no chance on Gore, imo

he's rightfully sick and tired of being run through the mill by folks in the GOP noise machine, and after 2000, why bother?

this bit i found interesting - "We've got a $600 billion (so far) war going on which Clinton isn't likely to stop for five years or more at another half-trillion in spending, an accumulating budget deficit which is out of control, a bankrupt social security system, and a ballooning Medicare debt which will be half of the total federal budget within a decade."

it appears that the Author might actually be waking up to the bullshit pulled in the last 7 years...one can only Dream, i guess

Excelsior?

I mostly agree with you on Hillary (although I find her to be much more rational and realistic than John Edwards, and the $5,000.00 per baby idea isn't entirely loopy).

But I had to disagree with you on Al Gore. He may have positioned himself as a "moderate" when he was a Congress-critter from Tennessee, but he's just a liberal-left as the rest of the Democrats running for President.

I am absolutely certain that a Gore Presidency, coupled with a Democrat-controlled Congress, would include the following:

- Payroll tax hikes
- Socialized medicine
- Ratification of Kyoto, or the equivalent
- Increased gasoline taxes
- Retreat from Iraq
- Abandonment, or at least neglect, of our National Missile Defense system
- Leftist Supreme Court nominees, in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
- Endless Justice Department investigations into the previous administration
- Really boring and obnoxious performances at press conferences

Want a Democrat who can win in 2008, and who wouldn't be a complete failure? How about Bob Kerrey.

Thanks for this article, you lay out many of the reasons why Gore should run. I just want to point your attention to America for Gore. America for Gore is a coalition of 18 Draft Gore members (and growing), including the two biggest players - draftgore.com & algore.org - and have been very active since its inception. I urge your readers to check out the many ballot initiatives going on and the very successful $.02 Campaign we launched last month. Thanks!

he's rightfully sick and tired of being run through the mill by folks in the GOP noise machine, and after 2000, why bother?

Because Gore does seem to have some sense of civic duty, I think. As for the 'GOP noise machine', if Gore wasn't quite so sanctimonious and focused solely on global warming, the right would be a lot more friendly towards him. Even as it is now, their argument isn't with Gore so much as it is with the cultish and anti-American character of the global warming movement.

this bit i found interesting - "We've got a $600 billion (so far) war going on which Clinton isn't likely to stop for five years or more at another half-trillion in spending, an accumulating budget deficit which is out of control, a bankrupt social security system, and a ballooning Medicare debt which will be half of the total federal budget within a decade."

it appears that the Author might actually be waking up to the bullshit pulled in the last 7 years...one can only Dream, i guess

I've written about every single thing I mention in the paragraph you quote before. I've written complete articles on most of those topics. Where were you then?

Dave

"As for the 'GOP noise machine', if Gore wasn't quite so sanctimonious and focused solely on global warming, the right would be a lot more friendly towards him."

bullshit, do you have NO memory of the 2000 campaign?

and that was before "global warming" now, wasn't it

you yourself even mock the "lockbox", and yet bemoan what's happening to SS/Medicaid...think about it for a moment, eh?

as for the rest of your Articles and th elike...when you make a solid point, i ALWAYS say so...when i think you are factually incorrect, or full of shit..i also say so

where have YOU been? oh, that's right...defending the Administration because you don't like to see them get picked on...

puh-leeEEEEeezze...fucking spare me, ok?

Excelsior?

bullshit, do you have NO memory of the 2000 campaign?

It was 6 years ago. My recollection is that it was just exactly as bad as every other campaign since I was a kid. Surely you're old enough to remember what Nixon did to his opponents. Don't even try to tell me what was done to Gore was bad in comparison to the kind of stuff which has gone on in other campaigns.

and that was before "global warming" now, wasn't it

Yes, but since that time it's been the GW issue he's taken flak for. Surely he wasn't so naive as to expect NOT to be attacked by the opposition in the presidential campaign?

you yourself even mock the "lockbox", and yet bemoan what's happening to SS/Medicaid...think about it for a moment, eh?

Gonzo, even you have to admit that the 'lockbox' statement sounded idiotic and patronizing. He deserved then and now to be mocked for it, especially considering that a lockbox isn't much use when you have nothing to actually put in it.

where have YOU been? oh, that's right...defending the Administration because you don't like to see them get picked on...

Unmerited criticism is what it is, whether the target is Gore or Bush or anyone else.

puh-leeEEEEeezze...fucking spare me, ok?

Extremely unlikely.

Dave

But I had to disagree with you on Al Gore. He may have positioned himself as a "moderate" when he was a Congress-critter from Tennessee, but he's just a liberal-left as the rest of the Democrats running for President.
'
It's actually not true. He started out genuinely conservative and moved towards the left in order to become moderate when he started looking at national office.

I am absolutely certain that a Gore Presidency, coupled with a Democrat-controlled Congress, would include the following:

- Payroll tax hikes
- Socialized medicine
- Ratification of Kyoto, or the equivalent

Actually, Gore is currently no longer pushing Kyoto, but a more balanced plan rather similar to what Bush proposed this week.

- Increased gasoline taxes
'
Let's hope.

- Retreat from Iraq

No one except for the most radical and ideological of the candidates - Kucinich, Gravel and Paul - is actually going to pull us out of Iraq.

- Abandonment, or at least neglect, of our National Missile Defense system

Um, who the fuck cares?

- Leftist Supreme Court nominees, in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
- Endless Justice Department investigations into the previous administration

Like you won't have these with ANY Democrat?

- Really boring and obnoxious performances at press conferences

At least he'd HAVE press conferences.

Want a Democrat who can win in 2008, and who wouldn't be a complete failure? How about Bob Kerrey.

He doesn't have the national stature to run.

Dave

"- Increased gasoline taxes

Let's hope."

It would be highly inflationary, increasing the costs of virtually every good and service in the United States. The price of gas has practically tripled in the last 8 or 9 years. Increasing the federal tax on gasoline will make this serious problem even worse.

"- Abandonment, or at least neglect, of our National Missile Defense system

Um, who the fuck cares?"

Well, if Bush doesn't act against Iran in the next 15 months, and a "peace" Democrat is elected in 2008, then we can be pretty certain that Iran will have nukes by 2010 or 2011. (And missiles capable of reaching the East Coast of the US by 2015 or so.) Which is why I care a great deal about National Missile Defense.

"- Endless Justice Department investigations into the previous administration

Like you won't have these with ANY Democrat?"

Well, that's true. But Gore hates Bush because of the 2000 election, and would be more motivated than other Democrats to launch endless investigations over just about everything that happened from January 2001 to January 2009.

Ah man, here in Canada we're used to having little choice as we have to vote for the party. Hence why so many of our leaders are bland - or at least the system forces them to be so.

But you in America have no excuse. The system encourages - in theory anyway - independent thought. Hilarious Hilary I don't get. I'm no betting man but always go with the lesser of two evils. In this case, Gore - if he runs.

Or hope that the GOP nominees can somehow resonate. I like Fred Thompson. He knew how to handle McCoy.

Today I received this email and was glad to make a contribution...

Dear Friends,

We are entering the final stretch of this campaign, energized by a wave of enthusiasm and the hope that a Gore candidacy may be just weeks away. No, we cannot promise you that. But our candidate has left the door wide open and now it's up to us to try to persuade him to walk through it. Events over the next few weeks could affect this decision - and with it, the course of history. Some of them are out of our hands, such as the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize on October 12. But what we can do is make our voices heard to let Al Gore know that our call to service is backed by our willingness to fight for him. Please read on and join us on this historic journey.

Help us take out an ad in the New York Times


This will be our biggest bang of the campaign: a full-page ad in the New York Times with a powerful open letter to Al Gore asking him to run for president. But this ad is extremely expensive and we cannot afford it without your contribution. This is a one-time request and a unique opportunity for you to let Al Gore know how strongly you feel about him running in 2008. This is one letter he is sure to read. Please help us make it a reality by making a contribution today.

It may seem hard to believe that a group of grassroots activists like us could have a real impact on the choice of candidates for president. But as Margaret Mead once said:


Never underestimate the power of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.


Sincerely,


Monica Friedlander
Draft Gore

It's interesting that the Gorebots found this article as fast as the Paulbots have found my articles which mention him.

I doubt any of the Gore drafters will be back, but if you guys DO check in, I'm curious if there's a Republicans for Gore organization. I tried to find one, but all I could find was the group from 2000 which seems to be defunct.

Dave

"Gonzo, even you have to admit that the 'lockbox' statement sounded idiotic and patronizing. He deserved then and now to be mocked for it, especially considering that a lockbox isn't much use when you have nothing to actually put in it."

well now..turns out he was completely correct about said "lockbox"...and to answer your thought that there was nothing in it...

if it had been implemented in 2000, there would be...also the simple fact that the budget was headed to paying off the Debt and would then pay back the IOUs to the "lockbox" , would have been quite plenty to keep SS going indefinitely...

this was stopped by Greenspan, who hated the Idea of the Nation being Debt free, when he testified before Congress on the topic of the Bush tax cuts...the purpose to spend the surplus and keep the Nation in Debt....instead of funding SS/Medicare

so Gore was right twice...for all that some thought he "sounded ridiculous"...

there's some "inconvenient Truth" for ya, and anyone who actually voted for W

Excelsior?

There's no Republicans for Gore group that I'm aware of, but just skimming through some of the comments over at the draftgore.com petition, there were a lot of Republicans and Independents who signed. Remember, we're trying to get him to run in the Democratic Primary...at this point, there's no real purpose of a 'Republicans for Gore' group. We'll save that for the general.

And FYI I resent being called a "Gorebot."

I say elect Hillary. most of the horrors that Mr. Nalle posits will probably happen, but the country is strong enough to survive a Hillarocracy, even for eight years.

What will happen is, that after back-to-back disastrous Republican administrations followed by back-to-back disastrous Democratic administrations, we'll never see another Republican or Democrat elected again.

Think about it.

well..at least Clavos admits this Administration has been a disaster

progress goes on...

Excelsior?

"I say elect Hillary. most of the horrors that Mr. Nalle posits will probably happen, but the country is strong enough to survive a Hillarocracy, even for eight years."

True, and at least she's not as big a scumbag as Newt Gingrich.

Unfortunately, for most all of you above, Hillary is very likely to get the Dem's nomination unless something very drastic happens over the next 13 months, the possibility of which I certainly won't discount.

The threat by evangelicals to pull the plug if Guiliani is the Rep standard bearer makes Hillary even stronger. And does anyone really want a president named after a baseball glove? Fred Thompson is likely too little, too late and too lazy. Who else ya got? McCain, who can't get out of his own way? Or, uh, who?

So you are opting for Gore. I have no particular objection to Gore either, for that matter. After all he did get elected once. Had the popular vote held sway in 2000, we would most assuredly not be involved in Iraq today. I don't see it happening, though. How much abuse can a man take?

Actually Dave, I think you are being sinisterly clever here. Get Gore involved and you split the Dem's loyalties rendering them less formidable against whoever the Reps drag out as their standard bearer. It might work.

I think all your fears regarding Clinton are largely unfounded. She is not nearly so "out there" as you claim. She is the best organized of all the candidates from either side of the aisle, and she is, like it or not, the most experienced and qualified to run the country. And she has never been in a gubernatorial race. I mean, what kind of person wants to be a guber?

Keep in mind that political candidates often make sometimes outlandish campaign promises that anyone with a brain knows will never come to pass. It is an unfortunate part of the game.
At any rate, how could Hillary or anyone else be more fiscally irresponsible than Bush? Liberals are always accused of "tax and spend." Bush just spent without the advantage of tax. Then he has his economic mouthpieces claim that a record deficit is nothing to worry about. No problem.

As I've said, I can't imagine wanting to be the next president given the crap that will be dropped in her or his lap. But what the hell. There are around a dozen or more people clammoring for the opportunity. Most of them would likely do at least a nominally creditable job of it. Should it be Hillary, we all just might be pleasantly surprized. She may be a bitch on wheels, but she may also turn out to be a "bitchin" president.

B-tone

"True, and at least she's not as big a scumbag as Newt Gingrich."

Wrong, shuffleboard man.

She's got Newt (and even Kerry) beat by a country mile in the scumbag sweepstakes.

She's probably not as much of a scumbag as Hanoi Jane or Cynthia McKinney, however.

AMERICA FOR GORE: NATIONWIDE COALITION CREATED TO
DRAFT AL GORE FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008

National Milestone Reached in Growing Grassroots Movement

BOSTON, Massachusetts--September 21, 2007--They are teachers and students, scientists and doctors, secretaries and CEOs, store clerks and store owners, factory workers and artists. They represent every demographic group and every geographic region in the country. They are everyday Americans, from coast to coast and across the political spectrum--Democrats, Independents, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, moderates. And they have two things in common: They have become involved in the political process (many for the first time), and they want Al Gore to run in the 2008 presidential election.

And, as of September 2007, the grassroots effort of these thousands of individuals has reached a milestone: They have joined together as a nationwide coalition--America for Gore.

America for Gore encompasses all the major and minor groups within the movement whose goal is to persuade Al Gore to run for president. Among the groups in the coalition are DraftGore.com, AlGore.org, Netroots for Gore, GoreHub.com, AlGore08 MySpace, Draft Gore Facebook groups, GoreforPresidentNow.com, Goreganic.com, RunDammit.com, RunGoreRun.com, and the Al Gore Support Center, as well as hundreds of Draft Gore meetups and groups nationwide. While the groups will continue to focus on their individual strategies, they will also be working together on important initiatives by sharing information, exchanging ideas, and mobilizing their members to help other groups within the coalition.

The America for Gore coalition is launching a new website--www.AmericaforGore.org--to establish a central location on the web for the coordination of this grassroots effort. America for Gore is not replacing existing websites, groups, and blogs. The individual websites of each organization will continue to exist as before, but the new coalition website will keep group members and the public informed and will act as a portal, directing Gore supporters to the member sites so the can become involved in the many different facets of the Draft Gore movement.

Members of the coalition cite Gore's unmatched political experience (eight years each in Congress, the Senate, and as Vice President), the fact that he won the popular vote in 2000, his early and outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq, and his commitment to solving the climate crisis as core strengths of a potential candidacy in 2008.

The formation of this coalition signals a significant increase in the sophistication of the Draft Gore movement as well as in the powers of coordination, recruitment, and influence of the movement.

By coordinating their activities, the groups hope to extend their reach, recruit more members, and increase their impact on the public's and the media's perception of Al Gore's strength as a candidate.

gonzo #15,

I don't think I've expressed much support on these threads for the Bush administration's actions for quite some time now.

What I have done is disagree with those who criticize the Bushies on purely partisan grounds, and for purely partisan reasons.

About the only Bush policy that gets my approval is the tax cuts. I'm alarmed by the assault on the constitution and appalled by his Democrat-style spending.

He offends my libertarian side and my fiscal conservative side. And i can't stand the way he pronounces nuclear.

"Wrong, shuffleboard man...She's got Newt (and even Kerry) beat by a country mile in the scumbag sweepstakes."
- Clavos

So the same guy who defends GW Bush's desertion and Bill Calley's war atrocities is now passing judgement on Hillary Clinton...?

Sweet.

Grin and bear it, dixiecup. Grin and bear it.

#14 -- Clavos

"the country is strong enough to survive a Hillarocracy, even for eight years."

I don't know Clavos. The damage she could do could last far longer then 8 years. Maybe she would be setting a course of big government and its controls of us to new levels that just could not be undone.

Hard question to answer when we really do not know what she is not telling us as Dave points out.

What we do know is from what she does tell us.

Flash Back:.........The 1994 mid-term election became a "referendum on big government -- Hillary Clinton had launched a massive health-care reform plan that wound up strangled by its own red tape

Op-eds were written against it, including one in The Washington Post by University of Virginia Professor Martha Derthick that said:

In many years of studying American social policy, I have never read an official document that seemed so suffused with coercion and political naivete ... with its drastic prescriptions for controlling the conduct of state governments, employers, drug manufacturers, doctors, hospitals and you and me.

The key words there are "naivete" and "drastic control of everything including you and me".

Now we have all recently heard her on the presidential campaign trail stating she learned a lot lessions from that period. Here area some of her exact quotes:

Referring to her previous efforts at health care reform, Hillary Clinton said "I learned some valuable lessons about the legislative process, the importance of bipartisan cooperation and the wisdom of taking small steps to get a big job done

I am sure she did lean a lot. Apparently she learned she needed to work with people, not dictate to them. And do you note any reference to her making any amends concerning her "drastic control of everything including you and me".. Nope, it ain't their. What is there in its place is "taking small steps to get a big job done".

What's the "big jog that needs to be done"..... drastic prescriptions for controlling the conduct of state governments, employers, drug manufacturers, doctors, hospitals and you and me.

As president, she will be in full power unlike her status as First Lady back in 1993-1994 when she tried to ram this through. Add to this the lession she says she has learned and well, if leopards can't change their spots, she would still be that same tiger lady for control with Big goverment, only a lot less naive about how to get it done.

I think she IS telling us, so we really only have ourselves to blame for the worst that can happen.

For all those wanting big government to take care of controlling your lives, you should be happy as pigs in shit when you hear or see her.

Dave's comment "We might get lucky and find out that she was lying all along." is really like a fervent prayer.

well now..turns out he was completely correct about said "lockbox"...and to answer your thought that there was nothing in it...

if it had been implemented in 2000, there would be...

The SS fund had been completely depleted before 2000.

also the simple fact that the budget was headed to paying off the Debt

You seem to have forgotten the recession which got us back into deficit land BEFORE the war even started, a deficit compounded by inflated taxes which were slowing the economy and reducing government revenues on multiple levels.

and would then pay back the IOUs to the "lockbox" , would have been quite plenty to keep SS going indefinitely...

I believe you forgot about the baby boom as wsll. The tiny and rapidly disappearing surplus was totally inadequate to stand up to the projected increase in SS and Medicare obligaions resulting from baby boomers retiring.

Yes, we certainly would have been better off without the war, but the lockbox idea was never going to be sufficient, and the metaphor just sounded dumb, which was my main point.

Dave

This is the latest in the antics over who will pretend he is the next world emperor?

Dave, it appears that you realize - as does Joel Hirschhorn and "The Realist" - that your country is rapidly getting flushed down the toilet, and that you are reaching in your own way for a solution.

Irene is worshiping at the altar of Ron Paul, and you worship at the altar of Al Gore - though given the devilish look your new photo gives you, it is hard to imagine a devil worshiping at any altar.

After you've talked your friends into nuking Tel Aviv, unstrap those cloven feet, fold up the horns, shave off the beard - and go buy yourself lots of gold coins, a troy scale, a good hard knife, and loads of ammo for those coyote-killers of yours. Then strap yourself in and enjoy the ride. It's gonna be a doozy.

For your own sake, you might even want to mutter a few prayers to the G-d you don't believe in.

Dave,

I can't say that you finally flipped because this doesn't sound any more nuts than your past suggestion that Iran would be the savior of all problems Middle East.

Les

When Dave Nalle starts calling Inauguration Day 2009 the the event that marks "the Lizard Queen's slithering to her Cherry Blossom Throne"
I will know that the transformation is complete!
(It's about the pic.)

The California Draft Gore Ballot Campaign starts on October 8 and runs through December 4,2007.
We in CA are working to put Al Gore on our primary ballot using the existing election codes here. No spin, no special interest money, no backroom deal... just people.
Take back your country...
www.california4gore.org

something New In American Politics...

Re: REMF/Clavos exchange, #s 14, 16, 18, 21, 22...

Larry! Curly! How many times do I have to tell you to wait till Moe shows up before hitting each other over the head?

(I don't have to tell you who Moe is in this scenario, do I?)

;-)

^ Uh-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-wuh-wooooo!!!
Oh, a wise guy, ehe!?

Does anyone else find it disturbing that anyone in their right mind could be more concerned about what harm Hillary Clinton could do to the country, given the lunatics running it now?

Unbelievable.....

Save us? How absolutely lazy. No one has the capacity to SAVE US, that has to come from us. It is said you get the government you deserve and in this case we have and we will. I say, leave Al Gore alone already.

He is already working on saving the planet and doing a helluva job in case those so obsessed with "drafting" him and those intent on only pushing him over doing anything themselves to save themselves cares. Besides, it is obvious people on these blogs only want to push hin into this horserace because they are bored and want to see something to make it more fun. Afterall, isn't that what politics is really all about?

Again, you get the government you deserve and if you aren't willing to get up and do more than just pine for Al Gore on a website you deserve what you get. He is already doing more than most and frankly the "save me Al " meme is getting quite redundant and sad.

@ #24..i think the actual numbers back up my assertions quite well...NOT what the talking heads say...but the GAO reports

we will just have to disagree, i guess...fair enough

but i still will NEVER buy the assertions of a partisan trying to tell their opponents what they shoudl do

such woudl be the height of not only gullibility, but stupidity as well

Excelsior?

[Edited] NALLE was this article intended to be satire, because it truly perverse.

"NALLE was this article intended to be satire..."

Dave here is playing the flip side of the left loonies declaring Bush to be a fascist and that there would never be another election if he were elected, first in 2000 and again claiming same for 2004.

The sad part is that both the left loonies and Dave were/are serious.

Comments Editor,

Why are you editing my and MCH's comments regarding the Bush administration?

Are you so scared of Hillary spending your money on kids and Americans health and not being able to fund the so-called war on terror?

Who funds this site?

I don't think Gore would be stupid enough to flush what little credibility he has gained around the planet (he's giving his La verdad incómoda presentation in Mexico again tomorrow) by running for president of FuckAllOtherCountries, Inc.

He does have two advantages:

1. He has already BEEN elected president once.

He is overweight--although that advantage seems to be shrinking as he is.

Martin,

I saw nothing in your comment that would need to be edited. I saw it, did a rfefresh, then a good chunk gone, replaced by [edited].

I forgot what you said. Can you repeat it? Maybe with some slight change so as not to bring down the editor.

Les

I basically thanked MCH for his service to our country and wondered how the chicken hawks that run this administration could have the nerve to complain about Hillary wanting to give American babies money as well as take care of our sick, while they implement policies that kill other countries babies and don't even take care of the soldiers their policies have maimed.

Does anyone else find it disturbing that anyone in their right mind could be more concerned about what harm Hillary Clinton could do to the country, given the lunatics running it now?

As the article makes clear, the people running the country now are part of the problem. Their fiscal irrespoinsibility makes it doubly important that we not put a lunatic spendthrift like hillary in office after them. That ought to be obvious.

Dave

Why are you editing my and MCH's comments regarding the Bush administration?

I can't speak for him, but it probably had something to do with how the term 'chickenhawk' was used.

Are you so scared of Hillary spending your money on kids and Americans health and not being able to fund the so-called war on terror?

The comments editor is a European [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] and certainly no friend of the Bush administration or the war on terror.

Who funds this site?

Advertisers, doh.

Dave

too fucking funny...

so, since the folks many voted for last time screwed up so badly even their supporters cringe...we should take the word of those supporters that candidate X would make shit worse

the Judgement of said W supporters is in serious Question, as the facts have born out

now..i do tend to think Hillary would be a really shitty POTUS, and i do hope someone knocks her out of the primaries...

but it's pretty much inconceivable that any of the viable GOP candidates would be any better

we'll see how it all plays out...

Excelsior?

I don't have a particular problem with Hillary, but it just seems to me that it isn't healthy for our country to be run by two familes for a quarter of a century, which will be about how long it will have been if Hillary wins this time and closer to 30 years if she is re-elected. That's just incomprehensibly in a somewhat democratic country like ours. It just doesn't set well. Surely we can get someone outside of those two dynasties to be president. Man oh man.

"the people running the country now are part of the problem"

Along with the people that voted for them and continually support their actions whether by writing countless partisan (or are they satirical) OPINION articles that claim over and over that the War in Iraq was/is a good thing, and yet with a straight face say that someone who has yet to PROVE they would suck at being the President (Hillary) is still far worse for the country than someone or some party who HAS PROVEN they suck at running the world....er country.

The only thing that sucks more is the sound of most the writers on this site who slobber on the GOP and then claim the liberal left will surely drag the country down.

It's incomprehensible to even imagine, but it happens everyday on this site, all day long, endlessly.

In the face of so much wrong how can anyone ever know what right is?

I assume that a number of you figure that I am essentially brain dead for having suggested that Clinton could possibly turn out to be a competent president. I haven't changed my mind despite all of the horrors that most of you predict should she wind up with her icy ass in the chair behind the Oval Office desk.

While most of you also now disavow ever having heard of GW, it is likely that all of you were happily aboard the Bushwhacker wagon in 2000 and probably 2004 as well.

Now that pretty much everything he touches has or is turning to shit, you are all stepping back to avoid the stench. But in the attempt to wash your hands of the current administration and to set yourselves up in the catbird seat for the days to come, you look up, and to your horror, perhaps the one person you hate the most may well by your next Commander in Chief. (Or should that perhaps be Commandrix?)

I won't insult you with charges of sexism. Some of that may remain floating around the nether regions of your brains, but it's not, I think, her gender that bothers you. She just confounds the snot out of you because she's probably fucking going to win! For fifteen or more years you have nurtured your disdain for this woman. You remain aghast at how she could have stuck by Willy through all the sturm und drang caused by his "pecker dildos" before and during their White House tenure.

You can't stand it that she holds her ground and rarely becomes rattled before the media. It gauls your tender butt cheeks that she throws out these ideas like the $5000 bond, and universal health care. Oh, man! She's gonna bankrupt all of us! She'll tax us out of existence! We'll all become de facto Ruskies!

What scares you even more is that assuming she does in fact win the election, it is likely that the Dems will have greater control in Congress, that some of this stuff she's talking about might actually get passed.

Well, you know I've lived for nearly seven years now with the living nightmare that is the Bush administration. He has almost single handedly pushed this country back half a century trashing about everything that has even remote connections to anything espoused by anyone positioned to the left of Benito Mussolini.

Just today, his veto of the Child Health bill shows his loyalties remain with his "base" - big business, and his contempt for the people he was elected to represent.

He has repeatedly pissed on the environment, done his best to nearly erase the barrier between church and state, and scuttled the hopes of thousands with his Neanderthalic opposition to stem cell research.

I haven't even mentioned Iraq. I doubt I need to.
His administration has been a train wreck from which many, will literally not survive.

Frankly, I hope Hillary takes office a year from next January and, with the aid of a more friendly Congress kicks ass from the get go. No doubt she'll fuck up somewhere along the line. What president hasn't? Even every conservative's god, Ronny Raygun (I liked that, by the way) screwed the pooch on more than one occasion. Clinton has and probably will again disappoint me. She will still have to play the game, maintain the balancing act, remain loyal to her "base.". No one who gains the office has or ever will be immune to that crap. But, overall, she just might pull it off.

When election day arrives, let the chads fall where they may, and may the best woman win.

B-tone

And, she WILL raise taxes....

Gonna have to; she said at dartmouth she'd keep the war going at least four more years, plus she's going to have to pay all those baby bonuses and for all that healthcare.

I wonder what all the people like Paul Ehrlich and his followers think of the baby bonuses?

Can't argue with most of what you said about Bush, and even those who of us who supported him early on, although you've got it wrong why so many are backing away; it's not to "avoid" anything, it's disgust that we elected a "conservative" who turned out to be anything but.

I very much doubt the hillararchy will be any better, just different.

The middle class is still gonna get screwed.

Tip: when she starts her health plan up, don't cancel your private insurance (if you're allowed to keep it at all), you'll need it.

Just today, his veto of the Child Health bill shows his loyalties remain with his "base" - big business, and his contempt for the people he was elected to represent.

His base being the American taxpayers who shouldn't have to pay to provide insurance to people who CAN afford it. Remember, he doesn't oppose SCHIP - he was one of the pioneers of he program back in Texas - he just objects to the excessive broadening of the program. If they'd limited it in any kind of reasonable way he'd have signed it in a heartbeat.

hope Hillary takes office a year from next January and, with the aid of a more friendly Congress kicks ass from the get go.

The catch is that the ass she kicks is going to be ours, and the nation may never recover.

Dave

...you worry about the nation recovering from some future ass kicking when it's pretty clear that it will never recover from the one that it's getting now...the big step away from individual freedom has already been taken

...which candidate proposes repealing the Patriot Act and reinstating habeas corpus and posse comitatus - ?

#44

I've had the same thought....

Jeb will be ready to take over after Hillary's 8 years....

How old will Chelsea be after Jebs 2 terms....?

#46 -- Baritone

In trying to read our minds you have instead reveled your own. Interesting how you handle your acceptance of who and what she is. Trying to blame your own mind games on us isn't going to work.

Clav,

But you see, I'm one of the forty plus million people with NO private health insurance. I am fortunate to have the option to go to the VA, and I do. However, my wife does not. Her having diabetes and a previous bout with diverticular disease, she is effectively uninsurable. One carrier offered to provide a heavily restricted policy for a mere $1500 per month - for just her and still excluding any coverage for the aforementioned problems.

We kicked this health care issue around in my post regarding the Michael Moore film. I'm sure it's going to get uglier. If Hillary or any other Dem ascends to the White House in '08, national health care will be a big issue. If a Rep succeeds GW, then it won't. Any efforts to address it will be quashed by a Rep administration and your pocketbook will remain relatively unscathed - unless of course Bush or his successor elect to carry the war to Iran or Outer Bum Phuq.

Dave,

Bush's "base" I refer to is that which he identified himself during, I believe, the '04 campaign - the very rich and big business - at a fundraiser with those very people in attendance.

I doubt that life under Hillary (now there's an image) will be that difficult. No doubt she'll give you plenty of fodder to gnarl on and bitch about. But even if she has a friendlier Congress, her opposition will remain formidable, not just from the right side of the aisle, but from lobbyists and other special interests. Much of the big money behind her will not likely cotton to a complete turn to socialized medicine. It will be a tough battle and many compromises will be made to accomplish anything of substance.

Anyhow, it remains still very early. By next November, Hillary may have long since self destructed, or other events, personalities, etc. may have come along to thwart her candidacy. Maybe Gore will run. Maybe Mike Gravel will turn out to be the voice of reason. Maybe Mitt will fit the Reps like a glove and be the next White House "catch." Who knows?

B-tone

"...you worry about the nation recovering from some future ass kicking when it's pretty clear that it will never recover from the one that it's getting now...the big step away from individual freedom has already been taken"

Quoted for Truth

Excelsior?

Dave, you've sounded similar alarms about Democrats ruining our country before [the Pelosi congress, most recently, was supposed to start bringing the marble halls of freedom crashing down; I'm still waiting]. I suspect these articles are 90% or more hot air and rhetoric, but in some way you seem to actually believe in the 'imperiled republic' silliness.

I think the differences between the administrations of HRC, Gore, Obama, Edwards, etc, etc, would be mostly nominal. See RJ's list of his fears about a Gore administration, remove his usual juvenile pejorative Limbaugh-isms, and you have a list of what most of us who will vote for Dems next year want and expect in a presidency.

[I love the sheer ludicrousness of RJ's use of Ruth Ginsburg as an example of a radical lefty; of course he would never allow the word extremist to be applied to Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, or Alito. Justices like these are the real peril to our republic, and the best single reason to elect a Democrat next year.]

If you really are afraid [not just putting on a dumb hyperbolic rhetorical pose to get traffic to your article], I'm glad. I will enjoy watching you eat your words, one by one, for eight years.

[Well, of course, I know you as a matter of principle never eat your words. But we'll be happy to feed them back as required.]

oh....snap!

nicely said, handy...

/golfclap

i will say, i'm not thrilled about Hillary, and would like a better choice next November...

but i can't see it being any worse than the disaster of the last 7 years, and the awful legacy and ramifications as well as blowback, still to come

but watch...some will try and blame it all on whomever comes next...

Excelsior?

Franco,

Just what did I reveal? My "acceptance of who and what she is" is not a singular revelation about Hillary. Name one. Name one fucking politico who hasn't buckled to pressures from within and/or without. Do you imagine that Rudy or Fred or Mitt or John, or even good old honest Al will be immune to those pressures? If you do, you live in a dream world. Any president is in effect a figurehead, a reflection of the forces that put him (or perhaps in around 15 months, her) in office.

I have no illusions about Hillary or anyone else. She is no less human, no less flawed, and no more or less apt to sell us down the river to maintain power. What the hell kind of person wants to be president, anyhow? There are few of us here regardless which side of the debate who believes that any of the candidates, if elected, are going to lead us to the land of milk and honey.

It is also presumptuous to believe that any of us in our sanctimony would perform with any greater independence or strength of character than anyone else. We all suffer much the same frailties. Power virtually never fails to corrupt. All we can do is vote our conscience as best we can, then hold on for dear life, white knuckled in the hope that the whole fucking mess doesn't fly off the rails careering into the abyss.

On the one hand, we should certainly avoid complacency and endeavor to be aware and involved in the process as much as possible, but on the other, in the end, there's not a whole lot we can do about anything once the wheels are set in motion. We make our choices and then necessarily have to let those choices play themselves out.

I happen to believe that Clinton will NOT lead us to rack and ruin, and that she will account for herself as well or better than any of the other candidates.

B-tone

*'imperiled republic' silliness.*

...and sometimes in the effort to promote reason and moderation one can blind himself to real problems

Actually, Baritone, it's not my pocketbook I'm worried about vis-a-vis government healthcare. I don't mind paying for the uninsured. Alkthough I think the $5K baby bonus idea is one of the stupidest I've heard from a pol in recent years.

What DOES worry me, however, is having the government force me to use their health care insurance and not allowing private insurance, which is the way it has been operated in other countries.

I'm also a category 1 patient at the VA, but still prefer to see my private doctors when I can.

It's nice to have a choice, eh Clavos?

To listen to the editorial pages of the NY Times and the Wall St Journal, all the candidates' healthcare proposals are wrongheaded and disastrous.

The Times attacks the tax-incentive-based programs of Giuliani and Romney as heartless sops to the insurance industry, and the WSJ attacks the Edwards, Obama and Clinton proposals as statist and anti-market and the beginnings of another permanent ginormous entitlement program. They can't both be right.

None of the health care proposals floated so far will become reality in their current form. The final programs could be better or worse than the ones put forward during the campaign. My fear is the latter - management by committee etc.

...which candidate proposes repealing the Patriot Act and reinstating habeas corpus and posse comitatus - ?

Ron Paul.

Dave

Bush's "base" I refer to is that which he identified himself during, I believe, the '04 campaign - the very rich and big business - at a fundraiser with those very people in attendance.

The exact same sort of people attend the fundraisers for all the top tier candidates. They may not be the SAME super rich business owners, but they are of the same class. Does that mean that Hillary's 'base' is also ultra rich business people?

I doubt that life under Hillary (now there's an image) will be that difficult.

Let's be honest here. Life under Bush has certainly been anything but difficult, despite his various transgressions. Bush on the whole has not targeted our wallets or our individual rights as much as he could have. Most of the excessive provisions of PATRIOT and other post-9/11 acts have gone relatively unused.

No doubt she'll give you plenty of fodder to gnarl on and bitch about. But even if she has a friendlier Congress, her opposition will remain formidable, not just from the right side of the aisle, but from lobbyists and other special interests.

Groups which the left has been trying to silence for years and will certainly be able to muzzle once she is in power and they gain a few seats in the Senate as they are likely to. Radical campaign finance reform will shut down the lobbyists of the right and free-speech restrictions in the media like the Fairness Doctrine will silence you and me and talk radio. I'm not talking hypotheticals here. These are things which have been proposed again and again and almost passed. With Hillary in power they WILL pass.

Much of the big money behind her will not likely cotton to a complete turn to socialized medicine. It will be a tough battle and many compromises will be made to accomplish anything of substance.

And we'll end up with a system which is even more expensive, takes money from everyone involuntarily and feeds it right into the pockets of big businesses with inadequate oversight

Dave

If you really are afraid [not just putting on a dumb hyperbolic rhetorical pose to get traffic to your article], I'm glad. I will enjoy watching you eat your words, one by one, for eight years.

And I hope that I'll be eating them happily when that happens. I'd like almost nothing better than to be wrong. But the possibility that I'm right, even if it turns out to be small, is enough to make opposing Hillary as much as I can for as long as I can, absolutely essential, because the stakes in this contest are way too high to roll the dice and hope we get lucky and I'm not right.

Dave

Yeah, Clav, I must echo bliffle on this one. YOU have a choice. I don't. My wife and most of the forty million other uninsured have no choice either, not even the VA.

However, your concerns regarding being able to go outside any government health care system for care are valid. Obviously, the final word on that issue is far from settled. I can't tell you which ones, but according to my son there are countries in Europe which do allow people to go outside their national system if they choose. I think Germany may be one, but I haven't researched that, so I may well be wrong.

It just seems to me that Dave and some others here have pushed the panic button regarding Clinton. There's a long way to go in this campaign. Too long, for my money. I am in fact in agreement with Dave regarding the much too high cost and length of presidential campaigns and even those for Congressional seats, governorships, etc. How to change that to everyone's satisfaction is anyone's guess.

But there will obviously be a lot more water going over the dam before the first ballot is cast. And, as I noted above, the reality of just how hard it is to make significant changes in the status quo, whatever they may be, will smack the next president squarely in the chops.

Probably, when the dust finally settles around federally sponsored health care, all that will come of it is the government will provide a choice of a free thermometer or a toothbrush to each new born (if he or she has Down Syndrome, aids, a cleft palate, AND is a member of a federally recognized minority, AND has parents whose income is no more than one third the officially designated poverty line, AND who can prove they have no thermometer and/or toothbrush at home nor access to one from any reasonable source, including but not limited to...yada, yada, yada... - applications for which must be filled out in triplicate (no carbons please!,) signed by both parents (if living and known,) AND notarized.)

B-tone

Nalle's MORPHING, I tell you."

Whatever happens, it will have this result: You gringos will have the government that you deserve.

...and that's the truth

But then, doesn't everyone?

On Ron Paul and healthcare: Ron Paul was a medical doctor before he was a politician. His views on the government and health care are fiscally responsible as well as compassionate. (Don't confuse him with a war-mongering "compassionate conservative," though.) HMO's were mandated by the government in 1973, and have been a significant motivator for rising medical costs ever since. I'd be suspicious of any candidate who promises to get the federal government any more deeply involved in managing healthcare.

No. they don't.

But YOU will.

Moon,

You know. You're just wrong. Tell us all about all the countries who have governments they don't deserve. Line em up. Knock em down. Dazzle us with your brilliant insight.

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

B-tone

You guys still harping about health? Stay away from socialized health. Find another route.

Moonraven, if everyone is a gringo does that make you a spick? Or is it spelled spic? Spik? So confused.

To address the problems which Baritone brought up earlier, while I don't like the idea of socialized medicine much at all, I think that his specific problem with his wife is one thing which absolutely has to be addressed for her and the millions like her. Even if we stick with a private system or some variant of one, what's absolutely essential is more government regulation and oversight. Just as with car insurance where states require insurers to offer a no frills policy to any driver regardless of record, there needs to be some sort of control on rejecting patients with preexisting conditions out of hand or charging them ridiculous premiums. IMO this can best be handled on the state level by withholding licenses to sell insurance in the state if companies don't comply with requirements to offer coverage to everyone at a fair price.

Dave

would government mandated/enforced universal private health insurance slow the health industry's price increases driven as they are by 'natural' supply and demand forces to seek the maximum level that the market will bear - ?

I don't think there's any way that government mandated private health insurance could work without some sort of system of government price oversight and regulation. Without the regulation you're just handing the insurance companies a license to steal.

I guarantee that if government sets reasonable parameters under which health care would be provided to those who don't have it under commercial plans, someone would step up to provide it so long as there was money to be made,especially if the ability to sell higher priced polcies was contingent on selling less desirable policies as well.

Dave

Dave,

You are insane.

Dig a hole in the hills around Austin, stock up on food and ammo....cuz your nightmare is coming. Socialists/Democrats are going to be running this country and they will be looking for you and your money.

Your nightmare is coming true "Dreams of Apocalypse" "Nightmare on Easy Street"

centralized pricing policies have a pretty sketchy history of successfully supporting production but it's probably correct that the health economy is one of those areas where a free market will not work for the 'good of all'

Universal healthcare needn't be either a death-knell for private insurance, or a boondoggle of free money for insurers.

If designed sensibly, it would obligate insurers to take all applicants. Currently most insurers view the denial of coverage or of individual claims as one of their main functions. We need to find a way to let insurers make money by enabling care rather than by denying care.

Sounds simpler than it is, obviously, but that's the key.

Alessandro,

Hardly. Member of the Mohawk Nation.

Baritone:

Lots of countries in the Third World have governments that they do not deserve--vecause they are IMPOSED by the oligarchies with the complete backing of Gringolandia, Inc.

Mexico
Guatemala
Peru
Colombia

Those are for starters.

Private healthcare has been the dream of most US citizens for at least 60 years. At least since 1945 when it was exempted from federal regulation and federal anti-monopoly laws. We've given them every liberty, even big government subsidies.

And what has been the result of our desire to have a private health "industry"?

They've cheated us at every turn. Doctors, once just upper-middleclass members of their community, now consider it their god-given right to be rich beyond anyones imagining. Insurance companies consider it their right to condemn clients to death because some clerk decides a person isn't entitled to some medical procedure. We have literally put life and death decisions in the hands of untrained petty clerks. And pharmas? What a disaster!

For at least 20 years the fastest growing executive salaries have been in the healthcare "industry". Recently, a healthcare CEO retired with a $1.6billion benefit.

Greed has overwhelmed the system. The expected 'competitive' forces of the private system never materialized. Simple monopolies and bribery of government officials and company executives has made competition an unnecessary and unwanted diversion, isolated to a few Potemkin situations to distract the gullible.

Now, government healthcare systems in other countries that we made fun of 50 years ago have improved themselves so that they have better performance records than our own systems. Even in Cuba!

We will end up with Universal Public Healthcare whether we want it or not, simply because of the abuses by the private system. Then we will begin the long 50 mile trek to develop a reasonable system.

Too bad we didn't start earlier.

Too bad we didn't invest in healthcare rather than warfare.

Maybe we no longer have the strength to do it.

Now, government healthcare systems in other countries that we made fun of 50 years ago have improved themselves so that they have better performance records than our own systems. Even in Cuba!

This is factually untrue. For some facts on the failures of socialized medicine in Europe I recommend an I wrote a couple of years ago called The Wonder of Socialized Medicine. It's a general overview of the subject, but check the links in the article for more details.

Based on the actual statistics Socialized Medicine is just great, so long as you want to die younger and live in more pain.

Dave

Nalle's Nonsense, Inc.

Tell it to Michael Moore, lardass.

Sorry, Moore's lies and misrepresentations don't stand up when challenged with actual, verifiable statistics.

Dave

"Doctors, once just upper-middleclass members of their community, now consider it their god-given right to be rich beyond anyones imagining." (emphasis added)

What a crock. I have a very successful doctor in my family (gastro-a lucrative specialty) who, after 30 years in practice, and with a thriving endoscopy center he partners in in addition to his private practice, is still only personally making about $350K-$400K a year.

Comfortable, certainly. Upper middle class, absolutely; but "rich beyond anyone's imagining?"

Puleeeze....

"Now, government healthcare systems in other countries that we made fun of 50 years ago have improved themselves so that they have better performance records than our own systems. Even in Cuba!"

Only in Michael Moore's fevered imagination.

Ask any Cuban who has lived there during the last twenty years....

Ever notice the tallest buildings in every city almost always belong to the insurance companies...?

"Ever notice the tallest buildings in every city almost always belong to the insurance companies...?"

An accurate observation, emmy. One of the primary ways that insurance companies make a profit is by investing your premiums in real estate.

Most insurers would not make a profit for their shareholders if they only relied on premiums for income.

Plus, they can put a big sign on their tall building and use it for advertising. And isn't MetLife's logo a picture of their bigass building?

Dave

In the city I live in, the tallest buildings are, in descending order:

1. The district court
2. A bank
3. The county building
4. The trade center
5. Another bank
6. An office building
7. A hotel
8. Another office building
9. A further bank
10. A hospital

The insurance companies all have plush offices in leafy business parks in the suburbs.

Comments?

:-)

It's not as if the only two choices are:

1. Current system = awful for the uninsured, and illogically tied to employers

2. Proposed universal system = "socialized medicine"

There is going to be a lot of discussion of this issue both before and after the election, and ultimately the next step may be some "third way."

BTW, there is a story on the wires about experts comparing Romney's and Clinton's supposedly poles-apart, utterly incompatible health care proposals. Conclusion? They are 'very similar.' This is because Clinton's is unexpectedly insurance-industry-friendly, an indication she absorbed some lessons from the 1993-94 debacle.

The flipside of the coin:

Private insurance may well pay for better healthcare for those that need it. But how about the majority who are healthy, and only need medical coverage, literally, as insurance?

Such is my situation. In Britain I paid a small portion of my salary, as everyone does, to National Insurance. My annual doctor's office visits, five-yearly tetanus shots and very, very occasional sojourns in the ER were free. Here in the US, I'm stuck paying a much larger chunk of my pay towards a healthcare service which, while it may be superior in terms of facilities and equipment, I rarely use.

IMO, Gore was over-intimidated by his fathers difficulties in politics and his reaction was to quit fighting and compromise everything. And, IMO, Hillary suffers the same fault as a result of her healthcare loss.

Defeat has made them both too timid. And timidity is like blood-in-the-water to the republican sharks in the political waters.

Just as it is to the hate-america sharks in international waters.

Bushes victories in 2000 and 2004 prove that US citizens would rather have a brash slacker than a timid intellectual for president.

You gotta fight to prevail in the modern world and the US isn't going to elect a president who collapses like a wet paper bag in a fight.

John McCain lost when he didn't ram Bushes rotten dirty Sc campaign back down his throat!

Kerry lost when he didn't beatup the swiftboaters and their sponsors.

Bill Clinton won more fans when he fought back on TV against an interrogator.

It doesn't matter what the cavils of effete bloggers are regarding the merits of any of these actions, what people want in these perilous times is a champion who has demonstrated willingness to duke it out with opponents.

Can you blame them?

Moon,

The countries you mention have governments of their own choosing. If they allowed forces outside their borders to influence the make up of their government, that is their fault. Maybe if any of them had any balls, or if they weren't greedy power hungry bastards as bad as any you can find in the good old US of A, it wouldn't have happened.

By the way, the personal attack deleted from my comment above had to do with doo doo and your lack of familiarity with it. I made a similar comment to JOM with apparent impunity. It has even been adopted as a stock response to JOM to anything he writes by other BC commenters. I guess they were responding to your more delicate feminine sensibilities. Didn't know you had such caring people watching out for your welfare, did you?

B-tone

The tallest building in Indy is a bank, Chase. The 2nd tallest is the AUL building - American United Life Insurance.

Lets' find some new presidential blood. Or, perhaps, bring back some of the old stuff. Too bad Barry is gone. Hey, is Mondale still kicking? Dole's still around. Rockefeller? Dead. Adlai? Ditto. Al Smith? Crap! Wilkie? Nope.

Guess we'd better look for somebody who can really pull us all together. Dan Quayle is still out there. A fellow Hoosier who made me proud to say it. Let's start a draft Danny movement today.

B-tone

Defeat has made them both too timid. And timidity is like blood-in-the-water to the republican sharks in the political waters.

And that's a very good thing.

Just as it is to the hate-america sharks in international waters.

Which at least shows us who our real friends are.

Bushes victories in 2000 and 2004 prove that US citizens would rather have a brash slacker than a timid intellectual for president.

I think we have genetic trauma from Woodrow Wilson.

You gotta fight to prevail in the modern world and the US isn't going to elect a president who collapses like a wet paper bag in a fight....what people want in these perilous times is a champion who has demonstrated willingness to duke it out with opponents.

So it's going to be Giuliani in 2008 then.

dave

Or Gravel.

Baritone:

Clearly you know shit about The Third World.

Or you would know that very few countries get the governments they vote for.

Come to think of it, neither does the US of Assholes.

Welcome to The Third World of Gringolandia!

"Now, government health care systems in other countries that we made fun of 50 years ago have improved themselves so that they have better performance records than our own systems. Even in Cuba!

We will end up with Universal Public Healthcare whether we want it or not, simply because of the abuses by the private system. Then we will begin the long 50 mile trek to develop a reasonable system."

Good luck. If you think there are no abuses in the public system....and that first paragraph is pure nonsense in my opinion. I'm now involved in the medical industry here in Canada and let me tell you I can't say that Canada is better than the USA with any confidence. And most of the European systems cited often have a form of two-tiered system.

I see.

And who is dissecting your cadaver?

I hope it is one of my Mohawk brothers.

"The flipside of the coin:

Such is my situation. In Britain I paid a small portion of my salary, as everyone does, to National Insurance."

Canadians pay a good chunk of their taxes (and on a per capita basis) towards a Universal health plan that is in crisis. No one in their right minds with the even modest means would ever freely choose to go into a public hospital. We are now beginning to see this in Canada where people are merely asking the right to choose.

Universal health IS NOT FREE. It's in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians who treat health like any other issue. It's highly politicized - to say nothing of unions.

There is no perfect system but 100% universal health that provides timely and advanced services is unrealistic.

Oops. Almost forgot: Michael Moore is a misleading fool.

True story: We had to do some research about the private health care situation that is growing in Canada for our company. We got to meet many physicians, philosophers and politicians in the process to learn more about things. We did six months of research including examining various reports, think-tanks and conferences.

I wish Canadians knew more or at least show a willingness to at least attempt to know the problems that face the public health system that way we could come up with truly progressive solutions as opposed to the silly band aid proposals we get. If the USA is heading towards some form of a public system, then Canada is treading the other way. Quite frankly, this may be a good thing and many doctors think this too.

Anyway, when we read and saw what Michael Moore had to say about Canada (in his latest film) we were left scratching our heads. We know first hand how stats and info. can easily be mishandled with health and Moore did a fine job of revealing just how much of a sophomoric pseudo-populist he can be. He doesn't care about Canada or its people or the system we use. He just wants to sell crappy pseudo-documentaries to showcase in places like Cannes.

People say Moore "opens debate" about health. No he doesn't. He polarizes. He's part of the problem not solution. If he's so smart and he's out to makes people "aware" then it is incumbent upon him to provide a suggestion for a solution.

No, it is not incumbent upon him to solve your problems.

He is a filmmaker.

He's not a "filmmaker." Ford, Huston and Coppola are filmmakers.

Moore's a propagandist. And a clumsy and dishonest one, at that.

No subtlety. No art.

Just bombast.

Coppola hasn't made a good movie in nearly two decades.

"No subtlety. No art. Just bombast."

You've just described Michael Bay and a whole slew of people in Hollywood who are considered filmmakers. Just because you don't like Moore doesn't disqualify him.

In fact, your description also sounds like people who post comments on the internet.

"Coppola hasn't made a good movie in nearly two decades."

Moore has never "made a good movie." Just propaganda.

"You've just described Michael Bay and a whole slew of people in Hollywood who are considered filmmakers. Just because you don't like Moore doesn't disqualify him."

I didn't say Moore's the only one in Hollywood who doesn't deserve the title. In fact, IMO, most Hollywood "filmmakers" are hacks these days.

But most of them at least, unlike Moore, are not purveyors of poorly researched puerile propaganda.

You rednecks don't like Moore because he shows what happens when folks like you run around with guns.

And when folks like Bush put the Bin Laden family on the payroll.

But there is hope for you BLIND guys: If your income is low like your IQ you can have those cataracts removed for free in Venezuela. Or Bolivia, if you prefer higher elevation and want to rub cataracts with the likes of Mario Teran--the guy who shot Liberty Valance--er, Che Guevara.

"In fact, your description also sounds like people who post comments on the internet."

Dittos.

"Hillary Clinton is completely insane."

One waits in vain for anything sensible from this writer.

Alas.

Alas, alack, and woe is you...

Marry, here's a commotion! Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...

Good jesters all, I bid you put up your dukes, and beat ye one another about the pate with divers objects.

Forsooth, Sir Clavos, I prithee break out thy beach chairs once more, whiles I hie me to the tavern for wineskins.

'Ware that tavern, M'Lord, for 'tis said that it attracts all manner of rightist knaves who are wont to lie in wait for such proper gentlemen as your Lordship to set upon them and relieve them forthwith of their powers in the District.

Yea, verily, 'tis a harsh world we live in, and your lordship had best mind his back down there.

However, we do eagerly await thy return, sire, and will fulsomely partake of the grape with thee.

Tis brillig and the slithey toves do gyre and gimbel in the wabe....

Maqybe not exact, as I don't bother to google shit like Lewis Carroll--nor try to put on airs of Ole Will.

Gadzooks! Methinks Lady Moonraven's spellchecker hath suffered a meltdown of Othello-like proportions.

No.

YOU google Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky and see what you come up with.

Without googling:

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimbel in the wabe,
All minmsy were the borogroves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!

...which is all I can remember without googling.

Also without Googling:

I think it's gimble, not gimbel
and borogoves, not borogroves.

Incidentally, Terry Gilliam once made an entire movie based on this nonsense poem. It was rather good, actually.

Maybe, Doc, but I memorized it verbatim a long time ago ( a school exercise), and the only parts of it I'm not confident about are the punctuation and line breaks.

Doc,

I checked Bartlett's.

You are correct, M'Lord, in both instances.

Sigh.