Keep up the goof fight from the middle JD.

Another Feudian slip no doubt.

Was that a Freudian slip?

I'm a conservative democrat (blue dog) and disagree with much of what Obama crusades for. But you are completely correct on this one. He is, indeed, fighting old intrinsic patterns which will not die easily. I respect him for that. It's one thing that (dare I say it) that he and Palin have in common.

(I await the firestorm of hate from the left for that last comment)

Nonetheless, who can't buy legal drugs from Canadian pharmacies now? Sure, importing bushels of them might raise a Customs' eyebrow, but I have been getting anything I want by internet mail order and nothing has been apprehended. I especially like getting the non-FDA stuff because it is stronger dosed and to me more efficacious.

To your point, might as well keep it low profile, but keep on doing it and saving money.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by RomulusB: The All-American Barack Obama Traveling Disaster Show – The Moderate Voice http://bit.ly/5zb5Rt...

Actually my feelings are mixed. From the conservative standpoint, I don't think the govt should restrict these purchases. But policy wise, as a change from the status quo now, I do think this will not result in long term savings (the drug companies will stop negotiating such low prices abroad if their US profits are undercut) and if regulations then prevent them from raising prices we'll lose some of the innovation for future drug development as they'll cut R&D if the profits aren't there anymore.

A mixed bag, as I see it, and not the cost saving magic bullet that some people seem to think it would be IMO.

Who thinks that it's right to stop people from buying legal medicines from other countries?

Senators Who Voted Against Drug Imports Got More Big Pharma Money:

And if you look at the Maplight analysis, you'll find–little surprise here–that senators voting nay have averaged 66 percent more in campaign contributions from Big Pharma than senators who voted yea. The difference: $85,812 vs. $51,803, spread over the period Jan. 1, 2003, to Aug. 12, 2009. Not a lot of dollars if you prorate it, but it is consistent.

It could be that the issues are just too divisive, too complex to address. This would be a reflection on the current state of our politics where nuance and complexity are abandoned for sound bites and excessive partisanship.

It's not so much that the issues are too complex, but that no one wants to address the core problems. All of the issues have solutions that the majority of people can back. Who's against moderate tax credits for installing solar panels? Who doesn't want interstate competition in medical insurance? Who thinks that it's right to stop people from buying legal medicines from other countries?

And finally, as others have pointed out, the failure to adjust agenda also fails to inspire confidence. Crisis requires triage, but the administration insisted that it had to pursue the agenda that it campaigned on in spite of the economic meltdown. That plus the course that the recession took (unemployment spiking higher than they predicted it would without stimulus, let alone with the stimulus bill having passed) suggests that they underestimated the problems.