2nd Presidential Debate… and My Head Exploded!

Well, one could make the argument that health care is already recognized as a right by the government, given that there's things such as sewers, clean water, clean food, clean drugs, etc.

But you're right in that Obama opened a can of worms there. Oy indeed.

McCain looked like an idiot. For example, McCain said eBay was "a job engine." Didn't eBay just announce yesterday 10,000 job layoffs? And what about tax cuts for the rich? Not too many voters favor that or the recently passed bailout (unless they are getting the benefits). Finally, if we use 25% of the world's oil, yet have only 3% of the production, would drilling for more oil and nuclear power alone get us out of foreign oil dependency? How do we pay for the nuclear power anyway with the tax cuts? McCain didn't make sense.

Go into an American emergency room and ask them to help you. Tell them you have no money.

The point is, health care is already a "right" in this country. We're just only ensuring it at the last most expensive point on the path.

I'm terribly confused by your reaction to Obama saying he thinks health care should be a right. He's been saying that since the very beginning.

Chris is right. You get sick. You get healthcare. It's a right.

The question is: who pays and how?

Does your head generally explode when someone tells the truth, Polimom? Of course you could propose that no one without money be treated in the ER. Just how far do you think that would get you or a candidate who said it was a good idea?

With all due respect, everybody, it's not a right. "Rights" are something we already possess, that the government formally recognized. You go to an emergency room, they cannot deny you treatment because of the law.

Obama's website (and everything I've heard to date) says: ""I...believe that every American has the right to affordable health care. " The government can affect cost. But remove the modifier "affordable" and we're in a whole new ballgame.

"Rights" are something we already possess, that the government formally recognized.

+

You go to an emergency room, they cannot deny you treatment because of the law.

Ummm... reconcile please :-)

This sort of format isn't anything remotely approaching a debate. It seems very contrived and limiting to me, which is odd since the whole idea of a town hall is supposed to be more natural. The not allowing of follow-ups is frustrating, I don't like that aspect of it at all. Even though McCain didn't go all Palin-wing-nutty, he still spent more time rehashing old anti-Obama rhetoric when he would have been better off focusing on the questions. I did appreciate the somewhat more detailed exchange about healthcare though.

Brokaw is an idiot to ask a question like that about health care. He should instead have been conventional and asked if a candidate thought health care is a "right," which of course it is not. (Much less a "human right" as radicals in Cambridge, MA insist it is.) If we want to define a new entitlement, fine, but be honest about it.

[scowl] I wish more people were more grown-up and that Brokaw were more competent. (You are correct, Polimom. Rights as correctly known even since the 1930s remain liberties, not claims to things, often paid for by Someone Else or by Society.)

Sorry, Chris. Writing too fast...

Because there's a law saying people cannot be denied treatment in an emergency does not ipso facto elevate that treatment to a right. (I happen to agree with that law, btw)

Polimom, I didn't see anything suggesting Obama would propose an amendment. He's only ever talked about legislation or programs. Not amendments. Rights can means something other than what's in the constitution.

I think your head asploded too soon. ;)

"reconcile[,] please" ["Can you reconcile these?"]

Emergency treatment is compulsory. In fact, it's the opposite of true rights, i.e., liberties. (Kind of like anti-discrimination laws. People aren't at liberty to engage in systematic, intentional discrimination. It's mistaken to claim to a "right" to equality even though that is philosophically as well as politically appealing and seen by most as superior morally as well.)

DLS,
Before Bush, we had the right of Habaes Corpus, the ability to challenge our detention in court. That right is not something we possess naturally, it's granted by the government, which is largely funded by others.

Preventive healthcare is going to cost a lot less than going to an emergency room after the fact. We are talking about the costs to society right?

Michael -- Coulda done. Hit a real hot button for me, he did. Start discussing rights in the midst of a big wave of political populism, and I get jittery.

"Rights" do not mean claims or entitlements. I have seen gross misconstruction of the Constitution but so far, no related or similar misuse of the Ninth Amendment "magic genie" that many of us feared Hillary Clinton would misuse during her health care scandal and outrage in the early-mid 1990s. But I fear misuse of "rights" with misconstruction of the Ninth Amendment will only be a matter of time. (When all other misconstructions and stunts like references to the Preamble have failed too often, that is.)

Because there's a law saying people cannot be denied treatment in an emergency does not ipso facto elevate that treatment to a right.

We'll have to agree to disagree because I don't see the difference. It's simply a matter of perspective.

When you go to the ER, you think, thankfully I have a right to treatment. As a hospital administrator you may damn the government for forcing you to treat that mooch.

Polimom,

Agreed. If "health care" is a right, then what happens if it is infringed? If a doctor or nurse does not provide appropriate "health care" (who defines that, btw . . . ) does he or she go to prison? What if there are not enough doctors and nurses to provide appropriate "health care" to all comers? Does the government institute a draft of medical personnel? Forced career changes (maybe retrain unemployed investment bankers)?

The difference between a natural right and a government awarded (and funded, and regulated) entitlement is apparently too subtle for an alarming number of people. Obama is a University of Chicago Senior Lecturer in Constitutional Law. HE certainly knows the difference.

One can only read it as an off-script moment when he let his true feelings show. This will play directly into the "he's too liberal", "he keeps company with domestic (leftist) terrorists--and doesn't understand why anyone might have a problem with it" lines of attack.

Truly an unforced error on his part.

Don't forget, Polimom, one thing making good people nervous is that Obama and Biden have flirted with reducing not only interest people pay on home loans, but also the principal. If uncompensated it's outright theft, expropriation, Bolivia-style. However, it will buy the votes of many whose votes and souls are for sale. Hence the threat.

"Before Bush"

... we had no prescription drug entitlement. Then came "compassionate conservatism" (of which the bailout plan laden with pork was just another kind of example).

The more I think about it, the more I think Obama said the right thing for him, given an either/or question. But I see Polimom's point, saying healthcare is a right is like saying food is a right. Or having a job is a right.

I've seen arguments in favor of increased public transport, "alternative transportation" (i.e,. means other than the Evil Automobile), and even public funds or free rides given to people because of a (fictitious, _also_) "right to transport."

Meanwhile, what did Illinois do? Fare-free rides for senior citizens on transit. I.e., vote-buying, expensive measures taken to appeal to those of cheap standards!

Don't forget, Polimom, one thing making good people nervous is that Obama and Biden have flirted with reducing not only interest people pay on home loans, but also the principal. If uncompensated it's outright theft, expropriation, Bolivia-style. However, it will buy the votes of many whose votes and souls are for sale. Hence the threat.

DLS,
Did you not notice McCain offering to buy everyone's failed mortgage?

In Detroit I heard people angry at smarter callers (this was a local Detroit radio talk show) who said not everyone has the right to a house and many should rent a house or live in an apartment instead claim (angrily, children throwing a tantrum) that "everyone has a right to a house." Not at others' expense, they don't. Not more house than they can afford, they don't.

I noticed it, Chris. I also noticed McCain suggesting he wanted, of all people, Andrew Cuomo to replace Christopher Cox as head of the SEC. (Why not Eliot Spitzer? Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. This is an example of McCain going not merely nowhere, but _backward_. More precisely, downward compared to Obama.)

Chris -- I was just going to say that about McCain's proposal. But he used the term "bad" mortgage -- which left my husband and I in the den thinking... what about the rest of us, sitting here with our mortgaged houses that have also declined in value. Can we get a new contract too?

Polimom,
Sure. Just stop making payments :-)

(And hide your money)

Lit3Bolt said: saying healthcare is a right is like saying food is a right. Or having a job is a right.

Yes! Exactly!

"Preventive healthcare is going to cost a lot less than going to an emergency room after the fact."

Of course, which is why it is often included in health care entitlement plans and why it's part of required-minimum gold-plated or "Cadillac" health care plan laws in a number of states. The same argument is effective in support of prescription drug coverage, which is cheaper than surgery as well as equally deserving of all kinds of consideration that are merited by other forms of treatment or therapy for various kinds of disease. However, it's naive to place too much faith in these in practice. It's not so much that this fails in the states because it causes the plans to be so much more expensive than true insurance, which would cover catastrophes and hospitalizations and little or nothing else, so people forego paying for the more elaborate and expensive plans, and wait until having to visit the emergency room, anyway. (The cost must be borne in mind when demanding such things for any federal universal health care entitlement.) Another practical issue and problem is that those who need this preventive the care the most avoid getting it even when it is available to them. Don't be surprised if, in the name of cost control, using this preventive care becomes compulsory (mandatory; forced) in the future or there are negative incentives such as penalty charges or even refusal of care if the proper behavior is not exhibited. This will go beyond any of the irritating nanny-style cost-control things that we have been encountering already in the past few years in the private sector. (They don't Care About Us as people; they just want their costs reduced.)

Seriously? I've been following your columns and have come to the conclusion that your dithering at this point is both self-interested (look at me, I'm still undecided) and self-indulgent.

Both candidates have stated their policies including economic and foreign. Both have put forward their running mates for comparison. Both have had their backgrounds, associations and campaigns examined. Both candidates have shown their leadership style through the handling of their campaigns. The candidates and their running mates are completely different from one another.

If you are waiting for either candidate to say something or do something during the next couple of weeks to convince you then you are not an issues voter. And the fact you can so easily be swayed by either of them doesn't say much about your own convictions and priorities.

The decent people who play by the rules will just have to shut up and pay taxes, Polimom, even if you can demonstrate that you're a reliable Democratic voter.

It has made me wonder if rather than playing Third World Dictator and lowering principal in loans, that all ARMs be converted to fixed-rate mortgages (with the principal at the time of conversion left unchanged). Of course, to keep it moral as well as lower total payments for better affordability, that means much more total interest because the term would have to be extended to 40-50 years rather than to 30 in many if not most cases. Get ready to hear the losers howl about not getting a _real_ break, i.e., something for nothing (actually at others' expense)!

DLS, health insurance premiums have roughly doubled in cost over the past 8 years, while wages have remained stagnant. Do you consider that to be one of your "nanny-style cost-control things"?

I'm also surprised, Polimom, that you insisted on being correct and referring to an amendment to the Constitution -- that's so quaint and passe' when the feds can do whatever they want and often find judges who agree, no matter what the document actually says and means. The real hurdles are simply economic and political.

No, Spence -- [sigh] if you actually had read and _understood_ what was written you would have encountered the common practice now in the private sector of one's employer nagging people with not only words but incentive plans to improve their health, when they only care about reducing their costs. Rising premiums in excess of wage growth (or general inflation) _obviously_ cannot be conceived to be what you strangely ask.

DLS, On the whole, I think the Supreme Court has actually performed well over the years. It's one of the only branches of government I still have some faith in.

"[sigh] if you actually had read and _understood_ what (blah blah blah)" - DLS

If you actually went to a little more trouble to be coherent, then just maybe.....

Polimom, are you saying you like the present make-up of the Supreme Court?

JSpencer, I wasn't really referring to the current SC, though I'm okay with them at the moment. I was really trying to respond to DLS's implication that they've been legislating from the bench -- a charge that swings back and forth, depending on who's agenda isn't being met.

"Another practical issue and problem is that those who need this preventive care the most avoid getting it even when it is available to them." - DLS

And you base that statement on what reliable source?

Okay. I'm back down off the ceiling now, so I'll drop one more comment in here before going away for the night.

The way the term "right" has been thrown around in here, I'm either coming from an odd, old-school interpretation of the word, or America has fully integrated a new meaning while I wasn't looking. Maybe y'all are correct, and Obama's sentence structure tonight was just a sloppy way of saying, "we're gonna spend some money to make it more affordable". I've had my mind wrapped around that just fine for quite awhile.

But I feel -- and felt for some time -- that the country is at one of those pivotal forks in the road. We've taken turns in the past that led us to some unintended places; I'd rather not take any corners blind.

Head exploded? Ow. It could be worse though. Blood could have shot out of your eyes. Not only is that painful it would also mean that you're on the same rung of the evolutionary ladder as Glenn Beck.

Polimom, I don't think Obama means that healthcare is a constitutionally guaranteed right. I think Obama means it is a human right.... he mentioned that a country like the US should be able to offer healthcare to everyone. His mother had healthcare, yet the insurance companies placed profit ahead of human pain and suffering and resisted paying for treatments because her condition might have been "pre-existing". I thought the purpose of healthcare was to pay for medical bills when we could not afford it. I did not think that health insurance was meant to benefit shareholders at the expense (and death) of policy holders and those i pain who need treatment.

So, identifying health care as a right requires a constitutional amendment? I very much doubt it. Did establishing the NLRB or Minimum Wage require a constitutional amendment? Both are by any reasonable measure economic rights, either directly or indirectly.

I would be willing to guess that the majority of readers of this blog have reasonably sound, well financed, health care plans. But, their own payments have been rising faster than the basic rate of inflation.

We continue to reward the medical establishment in this country for illness, not well-being. Oh, there are some incentives to promote preventive measures. But, instead of rewarding cancer surgeons to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, we should issue hundred thousand dollar bonuses to every doctor who gets1 patient to quit smoking for 2 years, or lose at least 30% of their excess body weight.

And the right to decent health care does not have to be written into the constitution. It is a right that the people will eventually grant themselves through a balanced examination of what is the most expensive and least efficient or effective health care system in the industrialized world. The numbers speak for themselves. Look them up. See T.R. Reid's PBS Frontline documentary - "Sick Around the World"

The continuing problem that underlies the health care system in this country is the profit motive. I believe very strongly in the capitalist system. I have an MBA from a reasonably prestigious institution. But, when it comes to health care, does anyone want the bargain basement? Who wants to skimp on caring for a sick child, or sick parent? People continue to bankrupt themselves to get the best care for themselves and their families. Rationing? We ration in this country on a purely economic basis. And, that rationing is starting to hit middle income people as hard as it has the poor.

A number of correspondents have stated that we do take care of sick or injured people. The fundamental truth is that there does not exist a person in this country who does not assume he or she has the right decent health care. It has become a de facto, if not a de jure right. And for the poor and uninsured, it is exercised in the ER. And we all pay for it. We do it willingly because we too assume that those people deserve to live.

This is already too long a comment, so I'll try to end it here. If you're interested I have a consideration of McCain's plan below my signature.

And, by the way, yes the Supreme Court since Marbury v. Madison has been a generally good force in the American sociopolitical system. And a solidly conservative one - in the best sense of that word. But today's court contains as radical a group of justices as any who have served in over many years. Bush v. Gore speaks for itself. There are times when I believe that Scalia and Thomas are defending the Articles of Confederation and not the Constitution.

Rick York

McCain's "health plan"

In 2005, the average household income was $47,000/year. The average family size was 3.19. So, how is the average family going to be able to put away $5,000 per year after the normal costs of everyday living? And how much would they really get back on their taxes? How much do they pay?

Polimom, I'd also like to bring your attention to one of McCain's earliest responses.

In talking about the failing economy, McCain wants to spend another $300bn on top of the $700bn we just spent bailing out Wall St. companies (McCain clearly said the $300bn was his own plan and no one else's so it's not part of the bailout package). When Tom Brokaw asked about priorities among healthcare, energy and entitlements, McCain said we could do everything at once). Later in the debate McCain wants to decreases taxes even lower. I mean where does McCain honestly think he will get this money? We're already $10 trillion in debt, McCain wants to put us in debt with another $300bn to buy bad mortgages (which would also expand government) and McCain tonight did not offer any way to pay for any of it. And with a declining economy, the tax receipts will just be lower which means less money for the government.

Obama at least wants to roll back Bush's tax cuts to help pay for some of his programs. Obama claimed that he would be able to pay for his programs, which I don't see how he can do, but at least Obama has told us how he would prioritize the three issues presented by Brokaw, Obama has said we will need to roll back the Bush tax cuts to pay for it. Whereas all McCain did was propose hundreds of billions of new spending, the lowering of taxes yet further and freezing government spending across the board, except on some programs like defense....

We're already running about $500 bn in debt each year. With McCain's lowering of taxes and $300bn buyout of mortgages, at the end of the first year we would have added an additional trillion or so to the debt. We would eventually recover PART of the $300 bn in bad mortgages that the US government bought, but not anytime soon.

If he wants to renegotiate each mortgage (say the average mortgage is $150k that we buy) then $300bn would go torwards two million homes. McCain would have to open up a new department, hire and train people and then start negotiating those mortgages... If McCain follows through on his plan, "I will immediately ORDER the Secretary of the Treasury to buy $300 bn in bad mortgages..." How does he plan on tracking those mortgages he just bought until the new department is up and running? Besides, I don't think McCain can actually just "order" the Treasury secretary to Buy $300 bn in mortgages. I think that McCain (just like Bush just did for his $700bn bailout plan) would have to go before Congress to get a bill passed (and the debt ceiling raised).

What's even more hilarious (or shocking, I don't know at this point) is that in this same debate McCain said, "I have fought against excessive spending." This plan of McCain's is characteristic of McCain jumping first and then looking later. McCain desperately needed some plan that he came up with on his own to try to win back the argument on the economy. McCain really was against the government before he was for it.... at least only to win votes. McCain is all across the board on the role of government.

This plan would take years to implement... If one person can re-negotiate three mortgages a day and works 250 days a year, then it would require the hiring and training of over 2,600 people if you wanted to get those mortgages renegotiated in a year (this would be after the hiring and training is done and the department is fully up and running).

McCain doesn't have a philosophy on the proper role of government, he has a government spending plan to get votes. Perhaps that what he thinks "public financing of campaigns" means....

I have not seen the debate, so my answer is based off of Polimom's post. My guess would be that Obama did not mean a constitutionally guaranteed right. Instead, it's a right like education perhaps?

Yes, aside from Bush vs. Gore, the Supreme Court has been great. But Bush vs. Gore was too much political theater and set a horrible horrible example for justices.

Polimom, there's hope for you yet!

pacatrue, the question posed by Brokaw was, "Is healthcare a privilege, right or responsibility?" McCain answered first, saying was a responsibility. Obama said it was a right. Both candidates explained their answer more fully. Nothing was said which would indicate that Brokaw meant a constitutionally guaranteed right, nor did Obama (or McCain) even bring up the constitution.

Stockboy, you're absolutely right to criticize McCain on that mortgage proposal, and if you haven't yet seen it I'm sure you will- that most conservatives are livid over this.

As distasteful as it is to admit it, I now see what Rush Limbaugh meant about his opposition to McCain as the GOP nominee. Instead of providing a clear and rational alternative to doomed liberal economic policies, McCain's trying the "I care too!" approach.

And I was wrong to think that McCain would be the best strategic choice for the GOP because instead of getting credit where it's due for his bipartisanship and pragmatism over ideology, he doesn't get any of the benefit of that but gets all the blame when it goes wrong. Mind you, I still think he would be a good choice for the country as president at this time in our history- but strategically I now think that my former thinking was flawed. On the other hand though, maybe it's just that no one could possibly win from the GOP this cycle.

Stockboy- the point is that anyone who answers the question by saying it's a right had better explain what they mean by that. That's precisely the problem with all entitlements that have come to be thought of as Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Things change man, this world is a whole lot different than it was when the founding fathers founded America. Amend away!

CStanley, re your comment about the mortgage proposal... thanks. I don't really have anything more to add.. except some color...

I firmly and wholeheartedly believe in what Republicans once stood for... the fiscal responsibility.... but the GOP seems more interested in remaining in power and saying whatever it takes to do that, even giving up on their principles. I grew up a Republican (family from the North) in the Democratic South. What's interesting is that as the South turned Republican my family (except my brother) has turned Democratic (though willing to vote for the man, not the party). But the last couple of election cycles the GOP has absolutely thrown away everything that I believe in- fiscal responsibility, smart leadership, and the GOP now caters to the religious right who wants to shove their beliefs on everyone else (I may be in agreement with most of those beliefs but I do not believe in forcing my religious views on others).

The McCain mortgage bill is another example of the GOP giving up their principles of fiscal soundness (and just plain common sense) to try to gain votes. I would have been horrified if Obama had suggested it, but Obama understands the process, has run a great campaign and his decisions on the economy, etc. have been really intelligent (for the most part). McCain is willing to put himself in political peril if he believes he will gain votes. But McCain also gives up his principles. I've commented before that McCain would be doing a lot better if he were the McCain of 2000. I know several people who would have voted for McCain in 2000, and supported McCain going into the GOP primary. But no one knows what McCain stands for (except that he's "not Obama", which sounds like Bush..... anything but what Clinton supported).

Superdestroyer's schtick is that the GOP is dead (or almost dead). I wouldn't go that far, and I do hope both parties become responsible (the Dems are far from perfect). But the existing GOP is headed for the dust bin. And even though I can't stand the GOP at this point, I do think they are absolutely essential to this country. At least the GOP that once was.

One last comment from on McCain and his $300 bn rescue... McCain was more of a liberal Democrat last night than Obama!

CStanley: re the "right" to healthcare...

I do not believe that healthcare should ba a constitutionally guaranteed right. But I think a prosperous America can afford to offer healthcare to all. After all it is easier to pay for preventative care then for people to show up at the emergency rooms once their illness has blossomed into some horrific disease...

Bottom line is that in this country if you don't have healthcare you are still treated when you go to the emergency room and taxpayers end up paying for your treatment anyway. The cruel and inhuman alternative is that if we don't believe in paying to treat people who are ill then we should start turning away everyone who shows up at an emergency room (including car crash victims who are about to die) without proof of insurance. Obviously I'm not advocating that position.... I'm just stating the alternative (and how cruel it would be) if we don't want to pay to treat uninsured people.

StockboySF:
Good comments, and a lot to discuss there.

First, on the right to healthcare: I fundamentally agree with you (and I think this is Polimom's position too) but there's a very important distinction between Constitutional rights and moral rights. I think most people have forgotten that or younger people have never been taught the difference, and I think that's very dangerous because a lack of understanding makes fiscal responsibility (and keeping the federal govt to a manageable size) impossible.

Do you get my point? And Obama most certainly knows the difference, so I think it's irresponsible of him to not address it.

And on your other main theme about the GOP- I have a lot of agreement with you there, too, and I'm glad you brought up superdestroyer's schtick because it's relevant to the point I'm about to make.

I want the GOP to reform itself too, in fact for the very reasons that SD fearmongers about, I think it's vital to the health of our nation that this should happen. Having one party wither to irrelevance is highly dangerous, whether you agree with that party's philosophy or not. I've always held conservative views, but I also know that kneejerk conservativism isn't good for the nation and you only get well thought out policy when you have people pushing back against assumptions (many people here have pointed out, for instance, in past discussions I've had, that the liberal side has been responsible for positive changes like civil rights, worker's rights, etc- and I agree with that!)

So, because of that importance (as well, of course, as my belief that fundamentally the conservative governing philosophy and fiscal policy is the more rational and sustainable one- but not a 100% laissez-faire approach, just a default to free market and private enterprise but then applying sensible regulation in the areas where market forces don't work and greed can overtake responsibility if left unchecked), I think it is absolutely essential to push back against overblown allegations against the GOP as a whole, and to actively support the GOOD GOP candidates (yes, they exist.)

There's a good bunch of fiscal spending hawks in the House, for example, and some great young governors. I don't think it's enough right now to just occasionally vote for the man if the guy in your district is OK- I think we need to actively promote GOP politicians who do have integrity and a responsible policy platform and record. When you look at the current crop of Dems, there are some decent ones there too (like a lot of the Blue Dogs) but their party leadership is just as rotten to the core IMO as the current GOP leadership, and if they're unchecked we're going to see a continued decline in the health of our nation.

So, to me it's more right now than just choosing the particular man that I think is best for each position, it's about considering the balance of power (because I think there are serious systemic problems that can't be solved by just putting a smart and thoughtful man in the presidency.) McCain's not my favorite guy and I don't think he's highly intellectual but I think he's mostly principled (yes, I still think that.) I agree somewhat with you on the mortgage issue, and yet I'm not as strongly opposed as you are after hearing that he's just talking about how a part of the $700 billion should be spent, not saying he'd commit more funds. I still think it's a bad idea (and thought the entire bailout bill was a disaster) but given that that part has already happened, I'm not going to beat up too much on him for going after the specifics like this.

CStanley: "there's a very important distinction between Constitutional rights and moral rights."
I absolutely agree with you. There are some things so basic, such as the difference between constitutional rights and moral rights, that I don't think anyone needs to explain. Brokaw didn't ask whether healthcare was a right, privilege or responsibility under the constitution. But I suppose Obama could have spoken about morals and constitutional rights.... (though he probably would have run over his minute limit and been accused of being a long-winded intellectual).

By the way, while we're on the subject, what do you think of McCain's response that healthcare is a responsibility?

CStanley, you have some good comments, thanks! I don't have a lot of time right now to respond to everything but I do want to say that your comment, "...it's more right now than just choosing the particular man that I think is best for each position, it's about considering the balance of power." Is particularly interesting and I tend to agree... and perhaps that's the ideal. Now having said that I acn't vote for a Republican at this time (though I did vote for Arnold as CA guv) until the GOP does return to some sort of fiscal responsibility and get the rest of their house in order. It's one thing to vote for a man based on his qualifications, but if that person relies upon the GOP establishment (or Dem, as the case may be) then he may be a good candidate, but his foundation and support are from the GOP and their base. If McCain choose Palin over Lieberman because of the influence on the religious right, then that's an example of an otherwise good candidate making a bad decision (I don't mean to discuss whether Palin is ready to be VP or not, that's been argued and according to recent polls over 50% of the American people feel she is unqualified to be VP). So while I think your "balancing" comment is good, it is difficult for me to vote for most GOP candidates because I know many of them will be pressured to make decisions they would not otherwise make. The GOP needs to be fiscally responsible and a fair party fighting for all citizens (and not just the "haves and have mores" who support the religious zealotry). The current incarnation of the GOP, "reducee taxes, go to war and stay in Iraq (with no plan for exit or even telling us what he thinks vistory should be, in McCain's case), raise spending and bailout our Wall St. supporters and fat cats" is not a party I could support.

I can understand your points, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. I guess it comes down to how we relatively judge each party's leadership right now- if I really thought the Dems were capable of decent leadership I'd be willing to risk unbalance in their direction for a while, but I don't think that's the case at all. I think the way they handled the financial crisis was abominable, for example, and my opinion on Iraq is the mirror image of yours.

I guess I see the GOP glass as half full and the Dems half empty, and vice versa for you.

CS

-------------- Original message --------------

CStanley, yes, I absolutely agree with you that we'll disagree on this. :) I see it as a matter of how we prioritize the which get us to this point... I can't force you to have the same priorities (and experiences, thought, etc.) as I do and vice versa. i think we're both right on this. Or maybe I should say that I don't think either of us is wrong. I think a good analogy is this: if two people are talking about the weather- it's 80 degrees and sunny... one person may thing it's the perfect beach weather while another person may think it's too hot and bright. Neither are wrong. And so it is with this discussion..... Thanks, as always!

S-