Title: Rudy Vs. Clinton Or Obama
Description: Is Rudy the Democrats' Worst Nightmare?
Description: Is Rudy the Democrats' Worst Nightmare?
go_noles06 - July 9, 2007 01:40 AM (GMT)
I am not a Juliani supporter, but I've heard this argument many times. Thought this article, written by a Democrat, was interesting.
IS RUDY THE DEMOCRATS' WORST NIGHTMARE
By Patrick Reddy of The Buffalo News
Updated: 07/08/07 7:32 AM
SAVE EMAIL PRINT POPULAR + Larger Font + Smaller Font Mark Shields, in the Washington Post, once called presidential elections the “most personal vote.” Party identification or other factors may be decisive in elections for Congress or state offices, but the presidency is unique. Issues are the most important reason someone wins, of course, but personal factors can often tip the balance in close national elections.
Based on his heroic image, his obvious executive ability, his making New York City a livable, governable place and his proven track record as a winner on overwhelmingly Democratic turf, Giuliani would be an extremely dangerous opponent for Democrats. In his 1997 re-election, Rudy ran 38 points ahead of Republican registration. He won nearly half of all Democrats and more than two-thirds of white Democrats. Not even Ronald Reagan was able to do that.
Pro football fans surely have heard of the “West Coast Offense” where coaches seek a matchup that favors their team. For example, they’ll send a faster wide receiver against a slower linebacker, or a taller tight end against a shorter defensive back. In four key ways — in terms of leadership, ethnicity, ideology and geography — Rudy matches up better against the two leading Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
The leadership issue is obvious: does any Democrat have anything to compare with 9/11 and “America’s Mayor?”
Second, against Obama or Clinton, Rudy would likely reap an “ethnic
bonus” from urban Catholics and Jews. Most Italian- Americans, even registered Democrats, will be sorely tempted to cross over to support one of their own. Rudy also polls well with other urban white Catholics, Jews, Asians, Hispanics and moderate-to-liberal “secular” middle-class whites.
Given his crime-fighting image, he clearly will have appeal to suburban voters who feel they were driven out of their old cities by urban chaos. That’s a probable gain of 3 million to 4 million votes nationally, and it’s hard to imagine too many Bush 2004 voters going for either Clinton or Obama.
Third is that Rudy is much closer to the center (fiscally conservative and tough on bad guys, but also tolerant on social issues) than the Democratic field, and moderate independents also like him. Rudy is the one Republican who can offer both continuity for Republicans (leadership in the war on terror) and change (he’s not beholden to the religious right, nor is he associated with the scandal-ridden congressional Republicans and can call for a phased withdrawal from Iraq if necessary) to Democrats and Independents.
The danger for Clinton is that she’ll get isolated on the left and hold onto only inner-city minorities and white liberals — much like Michael Dukakis in 1988.
Over the last generation, white voters have often divided by degree of religious intensity, with observant Protestants and Catholics going Republican while Jews and “secular humanists” have voted Democratic. Since there are more believers than nonbelievers in America, Republicans have won most national elections over the past 40 years. Jimmy Carter, an outspoken “bornagain” Christian, is the only Democratic presidential nominee since the 1960s to win a majority in the national popular vote.
At his best, Giuliani brings in white Catholics, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, suburban independents, Easterners and older women. With the possible exception of McCain, no other Republican can do that.
Fourth, and most importantly, Rudy is stronger in the Electoral College than anyone else. While he may be a little bit weaker in the South than a standard conservative like Tennessee’s Fred Thompson, most Southern states are already out of reach for Democrats and Rudy would be well-positioned to make major gains outside the South.
One huge reason why George W. Bush lost California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Maryland and Connecticut is the defection of previously Republican suburban voters. Rudy’s popularity in big metropolitan areas will erode the Democratic edge in the cities, win the suburbs and carry most states by virtue of normally Republican rural votes. Rudy would put 40 states in play, including most of the Northeast (even New York) and the Midwest, plus the West Coast, and likely win 35 of them. Incidentally, Dukakis lost 40 states in 1988. Democrats should be terrified about facing this guy because he has the best potential to cut into their urban base.
Clinton’s negative ratings have averaged almost 50 percent for more than a decade now, while Giuliani’s have been 2-to-1 positive for the last six years. It’s rare for candidates with such high approval ratings to lose. After loudly shouting that Bill Clinton’s personal life had nothing to do with his performance as president, can Democrats really attack Rudy for being divorced twice and an admitted adulterer?
Does any Democrat match up against Giuliani? A Southerner like Al Gore or John Edwards would have a shot at picking up Florida and either Tennessee or North Carolina. And no Democrat has ever won the presidency without winning at least 35 electoral votes in the South.
But Gore isn’t running yet and Edwards has been stuck in third place in the Democratic polls. Otherwise, I’d bet on a Northeastern Italian Catholic former prosecutor with staunch “Middle America” appeal against a feminist from an affluent East Coast suburb or even a very talented black guy from the South Side of Chicago.
Generally speaking, moderate Republicans have little trouble against liberal Democrats. See McKinley vs. Bryan, Eisenhower vs. Stevenson, Nixon vs. McGovern or the first George Bush vs. Dukakis. Since World War II, Republicans have gotten in trouble when they are seen as too socially reactionary, as Barry Goldwater was perceived to be in 1964, but Giuliani won’t have that problem.
But what if social conservatives rebel against a Giuliani nomination and run a pro-life candidate like Pat Buchanan or Tom Tancredo? That would be very unlikely if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, because the vast majority of conservatives wouldn’t want to risk another Clinton presidency. So, in effect, Rudy needs Hillary! But if there were a reasonably well-financed conservative third party running, things would be interesting, to say the least.
Some Democrats say that Rudy would be the most formidable Republican since Reagan, but the better comparison might be to Bobby Kennedy. Although Clinton now has RFK’s old Senate seat, there are numerous parallels between Rudy and Bobby: they were both in-your-face prosecutors, sharp debaters, had intensely high energy levels, were street-smart and had a “ruthless” will to win. Rudy is Bobby if he had gotten older and more conservative. Interestingly enough, RFK was Giuliani’s first political hero. He’s also a younger, fresher version of John McCain.
As a Democrat, I must admit to having mixed feelings about Giuliani. In terms of philosophy, I’d like to see the Republicans moderate their positions by moving closer to us. But I also would like to see them nominate extremists who would be easier to defeat.
What about the argument that Clinton could inspire a massive turnout from single women eager to shatter the “glass ceiling” or that Obama could double the black turnout? Either is possible, but neither is likely. Women are not a bloc vote like blacks, Jews or Mormons. Older women, especially married women in the South and Midwest, lean to the right. Tragically, no black candidate in a statewide or national election has ever pulled off the neat trick of mobilizing a huge black vote while not alienating moderate whites. John F. Kennedy succeeded at this in 1960 — he mobilized his base of urban Catholics and Jews and held onto enough Protestant Democrats to win narrowly — but New York Gov. Al Smith couldn’t in 1928.
One key fact about pols is that they almost always repeat their previous successful strategies. Look at Rudy’s track record: he’s proven that he could beat black (David Dinkins) and female (Ruth Messinger) candidates without coming across as macho or racist, a key skill for any white male candidate facing a minority or female opponent. Granted, Clinton and Obama will be much tougher opponents, but the pattern is clear.
Is there any way Giuliani could lose a two-way race? Of course. I can think of at least three ways he could blow it. First, he’s human like every other candidate and could make some unforced errors. Second, he could lose that famous temper of his in public. Third, he could let his foreign policy be hijacked by the neo-conservatives; the voters don’t want another four years of Bush’s foreign policy.
But if he doesn’t make any major mistakes, in a two-way race he’d be really tough to beat. However, in a three- or four-way race, all bets are off. We’ll see if conservative Republican primary voters can stomach his social liberalism. If enough of them can, he’ll be hard to stop in November.
Link: http://www.buffalonews.com/149/story/115275.html
IS RUDY THE DEMOCRATS' WORST NIGHTMARE
By Patrick Reddy of The Buffalo News
Updated: 07/08/07 7:32 AM
SAVE EMAIL PRINT POPULAR + Larger Font + Smaller Font Mark Shields, in the Washington Post, once called presidential elections the “most personal vote.” Party identification or other factors may be decisive in elections for Congress or state offices, but the presidency is unique. Issues are the most important reason someone wins, of course, but personal factors can often tip the balance in close national elections.
Based on his heroic image, his obvious executive ability, his making New York City a livable, governable place and his proven track record as a winner on overwhelmingly Democratic turf, Giuliani would be an extremely dangerous opponent for Democrats. In his 1997 re-election, Rudy ran 38 points ahead of Republican registration. He won nearly half of all Democrats and more than two-thirds of white Democrats. Not even Ronald Reagan was able to do that.
Pro football fans surely have heard of the “West Coast Offense” where coaches seek a matchup that favors their team. For example, they’ll send a faster wide receiver against a slower linebacker, or a taller tight end against a shorter defensive back. In four key ways — in terms of leadership, ethnicity, ideology and geography — Rudy matches up better against the two leading Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
The leadership issue is obvious: does any Democrat have anything to compare with 9/11 and “America’s Mayor?”
Second, against Obama or Clinton, Rudy would likely reap an “ethnic
bonus” from urban Catholics and Jews. Most Italian- Americans, even registered Democrats, will be sorely tempted to cross over to support one of their own. Rudy also polls well with other urban white Catholics, Jews, Asians, Hispanics and moderate-to-liberal “secular” middle-class whites.
Given his crime-fighting image, he clearly will have appeal to suburban voters who feel they were driven out of their old cities by urban chaos. That’s a probable gain of 3 million to 4 million votes nationally, and it’s hard to imagine too many Bush 2004 voters going for either Clinton or Obama.
Third is that Rudy is much closer to the center (fiscally conservative and tough on bad guys, but also tolerant on social issues) than the Democratic field, and moderate independents also like him. Rudy is the one Republican who can offer both continuity for Republicans (leadership in the war on terror) and change (he’s not beholden to the religious right, nor is he associated with the scandal-ridden congressional Republicans and can call for a phased withdrawal from Iraq if necessary) to Democrats and Independents.
The danger for Clinton is that she’ll get isolated on the left and hold onto only inner-city minorities and white liberals — much like Michael Dukakis in 1988.
Over the last generation, white voters have often divided by degree of religious intensity, with observant Protestants and Catholics going Republican while Jews and “secular humanists” have voted Democratic. Since there are more believers than nonbelievers in America, Republicans have won most national elections over the past 40 years. Jimmy Carter, an outspoken “bornagain” Christian, is the only Democratic presidential nominee since the 1960s to win a majority in the national popular vote.
At his best, Giuliani brings in white Catholics, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, suburban independents, Easterners and older women. With the possible exception of McCain, no other Republican can do that.
Fourth, and most importantly, Rudy is stronger in the Electoral College than anyone else. While he may be a little bit weaker in the South than a standard conservative like Tennessee’s Fred Thompson, most Southern states are already out of reach for Democrats and Rudy would be well-positioned to make major gains outside the South.
One huge reason why George W. Bush lost California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Maryland and Connecticut is the defection of previously Republican suburban voters. Rudy’s popularity in big metropolitan areas will erode the Democratic edge in the cities, win the suburbs and carry most states by virtue of normally Republican rural votes. Rudy would put 40 states in play, including most of the Northeast (even New York) and the Midwest, plus the West Coast, and likely win 35 of them. Incidentally, Dukakis lost 40 states in 1988. Democrats should be terrified about facing this guy because he has the best potential to cut into their urban base.
Clinton’s negative ratings have averaged almost 50 percent for more than a decade now, while Giuliani’s have been 2-to-1 positive for the last six years. It’s rare for candidates with such high approval ratings to lose. After loudly shouting that Bill Clinton’s personal life had nothing to do with his performance as president, can Democrats really attack Rudy for being divorced twice and an admitted adulterer?
Does any Democrat match up against Giuliani? A Southerner like Al Gore or John Edwards would have a shot at picking up Florida and either Tennessee or North Carolina. And no Democrat has ever won the presidency without winning at least 35 electoral votes in the South.
But Gore isn’t running yet and Edwards has been stuck in third place in the Democratic polls. Otherwise, I’d bet on a Northeastern Italian Catholic former prosecutor with staunch “Middle America” appeal against a feminist from an affluent East Coast suburb or even a very talented black guy from the South Side of Chicago.
Generally speaking, moderate Republicans have little trouble against liberal Democrats. See McKinley vs. Bryan, Eisenhower vs. Stevenson, Nixon vs. McGovern or the first George Bush vs. Dukakis. Since World War II, Republicans have gotten in trouble when they are seen as too socially reactionary, as Barry Goldwater was perceived to be in 1964, but Giuliani won’t have that problem.
But what if social conservatives rebel against a Giuliani nomination and run a pro-life candidate like Pat Buchanan or Tom Tancredo? That would be very unlikely if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, because the vast majority of conservatives wouldn’t want to risk another Clinton presidency. So, in effect, Rudy needs Hillary! But if there were a reasonably well-financed conservative third party running, things would be interesting, to say the least.
Some Democrats say that Rudy would be the most formidable Republican since Reagan, but the better comparison might be to Bobby Kennedy. Although Clinton now has RFK’s old Senate seat, there are numerous parallels between Rudy and Bobby: they were both in-your-face prosecutors, sharp debaters, had intensely high energy levels, were street-smart and had a “ruthless” will to win. Rudy is Bobby if he had gotten older and more conservative. Interestingly enough, RFK was Giuliani’s first political hero. He’s also a younger, fresher version of John McCain.
As a Democrat, I must admit to having mixed feelings about Giuliani. In terms of philosophy, I’d like to see the Republicans moderate their positions by moving closer to us. But I also would like to see them nominate extremists who would be easier to defeat.
What about the argument that Clinton could inspire a massive turnout from single women eager to shatter the “glass ceiling” or that Obama could double the black turnout? Either is possible, but neither is likely. Women are not a bloc vote like blacks, Jews or Mormons. Older women, especially married women in the South and Midwest, lean to the right. Tragically, no black candidate in a statewide or national election has ever pulled off the neat trick of mobilizing a huge black vote while not alienating moderate whites. John F. Kennedy succeeded at this in 1960 — he mobilized his base of urban Catholics and Jews and held onto enough Protestant Democrats to win narrowly — but New York Gov. Al Smith couldn’t in 1928.
One key fact about pols is that they almost always repeat their previous successful strategies. Look at Rudy’s track record: he’s proven that he could beat black (David Dinkins) and female (Ruth Messinger) candidates without coming across as macho or racist, a key skill for any white male candidate facing a minority or female opponent. Granted, Clinton and Obama will be much tougher opponents, but the pattern is clear.
Is there any way Giuliani could lose a two-way race? Of course. I can think of at least three ways he could blow it. First, he’s human like every other candidate and could make some unforced errors. Second, he could lose that famous temper of his in public. Third, he could let his foreign policy be hijacked by the neo-conservatives; the voters don’t want another four years of Bush’s foreign policy.
But if he doesn’t make any major mistakes, in a two-way race he’d be really tough to beat. However, in a three- or four-way race, all bets are off. We’ll see if conservative Republican primary voters can stomach his social liberalism. If enough of them can, he’ll be hard to stop in November.
Link: http://www.buffalonews.com/149/story/115275.html
SoulMusicRocks - July 11, 2007 03:31 AM (GMT)
It will certainly be interesting to see what happens by 2008. All I can say is that I'm ready for positive change to happen. We could go back and forth in the argumentation of which demographics will most likely support who. More so than ever, it is all about raising insane sums of money and grass root campaigns that get people motivated to go to the polls and vote.
I'd like the next president to be a person who unites the country and FINALLY starts making progress on domestic issues like healthcare, education, and environmental issues. It's time to move forward and stop the partisan bickering so that the different branches can reach rational solutions that bring resolutions to longstanding issues that affect everyone in the US.
Also, we need a passionate diplomat who will be able to bring the international community together to promote peace, security, and optimism not only here, but abroad as well. This will mean keeping strong and connected ties with allies who can aid in the development of a more coalition based foreign policy which brings the free nations of the world together to discuss and deal with various things facing the world and individual countries.
My hope is that the next president brings us hope. We have been through so much as a nation both internally and abroad. I'm ready for a leader who will extend beyond typical expectations and make a real difference by living the words they say and keep promises they make to better our society. So, the debate will continue over which demographic will more likely go to which candidate, which is interesting.
Ultimately, I think the leader who could bring us that hope is Barack Obama.
I'd like the next president to be a person who unites the country and FINALLY starts making progress on domestic issues like healthcare, education, and environmental issues. It's time to move forward and stop the partisan bickering so that the different branches can reach rational solutions that bring resolutions to longstanding issues that affect everyone in the US.
Also, we need a passionate diplomat who will be able to bring the international community together to promote peace, security, and optimism not only here, but abroad as well. This will mean keeping strong and connected ties with allies who can aid in the development of a more coalition based foreign policy which brings the free nations of the world together to discuss and deal with various things facing the world and individual countries.
My hope is that the next president brings us hope. We have been through so much as a nation both internally and abroad. I'm ready for a leader who will extend beyond typical expectations and make a real difference by living the words they say and keep promises they make to better our society. So, the debate will continue over which demographic will more likely go to which candidate, which is interesting.
Ultimately, I think the leader who could bring us that hope is Barack Obama.
terriberriez - July 13, 2007 06:17 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (SoulMusicRocks @ Jul 10 2007, 10:31 PM) |
| It will certainly be interesting to see what happens by 2008. All I can say is that I'm ready for positive change to happen. We could go back and forth in the argumentation of which demographics will most likely support who. More so than ever, it is all about raising insane sums of money and grass root campaigns that get people motivated to go to the polls and vote. I'd like the next president to be a person who unites the country and FINALLY starts making progress on domestic issues like healthcare, education, and environmental issues. It's time to move forward and stop the partisan bickering so that the different branches can reach rational solutions that bring resolutions to longstanding issues that affect everyone in the US. Also, we need a passionate diplomat who will be able to bring the international community together to promote peace, security, and optimism not only here, but abroad as well. This will mean keeping strong and connected ties with allies who can aid in the development of a more coalition based foreign policy which brings the free nations of the world together to discuss and deal with various things facing the world and individual countries. My hope is that the next president brings us hope. We have been through so much as a nation both internally and abroad. I'm ready for a leader who will extend beyond typical expectations and make a real difference by living the words they say and keep promises they make to better our society. So, the debate will continue over which demographic will more likely go to which candidate, which is interesting. Ultimately, I think the leader who could bring us that hope is Barack Obama. |
agreed, especially your last statement.
ElliottisTrueBlue - July 15, 2007 09:04 PM (GMT)
Obama all the way!
elliottcrazy - July 18, 2007 03:36 PM (GMT)
I'm rooting for Obama. I'm tired of 'politics as usual'. The only way this country can take a new direction is with someone young & fresh like Obama. A female president would be historic news making stuff BUT Hilary has been around for a while, she's a smooth politician & seems flaky to me BUT if someone promises to install Universal Healthcare & I mean UNIVERSAL not some hodge podge compromised version of it..they'll have my vote....no matter what side of the political spectrum they sit on.
DoxieChickLuvsE - July 18, 2007 04:05 PM (GMT)
I am a democrat but love Juilani.
The article says:
Based on his heroic image, his obvious executive ability, his making New York City a livable, governable place and his proven track record as a winner on overwhelmingly Democratic turf, Giuliani would be an extremely dangerous opponent for Democrats. In his 1997 re-election, Rudy ran 38 points ahead of Republican registration. He won nearly half of all Democrats and more than two-thirds of white Democrats. Not even Ronald Reagan was able to do that.
I don't know about anyone else but the above spells dymanic and effective leader to me! He handled one of the nation's largest tragedies with poise, leadership and this overall "likable" personality.
I don't know who i'll be voting for when the time comes, because I like Hilary and Obama as well, let's just say that out of those three none of them have me as worried as...well...
I won't go there. :fangirly:
The article says:
Based on his heroic image, his obvious executive ability, his making New York City a livable, governable place and his proven track record as a winner on overwhelmingly Democratic turf, Giuliani would be an extremely dangerous opponent for Democrats. In his 1997 re-election, Rudy ran 38 points ahead of Republican registration. He won nearly half of all Democrats and more than two-thirds of white Democrats. Not even Ronald Reagan was able to do that.
I don't know about anyone else but the above spells dymanic and effective leader to me! He handled one of the nation's largest tragedies with poise, leadership and this overall "likable" personality.
I don't know who i'll be voting for when the time comes, because I like Hilary and Obama as well, let's just say that out of those three none of them have me as worried as...well...
I won't go there. :fangirly:
SoulMusicRocks - July 18, 2007 04:54 PM (GMT)
You know Dox, I initially didn't mind Giuliani and thought I might even vote for him too. Mostly because he was more progressive and liberal on social issues that I feel very strongly about. Unfortunately, due to pressures to conform to his party's values over personal ones, he publicly began changing his convictions to appeal more to the Republican base. I remember him kind of going back and forth on issues like Abortion.
Besides, I think we need a dramatic change in policy both domestically and internationally. Honestly, I don't mind Hillary, but I'm not too thrilled about basically repeating another Clinton White House. Her husband was no where near as progressive/liberal as he could have been in actively pursuing policies. I'm not too sure she will be different and actually stand her ground as a true liberal president.
Barack on the other hand is always cited for his lack of experience. Many people use this as a reason why he should not be President. Yet ironically, in my eyes, this works IN his favor. He could bring a vivacious and positive change as someone who hasn't been so bogged down in Washington as his other fellow candidates have. Many politicians are simply an extension of interest groups and PAC's. (Political Action Committes). Hopefully he will bring less of typical Washington and more of a commonality with everyday people of the United States that FINALLY allows someone to make a difference in issues that so badly need it.
I was not that passionate about 2004.......2008 is an entirely different matter lol.
Besides, I think we need a dramatic change in policy both domestically and internationally. Honestly, I don't mind Hillary, but I'm not too thrilled about basically repeating another Clinton White House. Her husband was no where near as progressive/liberal as he could have been in actively pursuing policies. I'm not too sure she will be different and actually stand her ground as a true liberal president.
Barack on the other hand is always cited for his lack of experience. Many people use this as a reason why he should not be President. Yet ironically, in my eyes, this works IN his favor. He could bring a vivacious and positive change as someone who hasn't been so bogged down in Washington as his other fellow candidates have. Many politicians are simply an extension of interest groups and PAC's. (Political Action Committes). Hopefully he will bring less of typical Washington and more of a commonality with everyday people of the United States that FINALLY allows someone to make a difference in issues that so badly need it.
I was not that passionate about 2004.......2008 is an entirely different matter lol.
parsimmon - September 15, 2007 07:10 PM (GMT)
Rudy is a frontrunner to give the Republican party a more moderate image...much like McCain. But the party is very small..at least the powerbase..and they would never have Giuliani as President. Nothing will change at its core...the same Baker machine will be running the show...I see Fred Thompson as the candidate that will emerge. He will do their bidding, just as Reagan, Ford, and Bush did. It's a BIG business, the buying of the President. They have to be able to get the right puppet.
SoulMusicRocks - September 16, 2007 08:17 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (parsimmon @ Sep 15 2007, 02:10 PM) |
| Rudy is a frontrunner to give the Republican party a more moderate image...much like McCain. But the party is very small..at least the powerbase..and they would never have Giuliani as President. Nothing will change at its core...the same Baker machine will be running the show...I see Fred Thompson as the candidate that will emerge. He will do their bidding, just as Reagan, Ford, and Bush did. It's a BIG business, the buying of the President. They have to be able to get the right puppet. |
I like your logic. It makes a lot of sense. Fred seems like a more viable candidate for the Republican party.
leefromva - September 16, 2007 09:17 PM (GMT)
It does seem to me that democrats are also being controlled by the hard left. Move On.Org seems to be calling the shots for the Democratic front runners. While universal health care sounds wonderful on the surface, you need to check countries that actually have it. You do not get the same kind of care nor do you get treated in some cases in a timely fashion. I hope not to get blasted for my views but I would like to see more Americans looking for ways to help themselves instead of expecting government which amounts to the taxpayers to take care of them. Thats not to say those that are truly in need do not need our help or those with physical and mental handicaps that restrict them from earning a living should not receive help. I wish there were programs in place to help people earning low incomes to be trained to improve their lives. Also one needs to look at the decisions that put them in the positions they find themselves in. Did they choose to finish their education or learn a trade? Did they have more children than they could afford to raise? I know I will be unpopular to the liberals on here but I do think everyone needs to make responsible decisions and be responsible for their actions.
go_noles06 - September 17, 2007 06:28 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (leefromva @ Sep 16 2007, 04:17 PM) |
| It does seem to me that democrats are also being controlled by the hard left. Move On.Org seems to be calling the shots for the Democratic front runners. While universal health care sounds wonderful on the surface, you need to check countries that actually have it. You do not get the same kind of care nor do you get treated in some cases in a timely fashion. I hope not to get blasted for my views but I would like to see more Americans looking for ways to help themselves instead of expecting government which amounts to the taxpayers to take care of them. Thats not to say those that are truly in need do not need our help or those with physical and mental handicaps that restrict them from earning a living should not receive help. I wish there were programs in place to help people earning low incomes to be trained to improve their lives. Also one needs to look at the decisions that put them in the positions they find themselves in. Did they choose to finish their education or learn a trade? Did they have more children than they could afford to raise? I know I will be unpopular to the liberals on here but I do think everyone needs to make responsible decisions and be responsible for their actions. |
You will be unpopular with some, but everyone should have a voice on this site and should not be afraid to post, no matter what your views are!
The truth is, there are programs out there to help those less fortunate. hospitals can't turn someone down for emergency care due to inability to pay. In addition, when I lost my job several years ago and had a toddler that needed healthcare, I applied for Medicaid and qualified. Even with my husband's median income. Luckily, I was able to find a job in a few months and therefore able to take care of my own family, never having to use the "taxpayer's money".
I have heard that universal healthcare in other countries is horrible and people flock to get medical attention in the U.S. What could likely happen is that being a physician in the U.S. will no longer be a desired profession (since they will no longer have the incomes to pay for their student loans) and the quality of medical care will take a nose dive. What a disaster it will be if "Hitlery" or any of the President wannabes get their healthcare plans passed.
GraceStreet - September 17, 2007 06:52 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (go_noles06 @ Sep 17 2007, 02:28 PM) |
| In addition, when I lost my job several years ago and had a toddler that needed healthcare, I applied for Medicaid and qualified. Even with my husband's median income. Luckily, I was able to find a job in a few months and therefore able to take care of my own family, never having to use the "taxpayer's money". |
What do you think Medicaid is?
elliottcrazy - September 17, 2007 07:33 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (leefromva @ Sep 16 2007, 04:17 PM) |
| It does seem to me that democrats are also being controlled by the hard left. Move On.Org seems to be calling the shots for the Democratic front runners. While universal health care sounds wonderful on the surface, you need to check countries that actually have it. You do not get the same kind of care nor do you get treated in some cases in a timely fashion. I hope not to get blasted for my views but I would like to see more Americans looking for ways to help themselves instead of expecting government which amounts to the taxpayers to take care of them. Thats not to say those that are truly in need do not need our help or those with physical and mental handicaps that restrict them from earning a living should not receive help. I wish there were programs in place to help people earning low incomes to be trained to improve their lives. Also one needs to look at the decisions that put them in the positions they find themselves in. Did they choose to finish their education or learn a trade? Did they have more children than they could afford to raise? I know I will be unpopular to the liberals on here but I do think everyone needs to make responsible decisions and be responsible for their actions. |
OMG..How can you SAY that about about Nationalized Healthcare!!! jeez..some people!! just kidding..LOL
speak your mind..it's fine.
Listen, I'm from England & was raised under the National Healthcare umbrella.
I think Socialized Medicine is a scary term for a lot of people over here....there's a lot of stigma attached.
National healthcare is not a 'perfect' system but it works. I think we could agree that the system America is currently working under isn't perfect either. So, in order to define what is working more than the other we must prioritize the most important issues that both systems successfully deal with & don't deal with.
At a most basic level..do all children qualify for healthcare in this country? The answer is no...as disgusting as it sounds it is the cold hard truth.
The wealthiest & most powerful country in the world is alone in the fact that it does not provide free healthcare to all of it's children up to the age of 18...(that is my personal min. rqmnt)...in England it's until you're dead. ..but I'm thinking baby steps for America.
In America under the current system a working class family or single parent is forced to make ridiculous choices..like whether or not to pay the electric bill or pay the $80 to get their sick child in the door at their local doctors office..that's before the prescription bill has been paid.
More importantly is it fair to the child who may end up with ear tubes from chronic ear infections that went untreated because of the almighty dollar? Children don't get a voice at all with this issue. ...& please don't say,
"well, their parents need to have health ins or should save"...or " we have medicaid & medicare in this country" ...talk about a pile of paperwork & income level rquirements & hoops & jumps...who wants to deal with all that malarkey with a screaming baby on your arm burning up with a 102 fever?
Children don't get to say how their household is run so how is it fair?
Anyway..that address's at the most basic level how this country's sytem is flawed.
In England the hospitals are not decorated to the hilt & fancy with pretty wallpaper with one bed private rooms..it is true. Though the healthcare you get is top knotch & as good as you will get here or anywhere.
It is true that there are waiting lists for certain operations that are not seen as urgent. Just routine operations & the like but over here in the States I've had to wait a month before getting in to see a specialist..so what's the difference?In England the waiting is simply a byproduct of a system that is funded by the people. Of course, there is less money for hospitals so collectively people sacrifice for the luxury of free healthcare. Nobody questions it though..it is a way of life & a small price to pay.
If you have appendicitus or something you are admitted immediately & treated accordingly. Emergency rooms are run exactly the same way as they are ran over here.
There is never any paperwork to fill out EVER..in fact, if you are a visitor to my country & G_d forbid you are hurt or fall ill during your stay...you would be admitted to the nearest hospital & treated with the same care as a British citizen..no bill..no paperwork..because with all the flaws that one might find in a democratic system.. England believes (& shares this belief with other countries), that it's first & fundamental obligation is to it's people & their health ...from the age of 0 to death.
Let me tell you from living on both sides of the Atlantic..it is priceless to have that 'peace of mind' when you are sick. ...to not have to worry about money when there are more important things to worry about.
It is true that doctors & nurses do not get paid as much money in England as they would in America for their skills & knowledge but they make a good living nonetheless. Again, it is another byproduct of a system funded by the people but another collective sacrifice made by the people for the sake of free healthcare. Are you getting it yet?
It is a moral issue...but a redundant one unfortunately. The insurance companies & pharmaceuticals have such a huge stake in American healthcare that it will never change. Politicians talk of a 'universal healthcare' but it's always some weak compromised version of it..so why bother?
Please don't think I'm bashing America..I love it here, I've made it my home & became an American citizen just over a year ago. I just wish some American people wouldn't view the notion of a National Healthcare system quite so harshly...there's really nothing to be scared of,,,honest.
Sorry..didn't mean to hijack the thread with my rant. Back to topic now.
go_noles06 - September 17, 2007 07:54 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (GraceStreet @ Sep 17 2007, 01:52 PM) | ||
What do you think Medicaid is? |
AGAIN, Medicaid is a healthcare system for the less fortunate, paid for by the taxpayers. It is already in place therefore, there is no need to have mandatory free healthcare for all costing billions of taxpayers $$$! And with certain Presidential candidates claiming to take away the Bush tax-cuts, I shutter to think of how taxed we will be with adding so-called "free health care".
I will work my hardest to insure quality healthcare for my family, before I will agree to get free "sub-standard" care.
elliottcrazy - September 17, 2007 08:00 PM (GMT)
yeah but let's be honest ...it's not a fair system. Many hard working families fall through the cracks..like those that don't fit the 'income level requirements ' & can't afford the health ins offered by their employer. In fact the poorest of the poor in America are doing better than low income working class families. That's where the system shows it's biggest flaw.
& what 'sub standard' care are you referring too?
& what 'sub standard' care are you referring too?
GraceStreet - September 17, 2007 08:27 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (go_noles06 @ Sep 17 2007, 03:54 PM) | ||||
AGAIN, Medicaid is a healthcare system for the less fortunate, paid for by the taxpayers. |
SoulMusicRocks - September 17, 2007 09:36 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (leefromva @ Sep 16 2007, 04:17 PM) |
| It does seem to me that democrats are also being controlled by the hard left. Move On.Org seems to be calling the shots for the Democratic front runners. While universal health care sounds wonderful on the surface, you need to check countries that actually have it. You do not get the same kind of care nor do you get treated in some cases in a timely fashion. I hope not to get blasted for my views but I would like to see more Americans looking for ways to help themselves instead of expecting government which amounts to the taxpayers to take care of them. Thats not to say those that are truly in need do not need our help or those with physical and mental handicaps that restrict them from earning a living should not receive help. I wish there were programs in place to help people earning low incomes to be trained to improve their lives. Also one needs to look at the decisions that put them in the positions they find themselves in. Did they choose to finish their education or learn a trade? Did they have more children than they could afford to raise? I know I will be unpopular to the liberals on here but I do think everyone needs to make responsible decisions and be responsible for their actions. |
You won't get "blasted for your views", but who ever said we would not debate? lol.
I can't speak for all "liberals", but I agree with your notion of personal responsibility. We should take charge of our life and do the best we can to promote the best mental and physical health we can. However, to make the government so weak that it can not provide quality healthcare, education, and energy/Environmental standards is imprudent in my eyes. Of course people should take responsibility for their actions, but I still feel that governmental interventions based in rational and common sense solutions to gigantic problems beyond personal responsibility (or lack thereof) is needed.
Sadly, our hopes as of late towards government in general has not been too good. The executive power has trumped the other 2 branches and our basic governmental principles dealing with internal checks and balances has been compromised. We, the people, give the power to politicians for our most profound decisions. It's time we take that personal responsibility seriously and elect leaders that hopefully RESTORE our faith in government rather than destroy it. That's why to me, 2008 is an opportunity.
elliottcrazy - September 17, 2007 09:49 PM (GMT)
I felt that way in 2004 & look what happened.
Politics is such today that whoever runs the most effective campaign will win the prize. I wish the issues & debates mattered but now even $$ runs the elective process.
Politics is such today that whoever runs the most effective campaign will win the prize. I wish the issues & debates mattered but now even $$ runs the elective process.
SoulMusicRocks - September 17, 2007 09:54 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (elliottcrazy @ Sep 17 2007, 04:49 PM) |
| I felt that way in 2004 & look what happened. Politics is such today that whoever runs the most effective campaign will win the prize. I wish the issues & debates mattered but now even $$ runs the elective process. |
Yeah, that is very true and very sad, Elliottcrazy. It's almost like we are just products to be bought.....vote wise I mean of course. Television will probably continue to be a powerful medium for attack ads and the like. 30 second commercials probably cost mucho denaro.
ElliottisTrueBlue - September 17, 2007 10:00 PM (GMT)
I changed my mind since I last posted. Gotta say it's Ron Paul. Obama's too inexperienced. But oh my lord, if it's Rudy vs. Hillary I don't think I will vote at all. Talk about the worst of the two evils.
So yeah, Ron Paul all the way
http://youtube.com/watch?v=R7JPvbVsDdY
So yeah, Ron Paul all the way
http://youtube.com/watch?v=R7JPvbVsDdY
elliottcrazy - September 18, 2007 02:31 AM (GMT)
How about Elliott Yamin for President? He could sing his way through the campaign with 'Movin On' .... then once elected sing his acceptance speech with 'I'm The Man'....bring peace to the Middle East with 'Find a Way'.... sing 'Alright' to no more tax cuts.....declare we are all 'Free' from losing our jobs to people overseas....& Jamie would make a real cute first lady.
SoulMusicRocks - September 18, 2007 07:37 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (elliottcrazy @ Sep 17 2007, 09:31 PM) |
| How about Elliott Yamin for President? He could sing his way through the campaign with 'Movin On' .... then once elected sing his acceptance speech with 'I'm The Man'....bring peace to the Middle East with 'Find a Way'.... sing 'Alright' to no more tax cuts.....declare we are all 'Free' from losing our jobs to people overseas....& Jamie would make a real cute first lady. |
LOL. I understand your frustration 100%. In the end, I hope people go for substance over image/personality. In a way, the presidential race kind of reminds me of AI. Pick the right song.....pick the right beliefs. Sing well or go home....raise enough money or go home. Get enough votes...well the comparisons could go on and on lol.
ElliottisTrueBlue - September 19, 2007 11:54 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (elliottcrazy @ Sep 17 2007, 09:31 PM) |
| How about Elliott Yamin for President? He could sing his way through the campaign with 'Movin On' .... then once elected sing his acceptance speech with 'I'm The Man'....bring peace to the Middle East with 'Find a Way'.... sing 'Alright' to no more tax cuts.....declare we are all 'Free' from losing our jobs to people overseas....& Jamie would make a real cute first lady. |
In a perfect world, the President and VP would be Peter Furler and Phil Joel. Too bad about that stupid must-be-American-born law.
Aw, who am I kidding, they are too real to be politicians :rotfl:
parsimmon - September 20, 2007 06:25 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (leefromva @ Sep 16 2007, 02:17 PM) |
| It does seem to me that democrats are also being controlled by the hard left. Move On.Org seems to be calling the shots for the Democratic front runners. While universal health care sounds wonderful on the surface, you need to check countries that actually have it. You do not get the same kind of care nor do you get treated in some cases in a timely fashion. I hope not to get blasted for my views but I would like to see more Americans looking for ways to help themselves instead of expecting government which amounts to the taxpayers to take care of them. Thats not to say those that are truly in need do not need our help or those with physical and mental handicaps that restrict them from earning a living should not receive help. I wish there were programs in place to help people earning low incomes to be trained to improve their lives. Also one needs to look at the decisions that put them in the positions they find themselves in. Did they choose to finish their education or learn a trade? Did they have more children than they could afford to raise? I know I will be unpopular to the liberals on here but I do think everyone needs to make responsible decisions and be responsible for their actions. |
Well, I know this makes me a kook...and I don't care. When I say the buying of the President..I speak for both parties. I certainly saw Carter and Clinton as manipulated as Bush, Reagan, and Ford. Reagan, fortunately, did not heed to TPTB in negotiating arms treaty. I don't know who runs this country, but I don't think it's we the people, the congress or the President. Maybe the Military-Industrial complex. Goldwater wrote in his book, With No Apologies, that the Trialteral Commission and whatever that was..it was so long ago that I read that book...was in control. He really scared me...he wrote this while Carter was President. Maybe he was nuts, but I always liked his honesty...and he gave me much to think about.