O'Reilly falsely suggested Obama has not outlined plans for confronting terrorism in Pakistan or paying for his health-care proposal
SUMMARY: On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly aired a portion of a speech in which Sen. Barack Obama said in part, "[T]here's never been anything false about hope." O'Reilly then stated: "Got it. Faith and charity are good, too. We love hope, faith, charity, all that. But that doesn't wipe out the Taliban inside Pakistan or pay for a trillion-dollar entitlement, universal health care." But contrary to O'Reilly's suggestion, Obama has outlined a strategy to combat terrorism in Pakistan and laid out how he plans to pay for his health-care proposal.
During the February 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly aired a portion of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) February 12 speech in which Obama said in part, "[T]here's never been anything false about hope." O'Reilly then stated: "Got it. Faith and charity are good, too. We love hope, faith, charity, all that. But that doesn't wipe out the Taliban inside Pakistan or pay for a trillion-dollar entitlement, universal health care." O'Reilly then urged Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to "[g]et real on tough issues. Get solutions that will benefit the entire country. With the primary season winding down, rhetoric should be replaced by creative solution." Later in the program, during an interview with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), O'Reilly asserted that Obama is "not getting micro into what he'd do with Pakistan or Iran or how he'd pay for the entitlement of universal health care. But the folks in America seem to be willing to say, 'We're going to give him a chance. We don't really care whether he has a lot of experience or if he spells out his platform.' " But contrary to O'Reilly's suggestion, Obama has outlined a strategy to combat terrorism in Pakistan and laid out how he plans to pay for his health-care proposal.
During an August 1, 2007, speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., Obama specifically addressed Pakistan's current role in the struggle against terrorism and its responsibilities in the future. Obama also addressed the U.S. diplomatic strategy in dealing with Pakistan. Concerning counterterrorism operations in Pakistan, Obama stated: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorists targets and President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will." Obama emphasized what he said was the need to make "hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional" on Pakistan's "mak[ing] substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan." On the topic of U.S. financial support to Pakistan, Obama also said: "As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope." Obama also stressed the need for electoral reform in Pakistan, stating: "[W]e must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally."
In a "Background Questions and Answers on Health Care Plan" document on his presidential campaign website, Obama details how he would pay for his health-care plan:
Q. How will we pay for the Obama plan?
A. The Obama plan will realize tremendous savings within the health care system to help finance the plan. The additional revenue needed to fund the up-front investments in technology and to help people who cannot afford health insurance is more than covered by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year, as they are scheduled to do.
Moreover, during the February 1 Democratic presidential debate in Los Angeles, Obama stated:
OBAMA: So I've already said a sizeable portion of my health care plan will be paid for because we emphasize savings. We invest in prevention.
So that as I said before, the chronically ill that account for 20 percent -- or the 20 percent of chronically ill patients that account for 80 percent of the costs, that they're getting better treatment. We are actually paying for a dietitian for people to lose weight as opposed to paying for the $30,000 foot amputation. That will save us money.
We can conservatively save...
(APPLAUSE)
... $100 billion to $150 billion a year under my plan. That pays for part of it.
Part of it is paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top one percent.
Despite complaining that the presidential candidates have not been laying out "specific solutions to difficult problems," when given the opportunity to interview Huckabee, O'Reilly did not ask a single policy question. Rather, O'Reilly asked Huckabee questions about the likelihood that he will be the vice presidential nominee, McCain's comments about Huckabee following the February 12 primaries, and his view of Obama's candidacy.
From Obama's August 1, 2007, address at the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C.:
It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.
The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
[...]
As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.
We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military -- it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.
Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.
Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.
This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It's a tough place.
But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.
As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.
From the February 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Now on to Senator Obama. After six months, I believe most Americans understand that hope is good.
OBAMA [video clip]: Some people will tell you that I've got my head in the clouds, that I am still offering false hopes, that I need a reality check, that I'm a hopemonger. But you know, it's true, my own story tells me that in the United States of America, there has never been anything false about hope.
O'REILLY: Got it. Faith and charity are good, too. We love hope, faith, charity, all that. But that doesn't wipe out the Taliban inside Pakistan or pay for a trillion-dollar entitlement, universal health care.
As with Senator McCain, the folks want specific solutions to difficult problems. How will illegal immigration be dealt with? What happens if Iran threatens Saudi Arabia after you pull American troops out of Iraq? That kind of thing.
Now call me crazy, but I'd like a president to put forth a health-care package that includes me not being blown up by Muslim killers currently hiding in Pakistan. File that under preventive medicine.
So the advice "Talking Points" is giving -- the love we are sharing, if you will -- is the same for both Obama and McCain. Get real on tough issues. Get solutions that will benefit the entire country. With the primary season winding down, rhetoric should be replaced by creative solution.
[...]
O'REILLY: Continuing now with our campaign '08 coverage, joining us now from Pewaukee, Wisconsin -- not Milwaukee, Pewaukee, primary state next Tuesday, as you know -- Governor Mike Huckabee.
So, you gave a little scare to John McCain last night in the -- you know, I think the ghost of [Rev.] Jerry Falwell might have helped you out in those counties in southwestern Virginia. But in the end, McCain is, you know, up big in delegates. And so what's your game plan now?
HUCKABEE: Well, we had a good night in the sense that we won everything outside the Beltway. We didn't think we'd win the Beltway. I mean, that's John McCain's territory, but we're winning the heartland, Bill. And that's why we're in Wisconsin. It's why we're going to compete here. Our game plan is to continue showing that people in places like Wisconsin and Texas and Ohio, they ought to have a choice, and they ought to have a voice. And the only way they can do that is have an election. If we have a coronation, they lose their voice, they lose their choice, so --
O'REILLY: OK. And, listen --
HUCKABEE: And we feel like that this needs to go forward.
O'REILLY: I think that's the American way. I think competition makes all of us better.
HUCKABEE: I agree.
O'REILLY: And people who are saying you should drop out should shove it. You know, as they say in Brooklyn. You have a right to stay in there. You're not going to win the nomination because of delegates and statistics. But certainly, your message is there. Now, John McCain was nice to you last night. I don't know whether you noticed, but he was very nice to you in his speech. And is this detente here? Are you guys now going to go fishing together? Or what's this all about?
HUCKABEE: I think the interesting thing, Bill, is that the two most civil campaigns in the Republican primary are the ones still on their feet. I'd like to believe it might maybe be the beginning of a different kind of politics, a politics that's more about civility and about talking about issues and making the contrast even where they're not a personal attack. We both carried our campaigns that way. I think it's a way people are frankly hungry for. I think it's also going to be a time to --
O'REILLY: All right, do you want to be VP? You want to be his VP? Is that --
HUCKABEE: No, I'm not interested in.
O'REILLY: No, you're going to say you're going to turn it down if they offer it to you?
HUCKABEE: It's like asking if you want to be the co-host for somebody else's show.
O'REILLY: No, that'd be impossible. I mean, I couldn't do that.
HUCKABEE: You want to be -- of course it would.
O'REILLY: Right.
HUCKABEE: Of course it would be impossible.
O'REILLY: But are you going to say right now on the air here, Governor, that you're not going to take that if offered?
HUCKABEE: Well, it's not being offered. And besides that, right now, the nomination, even though everybody says it's mathematically impossible, it may not happen that he gets all of the delegates that he needs to become the nominee prior to the convention. This thing could go to the convention.
O'REILLY: OK.
HUCKABEE: If it does, then I'll be there at the convention, trying to win the nomination there.
O'REILLY: You'll be there anyway, Governor. You and Chuck Norris will be there. Come on, we know you're going to be there.
HUCKABEE: You bet.
O'REILLY: All right, now --
HUCKABEE: Of course I'll be there.
O'REILLY: -- let's -- how do you -- what do you make of this Obama? Dick Morris just predicted he's going to win the nomination outright. Not going to go to the convention or any of that. What do you make of Obama? Why is he going to win? Looks like he's going to win 10 primaries in a row. Why?
HUCKABEE: Well, I think a lot of it is that people in this country want a new direction. The reason that I've ended up being on my feet longer than anyone thought is because I'm not a part of Washington. I'm not a part of the establishment. I think people are looking to the future, not the past. And they see in Obama the future, not the past. I think quite frankly, on many Republican fronts, people see me as part of a future and not part of the past.
O'REILLY: So you and Obama running as outsiders, you got fresh ideas. You're not beholden to the orthodoxy that a lot of people want to get away from. But it's undeniable that Barack Obama has run a campaign based on hope. We dealt with that at the top of the program. I mean, he's not getting micro into what he'd do with Pakistan or Iran or how he'd pay for the entitlement of universal health care. But the folks in America seem to be willing to say, "We're going to give him a chance. We don't really care whether he has a lot of experience or if he spells out his platform." Now, is that dangerous? Is it dangerous to give a guy the most powerful job in the world if you don't know what he's going to do?
HUCKABEE: Well, of course, it's dangerous. And that's why in the general election, we'll make sure that we sort out these issues. You know, somebody has to say are we going to play offense or defense when it comes to Al Qaeda? Somebody's got to say, will are our taxes go up or down? Are we going to help small business survive or are we going to kick them in the teeth? We have to understand. And these issues he won't be able to escape when we get in the general election. If he says we're going to give everybody health care, the next question, who's going to pay for it? And how much are we going to pay? And who's going to make the decisions about who your doctor is? Those are tough issues. You have to get down into the weeds when we get in the general election. So we can talk all we want in the generalities right now, but I promise you, whether it's John McCain or Mike Huckabee, whoever gets in that ultimate contest with the Democrat, there are going to be some serious discussions going on about the serious issues.
O'REILLY: Well, you'd have to. I mean, you have to go --
HUCKABEE: When you run for president, it's essentially putting a job application on the table.
O'REILLY: Right.
HUCKABEE: And you better fill in the blanks.
O'REILLY: You got --
HUCKABEE: You can't just put your name and address down and say, "That's it."
O'REILLY: The only chance the Republican Party has to beat a guy like that, who's that charismatic and that good on the stump, is to do policy and say, "Hey, look, here it is. Make your choice." Governor, we appreciate your time very much. Good luck to you.
"O'Reilly is constantly lying about Obama"
That's for sure. He does it regularly on his radio show too and belittles Obama's supporters by saying they are uninformed; that Obama is nothing much more than an emotional phenomenon which I guess would explain why O'Reilly said "what do you make of this Obama" like he a thing as opposed to a man.
O'Reilly really needs to pay better attention to what Obama has said and stop the spinning it as if Obama doesn't know what he's going to do. O'Reilly doesn't want Obama for President so he only hears what he wants to hear and ignores the rest. If MM can find out Obama's stance on Pakistan and healthcare, then O'Reilly and his crack team of researchers should have been able to find it too. Instead he misleads his audience to make Obama look bad.
He chastised the media (the "liberal" media, of course) by predicting that they would go after McCain and "cut his throat". It rather looks like O'Reilly is starting to do his part to start the cutting of Obama's throat.
When did O'Reilly start repeating taking points from the Clinton campaign? ; )
But seriously, this (O'Reilly) is yet another GOP loyalist afraid of the grassroots movement an authentic liberal can stir-up.
Is it a talking point if Obama's own strategist admits that they don't talk policy and substance? One of his advisors was on public radio yeateday and was asked about the critisism of lack of substacne and policy in Obama's speeches. He explained that detail was boring and the crowds that go to hear Obama aren't interested in that type of detail. He said for example all they care is he has a healthcare plan and they don't care about the details just that he has one. I think it is upsetting that there strategy is based on the assumption that people don't want or need or understand details about what they will do if elected but rather just want an entertaining speech. His strategist pointed out how the exciting rock stars and celebrities that opened for an Al Gore speech excited the crowd but then Al Gore got up and talked about policy and bored them to tears. It may be a winning strategy but as a person who believes in thinking for herself I find it insulting.
That Obama supporter didn't state that the substance didn't exist, just that detail isn't cited in speeches. It's not exactly surprising that policy detail doesn't make it very far into speeches at political rallies. That's not what most attendees come for. It's also pretty common with all candidates.
Go to his website and you can find details. If you find that what's published there is lacking in substance you have a legitimate gripe. I don't think Obama is worse than any other candidate as far as dealing with policy issues in generalities in rally speeches.
I agree with you with regard to what I'd like to hear in a political speech. However, I've come to accept that the level of substance you and I would like to hear will cause the eyes of many others to glaze over. I have gone to Obama's website and am satisfied that there is some substance to his proposals. I will also agree that Clinton has more to hers.
I've watched video of a couple of Clinton's speeches and I can't say I heard a lot more detailed proposals during them than I did with Obama's. Some, but not a lot. In general, I've satisfied myself that I could support either candidate in the general election. I could rattle off a couple dozen reasons pro and con for each of them, but on balance I've tilted slightly toward Obama.
I also think that Roundhouse's comment was just a friendly poke, not a nasty stab. He used the winky face and began the next sentence with "But seriously" clearly indicating he was joking around. You seemed to take him pretty seriously.
I'm human, I'm a jerk.
Bill, I have said before I will vote for Obama if he is the nominee because I think we need a party change in order to fix some of what needs fixing. However, I honestly cannot say I am confident or secure that he is a good choice or that I don't have some reservations about his judgement. I also think there are pluses and minuses to the issue of how each will do in a general. I am also not saying I agree with all of Clinton's positions 100% just that her thinking lines up closer to mine.
BTW, I don't think just putting a smily or winky face at the end of swipe makes it above critisism. It was a swipe...he was calling it a Clinton talking point thast BO was promoting...sorry I guess I have to work harder to see what is funny about the claim. It was a gratuitious swipe at the candidate that opposes his chosen one. I called him on it...he freaked out. To quote Round: Whatever. If you want to explain to me what was funny about it I am willing to listen but I find the position that it wasn't a swipe at Clinton and immune from critique a little far fetched. I didn't attack anyone in my response I simply explained why I did not agree it was a talking point but rather a legitimate critique.
And his advisor is right, he has learned well the lessons of cognitive science. 98% of the population make their choices based on gut feeling, not careful consideration of the facts. So go ahead and be insulted because the Obama team knows how to win. Be insulted that Obama inspires, while Hillary recites numbers from lists. I don't really care because if you want specifics, you can get them yourself.
Sorry to be a jerk, I just don't cotton to folks who minimize the repugnance of the likes of Bill O'.
You're being overly sensitive and reactionary.
My comment about Clinton talking points was made in jest. Go find a sense of humor while I go find a ladder to get over myself.
"When did O'Reilly start repeating taking points from the Clinton campaign?"
If you thought that the Clinton campaign attacked Mr. Obama, about "hope" or anything else, or if you'd characterize it any other way, like that they criticized or ridiculed him (which only means that you listened to and believed the amplified "media's" drumbeat to that tune)...
If you truly thought that, then brother are you in for a shock and a course correction, should Mr. Obama win the nomination, and face the Republican Noise Machine.
The above item cites a criticism or ridicule of Mr. Obama, by the bufoon o'reilly, that is probably more severe than anything Sen. Clinton, or her husband or any other person campaigning for her, has said against Mr. Obama, about "hope" or anything else... maybe twice as severe.
But it's only ONE TENTH as severe... nay, ONE HUNDREDTH as severe! as the ridicule the Republican Noise Machine shall hurl, at "hope" or any other insubstantial part of Mr. Obama's appeal so far, with so many voters...
The above item contains just a sneak preview really, as it contrasts the rhetoric of "hope", with the responsibilities of dealing with National Security.
I repent.
I'm Sorry.
But is it not interesting that Bill Clinton gave a speech yesterday about solutions trumping rhetoric and then along comes BO talking about solutions vs. rhetoric?
Hey, now I see why you are an Obama supporter...you love spewing empty rhetoric that lacks any substance just like Obama (-; Gosh this jokey stuff is so much fun. (-: (-;
You know I still got much love for ya LL. We disagree on what is and isn't funny and our politics are a smidge different, but that pales in comparison to the big picture things we agree on.
How's this? If we can't say nice things to each other, let's say nothing at all. Just for a little while, maybe? A time out?
So long as we can work pull the best out of each other and not the worst, I'm all for sparring.
It was amusing because there was some similarity between O'Reilly's comments and some comments from the Clinton campaign. Not completely analogous, but not totally dissimilar.
Clinton in recent speeches: "There's a big difference between us -- speeches versus solutions, talk versus action," and "I am in the solutions business. My opponent is in the promises business."
An offhand joke, very clearly identified as such, should only have been seen as an attack by the oversensitive. Individuals might or might not find it amusing, but as a clear (and relatively mild) joke it should have been accepted as such.
I'm surprised. Nothing apologetic or even resembling it is required, as my comment was not intended in any way as a defense of anyone associated with the Clinton campaign.
It was a brief enough comment, and re-reading myself I can still see easily what I meant, even if it was mistaken for a defense of Mrs. Clinton's campaign.
I'm pointing how Brother you ain't seen nothin' yet! as to how the Republican Noise Machine is going to rake over this mostly a mystery to us young man, Sen. Obama, should he stand against them in the General Election.
You think Mr. Obama has been attacked so far, on the insubstantial matter of "hope" or on anything else so far?
Brother, you better fasten your seatbelt, because you and Mr. Obama are in for one wild ride (and we haven't even seen the "coke" card played yet, and if you don't like me saying that word here, I'd point out the young man's own admission, and also the way the Republican Noise Machine plays politics... because they're going to do a lot more than just say the word, believe me).
The thing is, this is OUR democracy, Our government and most importantly, at this moment, this OUR campaign. So we need to get active.
We can't expect the Republican thugs to refrain from smearing the left in the campaign. It's what they do, it's who they are. But it's going to be up to us, the grassroots and netroots, to help the nominee slobberknock the slime machine when it rears it's stupid, authoritarian head.
See this heroic individual jive is mere myth. Our candidate will need our help at every turn. It'll take a village, it'll take a movement to take the country back.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
O'REILLY: Got it. Faith and charity are good, too. We love hope, faith, charity, all that. But that doesn't wipe out the Taliban inside Pakistan or pay for a trillion-dollar entitlement, universal health care.
Am I alone, but did he just quote the assumed cost of universal health care as the same as the low estimate of the cost of Iraq occupation??
O'REILLY: "Now call me crazy,"
As does his doctor!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
The moral of the story is:
"Don't put the talking point before the horse."
er..
"Don't put the cart before the talking point."
or...
LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP BILL! DO YOU EVEN TRY TO SEE IF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS TRUE?
The national IOU, that is.
For all your lovers of fine cinema:
"Those are IOU's sir. Every penny's accounted for. See here, the car? Two-hundred seventy-five thou. I'd hang on to that one if I were you."
*snicker* fine cinema...
I will admit I love that movie though.
Mock, si, ing, si, bird, si, si, si.
We are actually paying for a dietitian for people to lose weight as opposed to paying for the $30,000 foot amputation. That will save us money.
Sounds like a plan ::eye roll:
Such naivety. And do we pay for the Diet Police to make sure fatso follows the Dietitian's plan we paid for? And if that doesn't work do we pay to send fatso to a Diet Camp? And if that still doesn't work do we offer Universal Life Insurance to pay for fatso's funeral with a little left over for their family?
Ok I'm being sarcastic of course, but I would rather we get to the core of the problem, which is health care costs & find a way to clean up the waste & lower private insurance costs than put a band aid on the problem with some pie in the sky Universal Health care scheme that will end up costing more & probably offer less.
I think giving private insurers some viable, well-managed, non-profit competition is the only way out of this mess. When private insurers are faced with an competing insurer that has much lower overhead because they don't maintain a corporate skyscraper with gold-plated executive washrooms and CEO's with multi-million dollar salaries, they will start to find ways to start cutting costs to compete.
Hopefully, private insurers will discover that they can provide more coverage for less money and deny less claims when they hire a CEO willing to work for less money and make due without the corporate jumbo jet and chauffeured BMW.
Of course Medicare denies claims, but I think the differences roll back to the differences I stated before..
I could be wrong, but as a non-profit government entity, doesn't Medicare's denial of claims hinge on the amount of revenue it receives and the fact that it's perpetually strapped for cash?
Private insurers, however, have the luxury of denying claims to protect profit for shareholders, pay the wealthy CEO, operate and maintain the corporate jumbo jet, and outfit the executive washroom with gold fixtures.
If you don't include providers as part of the proposed solution then your not really solving the problem.
Forced listening to Rosanne's national anthem? Hunting trip with Cheney? Her portfolio converted entirely into GM stock?
Hey LostLogic :-)
When I read your post I had a deja vu. I feel like we had this discussion or something very similar awhile back & I was totally against the government getting involved but you were able to convince me that Universal Healthcare was workable. Though I don't think we were calling it Universal back then.
I've briefly read some info on both Hillarycare & Obamacare and while the concept of what they'd like to achieve sounds good I'm still not convinced either one has truly figured out how to pay for it.
Now I gotta be honest here. I haven't put a great deal of time into this. I happen to have an excellent insurance plan [if I told you, you'd hate me] so it hasn't been a burning issue for me personally. Now before someone out there accuses me of being a typical selfish Conservative, I do believe healthcare costs have to be reigned in, and while I'd still rather see the private sector rather than government handle it, if someone can show me that one of these Universal healthcare plans is really workable & won't cost billions I'll get on board. You seem to be on top of this subject, so I'll keep track of whatever you think about it. I do agree with you about mandatory participation. Without that I don't see the point of even having a Universal program.
I guess that's based on the fact that every other first world county that provides universal healthcare are such utter failures?
Have any of you seen this video of an interviwer trying to trip up an Obama supporter?
Carn, thanx, great link. That man was locked and loaded.And to the interviewer's credit, although he went in with the textbook media agenda, he stuck it out and didn't cut the tape.
This is the technique that Sean Hannity and a lot of the other righty talkers are using to back up their "nothing there" characterization of Obama- find an average citizen with a real life, and start hammering them on the spot for specific details. I'll readily admit, if somebody caught me after 9 or 10 hours at work and started asking for specific policy positions or career accomplishments, I might blank out.
I notice there isn't so much pressure on McCain (nor was there on Mittens. Huckleberry, Rudy...) or their supporters to go into microscopic detail of their plans. A little flag-waving andscary terrorist talk seemed to appease the media when the Repubes were in the lights.
Derrick/ Derek, whoever you are, thanks for being in that spot at that time, for paying attention, and for being so damned polite to that interviewer who was obviously very surprised that his scheme didn't work out like he planned it would.
I don't see O' Bomba having any problems at all convincing the Pakistanis to change their entire educational system to comport with the US Presidents wishes along with the template constructed over the last 2000 years of tribal governance in the remote areas of the country. Shoot! Should be able to get this done in the first 30 days in office.