• You may have me on that Texson1986, because as you know
    perception is everything in politics.

    Never let it be said I did not give it the old college try. Lol
    While it is true about the Reagan Democrats, it is hard to compare the
    different times. Reagan like Ollie North, got away with lying to
    congress during Iran-Contra hearings.

    Now my case for Bill Clinton
    (1) Passed two major pieces of legislation like NAFTA & Welfare Reform
    and still maintained high approval ratings among Dems.
    (2)Got impeached and still maintained high national approval ratings.
    My point , He was tested to the max and came out on top.
    He maintains those high national approval ratings.
    (3) He crossed racial lines and got support.

    November 3, 2007 at 10:47 a.m.

  •  I had to weigh in on this one mike. While I think Clinton could sale Raid to Roaches I do not think he was the greatest Politician in history. I think that distinction goes to Ronald Wilson Reagan. I have never heard of any one referred to as a Clinton Republican, but millions referred to themselves as Reagan Democrats.

    Clinton was able to solidly galvanize the Democratic party behind him but never did so well with Republicans. Reagan was not called the great communicator for nothing. Even as a kid I was mesmerized by Reagan's speeches.  I could see that Shining City on the hill as he described it.

    I get so mad every time the likes of Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani invoke his name in the debates. These two sob's are not fit to carry his jock strap let alone his legacy! I by no means agree with everything Reagan did, but I believe with all my heart he did what he thought was best for America.


    November 3, 2007 at 6:50 a.m.

  • mary ann got  me started on a subject that is near and dear to me. Health Care ,although I am retired and have good coverage
    I feel for many of friends who either don't have health insurance or theirs is inadaquate.
    Along those lines the GOP front runner Rudy Giuliani is distored facts. This is too important.
    Giuliani falsely claims that only 44 percent of prostate cancer patients survive under "socialized medicine" in England.

    Rudy Giuliani's latest radio ad, which began airing in New Hampshire this week, draws a stark picture for anyone diagnosed with prostate cancer in England. "I had prostate cancer, five, six years ago," the Republican presidential candidate says in the ad. "My chance of surviving prostate cancer, and thank God I was cured of it, in the United States, 82 percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England, only 44 percent under socialized medicine.”

    Giuliani is wrong about that. Fortunately for the English, their chances of surviving prostate cancer are far better than Giuliani claims: The actual five-year survival rate is 74.4 percent, according to the United Kingdom's Office of National Statistics. Even those in the U.S. have a better chance than what Giuliani states: The five-year survival rate is 98.4 percent in this country, according to the National Cancer Institute. (Furthermore, Milton Eisner, a statistician with the SEER program of NCI, which compiles these numbers, warns that the two countries’ statistics are “probably not comparable because they’re not done on the same scale.”)

    Giuliani's central argument is that if the Democrats have their way, the public’s health is in danger. As we've noted, that's simply not supported by the bogus statistic he gives as evidence. There is, however, ample evidence that lack of health insurance is hazardous to an individual's health, and that those who do have coverage (as Giuliani did as mayor) live longer.

    Rudy's plan

    What we need to do is to give people a $15,000 deduction for a family, a $7500 deduction for an individual so they can go out and by their own health insurance.
    If we do that, and we end up with a market of 50, 60 million Americans buying their own health insurance, without a mandate, the cost of health insurance will come down and the quality will come up.

    Rudy's plan is based on assumptions.

    November 2, 2007 at 2:44 p.m.

  • Hello Sanwichh
    I see you got most of your name-calling done in the first

    On a serious note I wish she would be more transparent and not be like the
    current administration. How can I be angry over all the secrecy going
    on in this administration if she is going to be status quo.

    I agree Bill Clinton is probably the greatest politician of all time and
    she lacks the charisma. The late Gerald Ford said “Bill Clinton could
    sell three day old ice”. To this day Newt Gingrich calls him a master
    politician. But come on Ron; look at the candidates that will compete
    against her for president.

    You really need to look at Romney plan in Mass. It has the details.

    All I can tell you Ron, you need to go down to Georgia and convince
    Zell Miller to run… He is a Republican in Democrats clothing. Lol

    Thanks for responding.

    November 2, 2007 at 2:14 p.m.

  • Hello mary ann thank you for your response.
    Her plan will probably be modified in congress but I view several fact checking sites and I paste them as FAVORITES.
    This is a quote from one of them.
    According to MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, who advised Romney on his health care reform law and has also advised Clinton, the Massachusetts law has a lot in common with the Clinton plan. Both plans mandate universal health care coverage and subsidize health care for people on low incomes. The main difference is that Clinton's proposal permits people to switch to a Medicare-type plan and increases taxes at higher income levels.
    Contrary to claims by Romney and other Republicans, the Clinton plan does not force Americans to accept "government insurance." It offers people a choice. If they are happy with their present health plan, they can keep it. Otherwise, they can switch to the plans offered to members of Congress, or a government-run plan similar to Medicare.
    The Pinocchio Test
    The claim that "Hillary care" is tantamount to "socialized medicine" does not stand up to serious examination. The Clinton health care plan has more in common with the Massachusetts plan signed into law by Governor Mitt Romney than the British National Health system. We award three Pinocchios to Romney.
    If you recall I touted Romney's health care plan for the state of Massachusetts last year.

    November 2, 2007 at 11:46 a.m.

  • Hey, Mike, glad you have your blog.

    I think Hillary will be pillaged because of her health care plan. I heard Neal Bortz going to town with how Hillary's plan will put us in the same boat as the Brits and their National Health Care System.
    I have a sister-in-law from England, and she had horror stories of 25 years ago and what was going on over in England with health care. If you relied on the government, you had to WAIT very often, or if you were OLD, you were told that care was rationed.  BUT if you had the bucks and wanted to pay out of your own pocket, you could get your operation/consultation right away.

    What do you think about this issue?

    November 2, 2007 at 11:13 a.m.