gvc's Comments (139)

“and if obama has 2 terms (shudder) " Now you're complaining that it is not business as usual after 10 months." you'll be saying the same thing after 17 months, after 39 months, after 66 months, after 83 months....­.......he hasnt done a thing to help...per­iod”

“H.u.f.f.i.­n.g.t.o.n. i.s. a. R.e.p.u.b.­l.i.c.a.n.­!!!!

R.e.a.d. h.e.r. h.i.s.t.o.­r.y.”

“Enough derogatory hyperbole on all sides. There're legitimate points from those who say Obama isn't moving fast enough or in wrong direction, and from those who counsel patience. Namecalling "whining" and "betrayal" won't help.

Discussion would be more productive when we getdown to specifics. Let's take economic team. Summers and Geithner are known to be part of architects and proponents of credit bubble buildup and meltdown. They're part of the problem. Is this Obama's tactical maneuver subject to adjustment? Or is it central misplaced trust and misdirected policy goals and methods? This team in less than 9months has dispensed 3quarter trillion dollars free bailout to unrepentent bigbanks and WallStreet.

Such substantive mistakes raise central question whether what we're seeing are part of or deviation from the hoped for "transformation that people can believe in." The serious and realists among Democrats+­independen­ts should face fact that people disappointed once too often would drift away and never come back. Namecalling disappointed supporters "whiners" won't change dangerous potential reversion to deadend politics people thought they left behind. Democrats+­independen­ts need to get grip of ourselves, and engage in meaningful discussion of policies and priorities, and how to hold this coalition together in 2010 and beyond.

President Obama cannot summon people to lofty ideals, inspire them with soaring oratory, and not follow through with matching executive decisions, and then not expect significant numbers of disappointed followers to drift away. Insults and labels would not avert a predictable outcome.”

“Obama's career has been one long campaign. That is all he is really good at. As soon as he won his senate seat he started campaigning for the presidency.”

“I know, Right! Now the armchair critics are back! LOL Why can't President Obama get a full term before being judged as a 'failure'? What's with the rush to judgment?”

“And good luck...”

“Hey, be offended. All I'm saying is that if you send your army to build whatever anywhere, you're probably going to get shot at by the natives. Even in America.

If you're talking altruism or just straight ahead business, look to the Chinese or Russians who seem to know how to do business there without carrying guns.

All you've done is give us yet one more good reason that we should get out of Afghanistan and Iraq.”

“The cynicism about Canada doing it for profit is offensive. Canada has spent considerable blood and treasure trying to mop up W's mess.”

“The original mission was the capture of Bin Laden. Period. Not nation building, or regime change. If Canada wants to build roads in that country, then let their companies bid on the job like any other.

When we gave up on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in favor of Bush's true goal, the invasion and subjugation of Iraq, we also gave up any logical, moral, or political reason for being there.

USA out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now.”

“"one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. "

http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html”

“It becomes a problem because of items like #4.

He's using his religion to help define federal health policy, and that is not cool.”

“Perhaps he should try and get something for his efforts instead of folding his cards early.”

“not anymore, now it's high fructose corn syrup drink, not related to fruit, processed by the liver, not stomach and produces triglycerides
dangerous”

“My main problem with the Dutch model is exactly that Enron issue: later Congresses will always have the opportunity to weaken or dismantle regulatory regimes,and sometimes they will. Dismantling a popular program is much, much harder, if not impossible. (Viz. the backing and scraping Republicans do about Medicare, which passed entirely without their party's support.) The health care equivalent of the Gramm-Leach-Blyly act would be disastrous, and might even have similar worldwide ramifications. I would far rather see our country move toward a Canadian, if not a British, model for health care. Has anyone who disagrees considered those potential consequences of executing reform at the level of Netherlands-lite -- the best yet proposed by conservatives?”

“Fascism is corporate control of government. That would be Bush Co.”

“Second paragraph”

“the public option, which has somehow come to seem -- wrongly, in my view -- as the ONLY meaningful measure of significant reform."

the public option being seen as the only meaningful measure of reform is wrong in his view.

Well, it IS the only meaningful measure of reform. The other things are musts too, but so is the public option.”

“No, TJ is right to say why bother passing legislation if we can't be sure that there exists an insurer who would cover his mother's test. If it's truly crucial, then she is being provided less-than-adequate care. Regulating exclusions would be a step that might force Aetna to fulfill its obligation while she's covered, but it's not a guarantee that they couldn't drop her later, or probably sooner. A comprehensive package of regulations would do much to address the issue of accessible care, but less to guarantee access to insurance at all -- it would be tough to enforce a "once in-never out" policy. Having a government-run insurer available as a last resort would guarantee that if Aetna dropped her, TJ's mom could remain covered for an acceptable minimum standard of care. Additionally, to compete effectively for business against a low-cost option, private insurers like Aetna couldn't give up profit entirely so they would have to rely on improved service -- covering a wider array of tests than statutorily mandated, perhaps, or providing access to name-brand drugs when public insurance might limit your choices to generics if they had been found equally effective. Thus the public option addresses both access to and quality of care, and far more effectively than self-regulation has already proven itself. Whether it is possible to craft a package of regulations that achieve the same effect without including a public option is an open question, but I gravely doubt it.”