Red Tory v.2.0
I think its about time, a little late. but maybe it will expose obama for what he really is, winded, no dept, and inexperience, and economicly dangerous for canada...I mean, hes not really been honest is he, first he will have to cut programs and raise taxes before any policies are to be put in effect, the way liberals did it in 1993 and clinton in 92..how can one implement any policy if bush spent all the money?
To be honest, I haven’t researched his policies all that deeply. With regards to the funding issue, my understanding is that the money to pay for his healthcare reform, middle-class tax cuts, etc., will come from non-renewal of the Bush tax cuts (that disproportionately benefit the top few percent of income earners), together with funds presently being allocated to the war in Iraq. The problem with that is, 1) the economy is slowing down and may be in rough shape by the time the next president takes office (this happened to Clinton when he was first elected and Greenspan told him that not only was the kitty empty, but that the government was massively in debt — the difference being that we know that for a fact this time); and, 2) even a fairly swift withdrawal from Iraq will probably take a couple of years to effect by the time all is said and done, so in the meantime there won’t be any significant savings that can be realized from that front as the logistics of phasing out the U.S. presence in that region will still be heinously expensive. So, good question… I don’t have an answer for it though.
As far as Canada goes, as I’ve said before, a Republican would actually be much better for out national interests. That’s not something that I’m really happy about admitting, but it’s the truth. The Democrats want to re-negotiate NAFTA (what more concessions could they possibly want?) and have a historical tendency towards being more aggressively protectionist and utilizing “special import measures” such as anti-dumping and countervailing duties to coddle corporate whiners and uncompetitive industry sectors.
Me - you have something specific, or just Republican and Clinton talking points?
I watched a guy from "FactCheck.org" this morning (do we ever need an organization like this in Canada). They study and research what the candidates positions are, what they say and their policies - he said that Hillary was right - Obama has misinformed the public on her health care plan.
Sandi — It would appear so from what I've read about this.
And yes, I'd love to see something like Factcheck.org, especially before the next election! A "Media Matters" type of outfit would also be nice to have. (Maybe I should see if they want to start a Canadian branch...
)
RT - I think a Canadian branch of both would be great - please try.
You know, if I get some spare time this week, I might just write to David Brock as a lark and see what, if anything, he comes back with. Keep bugging me...
Red, here's something I put over at actor's place:
If Hillary got rid of that souless, clueless scumbag, Penn, she could get on Obama about having David Cutler; a jerk who wrote an article about how rising health care costs are good for the economy, Auslan Goolsbee, a DLC economist who says he hates Sicko and single payer, is against regulation of the subprime mortgage industry, pro-free trade/NAFTA/WTO, (and George Will is a big fan....what's not to love?), and Jeffrey Liebman, who co-wrote a plan with three other economists from the AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, suggesting that to save Social Security, we would need to cut benefits, raise taxes, and partially privatize the program.
I'm just sayin'.
That being said, I'd take either one over McWar. I just like to do my research.
And to be fair, I still don't know who Hillary's core economic advisors are, so there's that.
Foreign policy is the thing in their GE and the way I see it, BO will get creamed. Pepe Escobar does a nice analysis of the choices at The Real News:
http://www.therealnews.com/web/i...9&
thisview=item
http://www.therealnews.com/web/i...0&
thisview=item
NOI — McWar… Heh. Good one.
It’s hard to see how Hillary can talk seriously about “change” and standing up for the little guy and “average Americans” when she’s got a douche like Mark Penn running her campaign. The guy is the ultimate insider and is hopelessly compromised by his extensive corporate interests vis-à-vis Burson-Marsteller and its lobbying arm BKSH & Associates (which is run by a GOP operative, by the way). I’m not that familiar with Obama’s people, but I’m sure they’ll get a good airing as things progress (or I would hope so). It doesn’t look good from what you’ve said here. Ugh, it’s all so depressing sometimes.
That's the thing, Red. I've done as much research as I can, and I have to say that Hillary and Obama are two parts of the same whole, and that makes me sad.
Beyond that, they're at least a step in a better direction, and I think that if we can get more progressives and less *grumble* DLC types in, then we have a better shot at saving us from ourselves and our collective stupidity.
I hope.
Well, I supported Kucinich and my initial choice of the mainstream, “electable” candidates was Edwards, so I’m fairly disappointed in both alternatives. I have to agree with George Will that Obama’s message is “banal” (Gore Vidal also finds him uninteresting and lacking substance) and Clinton has always turned me off. I don’t think she’s at all sincere about anything and, moreover, she’s bought and paid for. There’s far too much DLC influence in her campaign for my taste. Plus, let’s face it; Bill is a bit of a douche. Still, as you say, they’re most definitely the “lesser evil” compared to Bomber McCain.
I supported DK for his ideals, but I pushed for Edwards for his ideas.
I'm sick and tired of the stupid, and hope that if we get a Dem majority and one of...those...that we can start to fix things.
But I have to say, Nancy and Harry have to go.
I don't want Republicans in their place, just leaders with less fear.
Yep, I agree wholeheartedly. As much as I have a lingering fondness for Harry, he's got to go. Someone (I can't remember who) made an excellent suggestion a while back and it was that Hillary would be a GREAT Senate Majority Leader. I could not agree more with that. She would be perfect in that role. So, here's to hoping she loses and channels her energies in that direction.
I miss the "Give 'em hell, Harry!" days when he was holding meetings in the basement, but now he's just a reed twisting in the wind and he means nothing to me.
Next?
Commenting by HaloScan
