't cover it. In short, the insurance company, not your doctor, is determining your treatment based on cost, not medical considerations. This problem is shared by public systems however, as funding shortfalls may mean equipment and technology are not current either. Yes, there are flaws with various public systems as well. But the fact that everyone is covered, and that there are mechanisms in place to ensure health care is paid for, makes it far superior to a private only system. The best system is a hybrid. Private insurance for those who can pay for it. Public insurance for those who can't, and to cover costs private insurance won't.

Number of uninsured in the United States, 2007: 45.7 million http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

To be completely honest none of the leaders inspire me. Dion comes across as too weak. I do believe he believes strongly in the green shift and the changes it will make. But his overall ability to make effective policy, push it through parliament, and run the country, no confidence. I think he would be a great environment minister. Harper is so wooden, he doesn't appear to have any passion about our great country, or the issues we find important. And I don't appreciate him following the trail of all politicians before him, making promises and then breaking them. When are we going to get an honest leader who tells it like it is? They all claim to be straight talkers, and then when in power, they turn out the same as all of the others. Layton is great Canadian political "color", but I wouldn't trust him with the national chequebook. Back to the thread topic, I think Dion may be a good man, but he is not a GREAT man, by any stretch.

Then we agree.

I think we would need to define explicit before we can make that choice. Because, lets face it, in order to have any kind of sex ed you need to talk about penis's and vagina's, and how they work. You don't need to use actual photographs to get the point across, the cartoons I had in my sex ed class were very clear about how that worked. But those cartoons did have cartoon body parts. Would that be considered explicit?

Palin is the result of feminism and the freedom of choice they have fought so hard to obtain for women. She is not however a feminist herself because she believes in restricting the rights of other women to match her belief system. A female leader I would respect would be fighting to ensure all women have the same right to make their own career, personal, and religious choices that Palin has. Palin believes instead in restricting those rights, and so cannot be truly called a feminist. Palins rise to success is a result of Feminism, she is not a good representative of feminism herself however.

The swing in voters apparently comes mainly from white women voters. Perhaps the suggestion that this election is more about image than policy is correct.

Personally, I hope these allegations against Palin are false. She is such an ideal republican role model, she embodies so many of their beliefs, and is a great public speaker. If she is what she (and the republicans) claim her to be, she is probably the best public representation of republicanism I have seen in a while. Of course, I want Obama to win this election (I am a liberal after all), but I want it to win it based on his merits vs McCains, not win it because some scandal brought down the other side. Some would say a win is a win, but I would certainly rather it was based on political reasons, not scandal.

Dead on. I noticed the same thing as well. He is struggling with two different purposes: 1. re-assure his base that he is a strong republican 2. re-assure everyone else that he is different from the current batch of republicans So, early on, he praises George Bush as a great man. Later, he promises to clean up washington and make things right. These two ideas are in opposition because it is clear that you shouldn't need to clean up the same washington that was led by a great man that you support.

While I was impressed with her speaking ability and presence, I didn't hear much of substance. Hopefully McCain will deal with that tonight. Questions like: How are you dealing with the Morgage crisis? On a larger scale, what are your economic plans? How are you doing to deal with the deficit? How will the "average" american benefit from you being in office? What are you going to do about health care costs? We know your stance on abortion, what are you going to do (if anything) to make abortions harder to get? What are your guidelines for "victory" in IRAQ? How much more time will the troops spend there? While I have no doubt it cemented the republican base (everyone likes hearing how great they are and jokes about the other side) I didn't see much that would appeal to voters outside of that base.

Because she is the VP pick for the other side? This isn't some random football mom who liberals have decided to pick on from the american midwest. She might be the next vice president of the United States. I don't hate the woman, in fact, I respect her. But this doesn't give her a free pass, she deserves the same scrutiny and criticism that all politicians get when faced with the highest office of the most powerful nation on earth.