Re: Romney - WTG America

Way to go red! And here I was afraid that you guys weren't thinking all the way straight. The guy who once called himself a gay and abortion rights advocate, then ran on an "I'm the most conservative platform" and tried to get in with the gun totin' good ol' boys, announced that he is suspending his campaign today.

Be it for his "flip-flopping" on issues, or perhaps that the Republican base saw him for what he was, a suit, I'm still proud of them. Honestly, the guy lost me at "the drug companies are not bad guys and are helping people". The argument of free market trade justifying the high cost of pharmaceuticals is usually trotted out here, but let my naivety shine here for a second, aren't there many people out there not getting the drugs because they cannot afford healthcare altogether? I am not an economist by any stretch, but expanding your customer base, via a more affordable (or even free single payer) system, and perhaps lower cost of medicine. It sounds like the industry as a whole is engaging in profiteering, and Romney being a peer of such people worried me a great deal.

Side note: I may have mentioned that I am a fan of the idea of a single payer system. Opponents of such a system usually start calling foul by accusing you of being a socialist (which I wouldn't find at all offensive). I read this over at Onegoodmove.org, who found it on OurFuture.org

To that end, here's the first of a two-part series aimed at busting the common myths Americans routinely tell each other about Canadian health care. When the right-wing hysterics drag out these hoary old bogeymen, this time, we need to be armed and ready to blast them into straw. Because, mostly, straw is all they're made of.

1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."
False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly for the state. In Canada (and many other countries with universal care), doctors run their own private practices, just like they do in the US. The only difference is that every doctor deals with one insurer, instead of 150. And that insurer is the provincial government, which is accountable to the legislature and the voters if the quality of coverage is allowed to slide.

The proper term for this is "single-payer insurance." In talking to Americans about it, the better phrase is "Medicare for all."
Source

Back on topic, now we are left with McCain, Huckabee, and Ron Paul. I'll save my thoughts on the three for later, but as it is, I suppose you might say I am pleased with how the GOP race is going.

EDIT: I totally forgot to mention. On his way out, he said:

And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror...

Nice. Equating the election of a Democrat to office with surrendering to terrorists. Typical.

I'm sorry John Edwards.

What he said.

It is a sad day. It's proposterous to say that I, personally, had not done enough, but it does carry a sting that announcements of Edwards suspending his candidacy appear the day after I post my own endorsement. I am now left to take a harder look at Obama, see what Hillary does next, and hope that Huckabee and Romney don't win their own tickets.

Good news is that Giuliani has dropped and supports McCain. As much as I'd like for a bad candidate to be setup to take the fall against Clinton or Obama, the chimp in office has me hoping for someone with some qualification, just in case.

Now we'll see what Edwards does next. He's still legally allowed to accept campaing contributions, and he has delegates that he has won in the previous primaries that could go to Obama or Clinton. There is also the possibility of him endorsing or even joining Clinton or Obama's ticket, though I'm not sure how I would feel about that.

In other news, it is an all around crap day. The girlfriend is mad at me (my fault), and I may have boned my BIOS, two days before a LAN party. Let's hope for better fortune in trying to fix those problems.

Tell Your Mom and Your Friends to Vote For Edwards

I've been putting off this post on account of it being some pretty serious subject material, and I'd prefer to have some research behind me on the subject before I put any thoughts in writing. That and I'm a lazy bastard, but you all knew that. But in the interst of giving my readership something to read, I'm going to put down what, admittedly little, I know. For these primaries, it's best for you to sponge everything, no matter how insignificant.

I've become a bit of a die hard John Edwards supporter. As a lefty, of course I'm going to get behind the most populist candidate, and in this race, it's Edwards, bar none. More on that shortly.

One "critiscm" of Edwards, if you can call it that, is the perception that he's already lost. Alright, I'll concede that he hasn't had much success in the first few states, and certainly the media coverage has all but ignored him. In a way, I believe the media is to blame for that false perception. The media thrives on conflict and drama, so when you have stable and steady Edwards on the one hand, they shift all attention to the bickering between Obama and Clinton. To me, I imagine it as a cycle. Give Edwards more coverage, allow him to get his message out, and he'll find more success. I realize that as usual, that is naive of me to hope for, but I truly believe that if people were to look beyond the drama, the glamour, and the tendency to turn these things into two person horse races, that everyone with any kind of populist leanings would be amazed that they hadn't seen it sooner.

I'm not going to go much into specifics about his views on the various issues, mainly because I don't remember specifics. The specifics that I've heard I liked, however, all I need to know is that Edwards has more mandate to call himself a candidate of the people than Obama or Clinton. The fact that he is funding his campaign through Public Campaign Financing is a loud enough gesture alone to tell me that he is anti-corporate and anti-special interest. If elected, the only ones he'll owe favours to is to the public who spent their money to support him. Sure, a cynic might call it a gimick, or suggest that he's taken soft money, but the disadvantage that he has put himself at in an effort to send a message speaks volumes.

Other reasons, he's been good at putting out specific plans out first out of the three, which indicates some balls if you ask me. His policies ere on wresting the power away from the corporations and special interset groups and putting it back in the hands of the people.

What about Obama you ask? Amazing speaker, sounds very sincere, certainly the most charismatic of the three, but I'm still not sure that he speaks to the lefty. He seems to be targetting independents, which makes me wonder about him being a champion of the left. With all the talk of bitaristanship though, that will probably be what gets him elected if he gets on the ticket. He still has to get through that whole Rezko business that I'm sure the media will jump all over in due time. And you guys already know of my thoughs on Hillary, with that shameful tear (shameful in it's insincerity), and seemingly calculated nature. I will admit tho, I have less ire towards her than before.

In conclusion, please, read up on Edwards. Check out his site. He has everything up there, from his stances on the issues to how you can help the campaign, and believe me, now is the time to lend him a hand (I've givin him some cash myself, something I have never done, hell, not even the local PBS station has gotten money from me yet). I wanted to get this out before Super Tuesday (Feb. 5), with the hope that you might find it within you to act. If you know anyone living in one of the Super Tuesday states, or you yourself live in one, spread the word and get out to vote. It is a critical time for Edwards, and we cannot let him die out.

If you haven't registered to vote yet, you are officially a nub.

Why I Don't Like Hillary

If you have taken the time to talk politics with me recently, you will find out that I have some weird ire against poor Hillary. I really haven't sat down and thought about why, but since some people have asked, I'll try to put it down in writing.

Let's talk issues. But let me put out a disclaimer of sorts. I am an optimist, and idealist, and I'm pretty sure that I am naive to a large degree. That said, let's continue.

First thing that comes to my mind is health care. Okay, we've all seen the Michael Moore movie, but all that did was add some potent fuel to the fire of the debate. As Lonk will tellya, I'm a commie pinko lefty, and what Sicko pointed out to me was that you can entrust certain spheres of society to a socialist type system. Moore used the example of our education system as evidence of this notion. Granted, we aren't doing too hot on that front as a country, but I attribute that to bad policy based on little or no research. WTG high stakes testing. I could go on about education, but the subject would become a post in itself. I am in favour of some state run healthcare, so naturally I would get behind a candidate that is looking to toss our current 3rd party healthcare system. Sadly, out of my favourite candidates, only Kucinich seems to be all about removing them from the equation. By the way, I do like how the fear mongers are equating the word "universal" with "socialist". They are not necessarily one in the same. All that "universal" implies is that everyone gets healthcare, no matter what the system. Anyway, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. From her site:

Unlike the current health system where insurance premiums send people into bankruptcy, the plan provides tax credits for working families to help them cover their costs. The tax credits will ensure that working families never have to pay more than a limited percentage of their income for health care.

WTF. Nothing is said about fixing our current problems with insurance companies. Such a plan would pretty much let a 3rd party, a profit driven enterprise, continue to have a say in YOUR healthcare. And this is from the former champion of healthcare reform. Ugh.

The Iraq such as and. I really can't say much about it. As far as this issue goes, what's done is done, and while I'd like nothing more than to get our boys out of there, I realize that this is a case of "we've made our bed, now lay in it". By the way, and this may be misinformed naivety talking again, but it seems to me that the place is heading towards a partition. Anyway, I agree that talk about immediate pull out is not only a bad idea, it is unjust. I've heard of Iraqis prefering a US presence over a pull out on account of them holding back sectarian violence against them. At least she is not making unrealistic promises. Note, she voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Of the top 3 candidates, only Obama voted against it. Minus 10 points for putting politics before common sense, because, c'mon, she's a smart lady, she had to have seen the forest for the trees.

I could carry on about the issues, but really, it comes down to one thing. While talking to ALX, I saw the source of my negativity. What it comes down to, is that I am so utterly DISAPPOINTED at Hillary's "selling out". Sometime between her days as First Lady, where she caved to the insurance companies, and now, she became a corporate Democrat. And as a commie pinko, you can imagine how much I LOVE corporations. She sat in the Senate Armed Services Committee, lot of good she did there. In ALX's words, she thinks inside the box.

Little Bitty was disappointed about my ire for Hillary, and you know what, I'm disappointed too. She could have been such an awesome progressive candidate, and it makes me angry that such potential has been squandered. Does that make sense?

Sort of off topic.
WHY IS EDWARDS 3RD!? Fix it thx.