At 29%, Mr. Bush is looking mighty good compared to the liberal democrat-controlled Congress of Pelosi, Murtha, Schumer, Kennedy and Reid.

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/usa/story.php?id=392538

Demos...how low can you go?

Herb

Well, most likely we will know after the next election. Boy what a crap shoot this one is gonna be.

For the 22nd time, the approval rating is of Congress, who is comprised of BOTH Democrats and Republicans. Bush's rating is his alone. So, along with the Dems, the current Republicans are at 11% as well, and since the GOP has many more seats to defend in the Senate in 2008, I'd say this doesn't bode well for the GOP.

Like I've said before, the low rating Congress has is due to the fact that they are not doing what the public wants in Iraq. So, as long as the GOP continues to support Iraq and hold back the wishes of the voters, they will find votes hard to come by. Mark my words.

>>>"are not doing what the public wants in Iraq."

So, what is it they want in Iraq?

How about we do the Jackson Five here?

Should be easy as 1, 2, 3!!

"...the approval rating is of Congress, who is comprised of BOTH Democrats and Republicans."

You left out one key element.

Congress, remember, went in a so-called 'landslide' for the left. Now these liberal democrats can't even legislate themselves out of a paper bag. And they're going to lead the country in 2008? To paraphrase Trixter:

HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And to paraphrase Don Henley: "All you want to do is dance, dance, dance." Given the left's lackluster record, I can't blame you.

Spin on.

Herb

Stop!!!!
The Love You Save May be Your Own!

Congressional ratings, tend to be very skewed, because most people think Congress as a group is bad, but their individual congressman is doing a great job.

If you do a poll in individual districts of their congressman. then average out all 535 ratings, it would be over 50%.

Its only when you take a poll on congress as a whole, that it gets bad ratings.

Everyone has the same President, so a presidential poll tends to be more accurate. That said, a national presidential poll also has problems, in that there is a lot of anti government sentiment, that perculates th

What exactly does Don Henley have to do with the Jackson Five, HerrB?

Uh...Uh....pick me Mrs. Kotter....uh...I know....Dirty Laundry!!!!!!

"What exactly does Don Henley have to do with the Jackson Five, HerrB?"

I expected a smarmy retort from you.
You rarely disappoint.

Herb

So-called landslide? The GOP gave up 6 senate seats and 30 house seats. No Republican captured any House, Senate, or Gubernatorial seat previously held by a Democrat. Maybe not a landslide as Stevie Nicks sings about, but still a pretty solid thumping. Not to mention Democrats gained over 300 seats in state legislatures and 6 governors. The GOP saw gains in NOTHING.

Deane, the majority of Americans want an end to the war in Iraq. Bush and the Republican members of Congress are ignoring this request. They will be reminded of this in 2008 when more of them get removed from office.

You've been listening to too much Aerosmith:

Dream on.

Herb

The only dreaming going on here is from you thinking the GOP has any chance in hell of gaining anything in 2008. You can call it faith as George Michael might, I call it a bad bet.

Herb said: "Dream on"

Speaking of Dreams....

in 1992 there was a biography of the Jackson Five entitled "The Jacksons: An American Dream"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104541/

I can hear the news reports now:

'Democrats at 11% and sinking fast...film at 11.'

Herb

Hey Amus, you and I must make a pact. We must bring salvation back. Where there is a chance to hijack a thread with Jackson Five lyrics, I'll Be There.

"I can hear the news reports now:..."

Herb, you've been told to ignore the voices in your head. Look at me...LOOK at me, Herb. They are not real. Remember that, they are only FAUX voices, not real. We are your friends here, Herb. Not the voices....

Actually, you're right and I'm mistaken, Edselehr.

It's virtually impossible for our democrat-controlled congress to any sink lower than their current 11% nadir.

Republicans to the rescue!

Herbert Walker Bush Nixon

Herbster, Congress is unpopular because it is not ending this war fast enough (people have given up on believing W. is ever going to try and end this war).

Sounds like you believe a GOP-controlled congress could end it faster. Please explain your thinking here.

>>>"Deane, the majority of Americans want an end to the war in Iraq."

And how is it they want it ended? What are the steps they want taken?

Again, since this is about the 4th time Herb has posted this same topic with the same information;

I'm surprised they have 11% in favor. Who are these people that are happy with how things are going?

Deane, a start would be for Congress to say:

"Iraq, you have 6 months to get your shit together otherwise we are out of here and you're on your own".

Instead, Bush tells us it's an open ended commitment with no end in sight, and the shameful members of the GOP continue to support a failed policy.

Trust me, when the GOP has less than 40 members in the Senate, things will change.

Here's an example of why the GOP will lose Sentate seats in 2008 (notice some Republicans with tough re-elections coming up did vote for it:

WASHINGTON - The Senate blocked legislation Wednesday that would have regulated the amount of time troops spent in combat, a blow for Democrats struggling to challenge President Bush’s Iraq policies.

The 56-44 vote was four votes short of reaching the 60 needed to cut off debate. It was the second time in as many months that the bill, sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., was sidetracked. In July, a similar measure fell four votes short of advancing.

Failure of the bill was a sound defeat for Democrats, who have been unable to pass significant anti-war legislation by a veto-proof majority since taking control of Congress in January. Webb’s measure was seen as having the best chance at attracting the 60 votes needed to pass because of its pro-military premise.

The bill would have required that troops spend as much time at home training with their units as they spend deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Members of the National Guard or Reserve would be guaranteed three years at home before being sent back.

Most Army soldiers now spend about 15 months in combat with 12 months home.

“I think it’s very important that we just put a safety net under our troops,” said Webb, a Vietnam veteran and former Navy secretary.

The bill attracted three dozen co-sponsors, including Republicans Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Gordon Smith of Oregon. In July, a similar measure fell just shy of the 60 needed to advance and additional Republicans said they were considering it.

But momentum behind the bill stalled Wednesday after Sen. John Warner, R-Va., announced he decided the consequences would be disastrous. Warner, a former longtime chairman of the Armed Services Committee, had voted in favor of the measure in July but said he changed his mind after talking to senior military officials.

Without more Republican support, Democrats are unlikely to pass other war-related measures.

That's the problem with the left. Never taking responsibility. They control Congress, yet it's still always blame Mr. Bush. Pathetic, and with 11% approval the public sees right through the democrat party's impotent whining.

If and when the democrats ever commence to become a national party once more, it will interesting to see how on earth they could ever lead without the bogeyman of Mr. Bush to blame.

Herb

Herr Herb....
In making that statement I stated TRUTH... But Congress is made up of both the House and the Senate correct??? And in both those sides of Government their are both Republicans and Democrats correct? So 11% would be the WHOLE of Congress correct???
DUHbya get's a great big D- all by himself...... And the minus is for The DICKster. And YES I do agree that the Dems are not running CONgress any better than the Republicans. Either side will run CONgress into the shitter.

Fact is the GOP is the filibuster to block the legislation, that one of the reasons that the rating is so low.

Republican Filibusters

Herb, what part of 60 votes do you not get? The Democrats have a slim majority, but DO NOT control the Senate. If they did, the Iraq war would on it's way to being ended and Bush would have been impeached.

And, how many of the 44 who voted against the bill are members of the GOP and are up for re-election in 2008?? How many Herb??

Vit said>>>
how many of the 44 who voted against the bill are members of the GOP and are up for re-election in 2008?? How many Herb??

Herb!!!!!!!!!!!
Quick find those FACTS for us and get back to us ASAP!!!!

Pete... That's not looking good for my side... The Republicans are acting like Dems!!! I'm very sad to learn this.....

Whatever happened to the "nuclear option"? No, I don't mean Iran. I mean the threat by Republicans before '06 that if the Dems were ever to even think about filibustering, they would do some parlimentary gymnastics with the Senate Rules and essentially kill the filibuster. It was a big deal, and it left the Dems all atwitter with fear, and they did not filibuster.

Now the Dems have the advantage in the Senate, and they are sooo scared of Republican filibusters that every single vote has to meet not a simple majority, but has to beat cloture! This is nuts! While in the majority, the GOP never had a guaranteed 60 votes, but they never let fear of cloture get in their way.

I'm forced to agree strongly with Herb on this one. The Dems, when given power, don't know how to use it. There is no more Republican obstructionism here than there was Dem obstructionism prior to '06. The difference is that the GOP knows how to keep it's eye on the ball and has the political discipline to get it's laws passed. The Dems keep forgetting that they are the majority in Congress! They need to get tough and make it happen, filibuster be damned. If the Republicans want to filibuster, let them. The Dems shouldn't give a damn about cloture, but it seems to scare them shitless.

I am philosophically aligned with the Dems, but when it comes to the game of politics, they are bush league and the GOP are Major League. And that really pisses me off.

Edselehr, I think you're onto something. One reason the voting public is so ticked off at congress is because they're gutless, with gutless, although often loud, leadership.

Republicans will prevail every single day that Mr. Bush is in office because Ms. Pelosi is way, and I mean waaaaaay over her head.

Herb

That's because the few EXTREMEISTS are holding on to the Filibuster. The very same thing that you yourself (Herb) said the Dems did before. But now that it's YOUR way it's okay....
Your not about freedom of choice or what AMERICANS want Herb. It's just about getting your SLIM MINORITY EXTREME way. You don't give a shit about whom it might hurt or make difficult for. As long as it YOUR EXTREME way.
Sad.. Oh so sad...
That's why EXTREMEISM is gone in 14+ months and I glad that AMERICA has seen what a SLIM MINORITY of people in Washington can do to screw America up. And in November of 08' they will elect someone that lead AMERICA away from YOUR HARDLINE EXTREME thinking ways.
How far the EXTREME RIGHT has fallen....

I'd like a number 6 to go with my fries.

Fries???
Chris, I thought you were a vegan....

Uh...yeah...vegan fries. Why not.

YUCK!
JMHO....

I'll take a number 2.

I thought about a number 2 but I didn't think it could hijack a thread as well as a number 6.

Back to you Randy in our studios.

I think Chris is making a great commentary about the quality of the discussion in this thread, perhaps identifying the type of establishment where the discussion is suited.
Is this a number 2 or 6 at McD's, Burger King, Burgerville, Wendy's, Jack in the Box, Carl's Jr., Taco Bell, Taco Time, Panda King... ???

Of course my #2 is in the crapper, which is interchangeable with most fast food places.

I'm still waiting for Herb to bring up "...your president, who was so bad he was impeached," followed by the obligatory Trixter post about "THE PRESIDENT WHO RESIGNED IN DISGRACE!!!!!," followed by someone else's "When Clinton lied, nobody died," for the 89th time.

If you are going to feed a troll, feed them fast food. Feeding them the same arguments will not work any better this time than they did ten threads ago. How much longer do we keep repeating the same acts expecting different results? My intent is not to single anyone out but to point out a clear pattern that many of us keep following.

That being rambled in the middle of the night, I too agree with Herb. The Congress and Senate are doing a piss poor job, from Pelosi to DeFazio, in their "Impeachment is off the table" stance. If the present situation doesn't warrant a "fair trial" for the Prez and VP, then what situation would?

I sure don't understand that either. Well, maybe I understand some of it. Give this a try and add in where I've missed it! Maybe we can bring this thread back somewhere into real PDXRadio territory.

Remember guys, (and gals --Sorry ladies!) we've got lots of lurker fans, depending on us here. Step it up, ok?

The closest I can come is this:

Get pissed at the GOP. Fine, enter in some new Democrats. Expectations run somewhat high as people realize something can be done to improve the state of things.

Democrats get lots of FEEDBACK. Impeach, end the war, fix Habius Corpus, roll back the other changes, really address terror, etc...

Democrats have huddle and come to this realization:

If they really extend themselves, there is significant risk for them in the next cycle. There are a lot of GOP aligned people in powerful places that could do a lot of "swift boat" harm.

The average American is not sophisticated enough to make this a clear and present threat.

If they only extend a "safe" amount, what exactly are people going to do?

Go back and vote GOP again? What did that accomplish? Vote third party again and put the GOP in for another two cycles of hell?

In the end, that leaves Democrats in a "safe" position, at least through the next cycle.

I think it sucks, but I also think there is squat that can be done about it and that's the basis for Pelosi and "Impeachment is off the table", along with a fair number of other things.

Did you all notice the "automatic" fillibuster now? What's with that? Don't have the votes, why even bother then? The mere threat of a fillibuster is enough to more or less make it happen now.

Who is the bright bulb that encouraged this behavior? Honestly, the GOP does not even have to stand up and speak anymore. It just happens.

Contrast that with Randy's point above. The mere mention of one of these things was blown way out of proportion when it was a GOP show.

The whole thing is just nuts and is a clear demonstration of why we either need to deal with the party system, or engage in some serious process reform. Maybe it's campaign reform, maybe just better transparency rules.

But it's gotta be something.

Why?

Because the current setup really only favors "safe" legislation, or should a majority arise --and that's a clear one, we get some not so safe legislation, but we also get a lot of self-serving crap too.

The end result is a system where the best case outcome is to not hose us too badly, and the norm is to do it, but talk to us nicely while it's being done --maybe pass out some free lube every so often, and worst case is...

...well, we've seen worst case. 'nuff said there.

I'll stand with Herb too. Piss poor job all the way around. Only a fraction of the people there are actually acting like statesmen and it's embarrassing to watch.

However, I do not think the result will be favorable to the GOP. We will see a nice slide toward Democrats this next cycle --maybe even the Presidency.

Result: The other party gets to run the show. Might be better --likely will be better policy and legislation wise. But you can also bet none of the real feeding at the public trough will stop.

This whole thing does make me want to vote Ron Paul really bad. I think we deserve a cycle or two with this guy. Would wake all of us up and good.

>>>""Iraq, you have 6 months to get your shit together otherwise we are out of here and you're on your own"."

I believe this could better be characterized as Vitalogy's solution, not the American people's.

I don't know about that.

Lots of people are feeling the pinch. There is a very high anti-war and anti-lie sentiment bubbling up to the top.

If the reality is the situation being un winnable, or maybe better done with other means (diplomacy, economic, leveraging allies, etc...), leaving them to their own devices might be on the table for a lot more people than any of us think.

Right now, that conflict is sapping our strength, putting us in very serious debt (to the point of devaluing our dollar too much), has broken our military, and generally combined, put our nation at risk.

Them or us?

I would pick us in a second. I know you would pick us in a second. I don't know all that many people who wouldn't!

We started the mess. That's our deal. It was all over oil and profit, nation building and generally self-serving all around. Terror was only leverage, not any end that could be justified.

A case can be made for that being true at the time, but it's weak and we know better now anyway.

So, why are we there? It's still oil, but we can't even own up to that. There are still lots of lies and manupulations. There is still a big ass embassy, located right near the oil. Lots of contractors too, though one of them lost their license recently. No biggie, just move those through another firm.

Halliburton is moving to Dubai right? Use them. In fact, that's the greater plan to continue the struggle for that oil and the dollars it represents, without all the pesky accountability that comes with being American.

Wonder how many people would say, "Yeah. That oil is really worth it. Worth Trillions even. Let's get it done."?

Wonder how many would still say that if they knew the plan was to put it in the control of multi-nationals, who will pay back little to nothing that matters?

That's the profit part, nobody appears to be willing to talk about.

We need energy. We would need it less if we were not so focused on keeping the gays from marrying. Still, no question right? We need it.

Do WE the American people need that profit though?

No, particularly given how our system works. The companies will exploit it to both us and the Iraqis. Both peoples will not realize anything really significant from the whole thing, unless...

The Iraqi people end up with control of their oil!

In that scenario, they stand to gain a lot! Maybe gain enough to deal with the problems we've left them with.

They might even be grateful one day, after some time has passed. Getting rid of Saddam was ugly and ill conceived on lies and manipulations, but that might pave the way for a greater Iraq.

From their perspective, that's something worth fighting for. If the roles were reversed, I'm not sure I would feel all that good about a multi-national and the world bank owning what could mean the difference between a pretty lousy Iraq and a great Iraq.

So, if we leave, that all comes to a head right then and there?

What are the downsides?

They fuck us on the oil. Trade in Euros, charge us top dollar, etc... Payback is a bitch, so that one is ugly.

Maybe they play nice on the oil, and leverage it like Chavez is doing. Great! Another powerful entity that does not like us. That's ugly too.

Maybe they deal with our multi-nationals through some other entity. Hey, they will take the money. Maybe Cheney is kicking that around with the Dubai move!

We get a better deal, they improve and things settle down. That one could fly.

They end up in total chaos. The nation burns, nobody gets squat and the next Hitler rises from the carnage, inhabits our very plush embassy and tells the world to suck it!

Maybe we own up to the mess, get some help and others can help diminish the fighting, focus on Iraqi common interest and we just end up looking like asses, but we have access to the oil.

Lots of ways it could go. Not all of them are horrible for us. They might actually be better for the Iraqis!

There is only one thing we know for sure. Staying there is gonna cost us so huge we are never going to come out ahead. That's a known fact, established by sheer economics alone. We will pay and pay and pay, might never see that oil, if we do see it, it's totally not a good deal given the debt and death, and no matter what we still look like asses, oil or not.

Thinking all of that through, playing out the various scenarios will leave a lot of people thinking, "fuck 'em", let's clean up our own house first, then go back to helping the world out.

Also, most of these scenarios really only appeal to a few people here; namely, our GOP who really needs a warm fuzzy now more than ever, the (P)resident in the same boat, and those people currently making money from energy and those making money from war.

All told, that's not a significant fraction of the American people is it? If you factor in the 23 percenters and the military, maybe we get to a third or more?

That leaves a lot of people, who have no interest in that conflict!

Since "the American people" deal in democracy, there exists enough voters, who have no interest in Iraq, to represent "the American people" in both deed and fact.

Factor in the mis-information that's propping up support for this whole thing and you've got a very nice chunk of potential voters, highly likely to choose that option over staying.

All they have to do is vote their self-interest, and it's all over on that score.

"Is this a number 2 or 6 at McD's, Burger King, Burgerville, Wendy's, Jack in the Box, Carl's Jr., Taco Bell, Taco Time, Panda King... ???"

YES!!

Just don't ask for a number 2 at MSP.

NO. It is a number 2 after a visit to McD's, Burger King, Burgerville, Wendy's, Jack in the Box, Carl's Jr., Taco Bell, Taco Time, Panda King.

Or back east it would be what you get rid of sitting on the throne after a king sized meal at White Castle!

I think there needs to be another number designated to that.

">>>""Iraq, you have 6 months to get your shit together otherwise we are out of here and you're on your own"."

I believe this could better be characterized as Vitalogy's solution, not the American people's."

Correct.

Most Americans don't want to wait six more months before we get out of there. A lot of Americans want us out NOW!

OK....how about number twwwwwwwwwweennnnntttyyyy one!

LOL

>>>"A lot of Americans want us out NOW!"

I think most Americans want us out now, but out the right way.

What I don't hear from those FEW who just want us to wave a white flag, put our hands in the air, and march out is "what next?" What will happen in Iraq? What will happen in the Middle East? How will this affect us in the future? How will it affect our oil in the future?

Somehow, all the hard questions get left out by the simpletons who just "want us out now".

"What I don't hear from those FEW who just want us to wave a white flag, put our hands in the air, and march out is "what next?""

Deane, where were you when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished"? Here's the checklist:

* Overthrew and removed Saddam
* Made sure no WMD's were present
* Established an Iraqi Parliament
* Monitored and secured a system of voting for the country

How long are we going to hold Iraq's hand on this? Even if we totally stabilize the country and then leave, what do we do if sectarian violence breaks out the next day - march back in? If you are worried about the Al Quaeda in Iraq, remember that there are probably more in Pakistan and Afghanistan than in Iraq.

We've done all we set out to do, we've also done all we CAN do. It's not a white flag we'll be waving as we leave, but a checkered flag, because we're done going around in circles in that country.

Right now it's in rain delay, everyone is in the pits, and our pace car has hit the wall!

I still don't hear any answers as to what next? Only cut and run.

I'll be the first to agree that we should have demanded all along that the Iraqi government get their act together. We spend far to much time coddling people like this and playing to their silly egos. I also think we should be billing them for our protection and they should be paying us out of their oil revenues. If they want to keep their oil revenues, then they take over so that we don't need to be there.

Just because it's hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Yes, it will be complicated. Love to hear your suggestions.

On an earlier thread, I suggested cutting the forces (perhaps by half) and pull them back to the borders, in order to relieve Iraq from outside interference as it works out it's sectarian strife and government structure.

"I too agree with Herb. The Congress and Senate are doing a piss poor job, from Pelosi to DeFazio, in their "Impeachment is off the table" stance. If the present situation doesn't warrant a "fair trial" for the Prez and VP, then what situation would?"

Precisely. If the left can't do something now, when in heaven's name...(which many on the left can't agree upon heaven even existing, by the way)...could they ever? And that's part of their problem. The democrats' diversity is their downfall. They can't agree on anything, including Hillary. Do they go hard left, moderately left or pose as moderates?

Conservatives want God, Guns, Protection of the Unborn and Fighting Terror. I'm so glad to be a conservative.

Herb

Moderates want people to have the right to their own faith(s), Gun rights for those who are legal, protection for the unborn and the welfare of the mother in the event of a problematic pregnancy, and keeping america safe and healthy. I'm glad to be a moderate.

Deane- Here's my thought. The answer in Iraq should lie in making the right decision for the next 7 generations. Then again that should be the approach on any major issue.

No, for the mushy middle it's freedom of faith for only as long as conservatives continue single-handedly fighting off the atheistic aclu.

For the mushy middle, protection for the unborn is sometimes acceptable, but only as long as it's convenient. Otherwise, killing the unborn is fine. Besides, NARAL and scammed parenthood make tons of money with the blood of the most innocent on their hands.

For the mushy middle, gun rights exist only for those who happen to live in a state with leadership by 2nd Amendment conservatives. Those who live in liberal states have little right to defend themselves. Witness out of control crime in New York City and Washington, D.C. where guns have essentially been banned.

And 'Safe and Healthy?' Not if socialist Hillary care occurs. Where will the sick Canadians, who head south, away from inferior socialized medicine, go then?

Herb

There you go, Mushy Middle. Middle or moderate is not the same as liberalism! I agree and support republicans and democrats but on varying issues. I do not support one complete platform over the other because neither suits me 100% and to follow blindy with party politics is not acceptable to this American! I do not support the convienance of abortion but accept the necessity in the event of complications to the mother. Prevention should be the focus. I hate Hillarys plan and have not seen anything else I would support yet from either side. I support gun rights. I know there are some Dem's that do as well the same as there are Rep's that don't, just minoritys in those parties. So don't spill me into the totally liberal category K!

"I do not support one complete platform over the other because neither suits me 100%..."

Neither do I, and I've listed plenty of areas where I am in total disagreement with Mr. Bush.

But if you value life, democrats are not the horse to hitch your saddle to. They have distinguished themselves as the party of abortion and assisted suicide.

If you're for gun rights, democrats do NOT have your interests at heart. They want to ban guns, incrementally if necessary.

If you're for true freedom to worship, be wary of placing this precious freedom in the hands of democrats who are a rather atheistic bunch.

If you're for a better health plan, better avoid what's proposed by the left. Believe it or not, I dislike insurance companies and HMO's probably more than you. But I've also witnessed socialized medicine first hand and it is not pretty.

Herb

Election time for me is choosing the lesser of the two evils. And right now anybody that runs against Hillary would pretty much have my vote!

I disagree, you choose the best of the alternatives, there is never a perfect choice, every president has faults. But I think president Bush, in both of his national elections was by far the better choice for the United States.

Best Alternative, lesser of two evils, same thing same meaning. The one who supports the major issues closest to how I do is who gets the vote. There, that make more sense?

Add: I ain't voting for Hillary, i'll go with the Inde before that.

Add Add: You know if Hillary runs a good Inde candidate could actually make a fair run at office in the next election. Weres H Ross Perot when you need him dangit!

Herb wrote:

If you're for a better health plan, better avoid what's proposed by the left. Believe it or not, I dislike insurance companies and HMO's probably more than you. But I've also witnessed socialized medicine first hand and it is not pretty.

Oh, well now who's putting down the ideas of the other side without a better idea. Where and when have YOU witnessed socialized medicine.

Herb wrote:

"I do not support one complete platform over the other because neither suits me 100%..."

I believe that. It's like I have always said about the right wingers. They have two philosophies, make the rich richer and shove religion on everyone else.

"Where and when have YOU witnessed socialized medicine."

I'll spare you the details for a variety of reasons, some personal, but can guarantee you that no one has personally witnessed more horror involving socialised medicine than I.

Herb

"I'll spare you the details for a variety of reasons"

Lack of details, thy name is Herb.

Honestly, you don't need to name names, etc. Just establish your credentials in order to support the claims you are making. Ever lived under socialized medicine? Which country? How long?


"...no one has personally witnessed more horror involving socialised medicine than I."

That's the kind of hyperbole that makes it hard to believe so much of what you say, Herb. Tone it down and get real. You're starting to sound like a used car salesman.

What I've stated about my first-hand experience with socialised medicine is completely fact-based.

However, I learned long ago that facts don't matter with this crowd. Therefore, I'll avoid providing ammunition to the partisanly ignorant who would only make some wisecrack and mock the facts.

And I don't see anyone from the left defending first hand experience with socialised medicine.

Herb

Well at least tell us if your first-hand experience was in this country.

Well the closest thing would be Canada. My guess is Herb has spent some time up in the great white north...Beauty AY!

The Rev. Jim Wallis has a personal experience with socialized medicine.

My Encounter with [Insert Scary Music] ... Socialized Medicine!

My foot had been sore for a couple of weeks and it wasn’t getting better. I usually would ignore that, but we were about to leave on a two-week vacation with my wife Joy’s parents to celebrate both of our big anniversaries (their 50th and our 10th). Then I have to fly to Singapore for the World Vision triennial conference. So I wouldn’t be back home for many weeks and my Washington, D.C., health care provider (over the phone) strongly urged me to see a doctor in London before we left.

I realized then that I was about to have my first encounter with SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! Now it’s one thing to advocate health care reform in America and even to be politically sympathetic to the idea of a single-payer government-supported system like they have in most of the world’s developed and civilized countries (such as Canada, Germany, and Great Britain). But it was another thing to actually go to the emergency room (or ER, but in the U.K. they call it Accident and Emergency) of a hospital in the British National Health Service. After all, I had heard the horror stories—long waits in incompetent, dirty, and substandard medical facilities; bad doctors and faulty diagnoses; and, of course, incredible bureaucracies like everything in "socialist systems." Rush Limbaugh and every other conservative pundit have warned us all in America about the horrific practices of British socialized medicine.

So I prepared myself. I brought a big novel to read, along with my eyeglasses, a bottle of water (no telling what they would not have in socialized medicine), and emotionally steeled myself for the ordeal. Ann Stevens, the Anglican vicar with whom we stay in London (she’s my son Luke’s godmother and Joy’s old pal) took me to St. George’s hospital, dropped me off at "A and E," and wished me luck at 9 a.m. Hoping I would be home that night for dinner, I took a deep breath, walked across the street, and made my way into socialized medicine.

The waiting room was actually quite peaceful and not crowded, I noticed, as I walked up to reception. The woman at the reception desk smiled. I didn’t expect that. "Can I help you?" "Yes," I replied, "you see, I am an American—I guess you can tell—and I’m visiting family here—my wife is British—and we’re staying with our friend the vicar, and I have a sore foot, which I normally wouldn’t worry about but we’re going away for several weeks on vacation, and I called my health care provider in the U.S., and they told me to come in here and thought I should get an X-ray or something." (I wondered for a moment if it would help to tell them that I was a friend of the prime minister, but decided not.) "What do you need from me?" I asked hesitantly. "Just your name and address," she replied with another smile. "Oh ... Okay." She told me it would be about 10 minutes to see the nurse. "Yeah right," I thought to myself.

I settled into the waiting room chair, looked around at all the people who didn’t seem to be in any distress, and opened my book for a good long read. It was five minutes before the nurse called me in to a little office adjacent to the waiting area, which seemed to be an intake room. She was pleasant and professional as she asked me what was wrong, and how long I had felt the soreness. She gently examined my foot and then told me I would be called in to see a doctor in about 10 minutes. "Sure thing," I thought. So I went back out to the waiting room and settled in again to read my novel.

It was five minutes before a young woman appeared and called my name, "Mr. Wallis?" She was a young Asian doctor named Dr. Gillian Kyei. She was also very pleasant and professional, taking time to ask me lots of questions about how I might have hurt my foot, etc. She examined the injured foot carefully, told me that it didn’t necessarily look broken, but that we should get an X-ray to make sure. I waited in her examining room for a couple of minutes while she called down to the X-ray department to say that I was on the way. Then she came back and escorted me herself.

When I got to X-ray, I checked in by just saying my name and took a seat in the waiting area. Finally, I was going to get to read my book! But five minutes later, the technician came out to bring me in. She took her time with me, taking several different angles of my foot. When I was done, she sent me back to my young doctor, with another smile.

This time the wait was a full 10 minutes because, I later learned, Dr. Kyei was reading the results of my X-ray, which had already been sent to her computer. She showed me what looked to her like a fracture of my fourth metatarsal bone, but said she wanted to consult with the orthopedic specialist. I waited about 10 minutes more while she did that and so got a few more pages read.

Dr. Kyei then came back with the definitive diagnosis—my fourth metatarsal bone was indeed fractured. She went over their preferred treatments and my options with me. Normally, if this injury had just happened, they would put me in a cast to hold the broken bone in place and give me crutches. They were still happy to do that now. But since I had been already walking on it for over a week and the bone was still in the right place, I could also have the option to just using a therapeutic soft boot to keep the weight on my heel and off my fourth and fifth metatarsals. While the fracture was at the base of the fourth metatarsal, as she carefully explained and showed me on the X-ray, the pain was being felt lower down—across both my fourth and fifth metatarsal area. If I chose the boot, I could still swim with my kids and get around a little easier, but I would have to really try to keep my weight off the injured area. I chose the boot and she told me she would be back in a minute.

It was actually about two minutes before she got back, and I was getting nowhere with this novel. She handed me a very stylish black boot (so much better than other colors for fashion coordination), and gave me my final instructions—be very cautious about the foot, try to stay off it as much as possible but keep it mobile and flex it so the blood circulates, get another X-ray as soon as I get home and, of course, then consult with my home physician. Then she wrote me a nice long letter for my home doctor, describing their diagnosis and treatment. Dr. Gillian Kyei then wished me the best of luck, hoped I would have a great vacation despite my foot, smiled, and sent me back to the front desk.

"How can I call a cab?" I asked. "Oh, I’ll do that for you," she said. "Just take a seat over their and the cab will be here in about 10 minutes." As I sat there, I realized something. Nobody had ever asked me to pay. Everything was FREE, including my nice new boot. How about that? They think health care is a right for all citizens, and even foreign visitors like me. Amazing.

The cab came in five minutes. I thought I would tell him some horror stories about my experiences in the American health care system, but decided not to. I was back at Ann’s in just over an hour from when I left—with my letter, my boot, and my tale of smiling, pleasant, and efficient health care workers. And somehow I began to believe that back in America we weren’t being given the whole truth. And guess what? Ann tells me that David Beckham and Wayne Rooney, the biggest British soccer (football) stars, have had metatarsal bone fractures, just like mine. In about six weeks, I too will be back on the field, thanks to socialized medicine! And in the meantime, I will keep my foot up ... and maybe get that novel read.

"Everything was FREE."

No, it isn't.

Herb

Herb said>>>
to the partisanly ignorant.

Name calling again I see...

Thanks for reading the article Herb.

It was free for Rev. Wallis a visiting American and it wasn't some big bad doomsday experience. Of course Brit taxes paid for his care, but he got it nonetheless.

It probably helped that he didn't come off as some arrogant American in a foreign land.

Rev. Wallis' experience was not typical according to most accounts. I'm sure he's trying to promote a liberal agenda for socialized medicine, but if someone is going to listen to what he has to say, they need to take a much broader look before reaching any conclusions.

(Herb's) experience was not typical according to most accounts. I'm sure he's trying to promote a (conservative) agenda (against) socialized medicine, but if someone is going to listen to what he has to say, they need to take a much broader look before reaching any conclusions.

Not typical?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2007/09/19/socialized_medicine_is _broken_and_cant_be_fixed

Herb

Herb, if you claim the right to disregard left-leaning sources, then I can ignore John Stossel, a pro-free-market hard-right-leaning libertarian.

Try again.

(Unless you want to revoke your right to reject sources as you please...if so, then I'll read Stossel and consider his arguments)

Closest thing to socialized medicine I have ever experienced was "Willamette Dental"! Need to get your teeth cleaned hunh, well we can get you in on October 12th, hey great see you in a few weeks, no October 12th, 2008. I can relate with the pliers and vodka do it yourself program! Dumped it and changed and now pay a little more for dentist of my choice and in a realistic time frame.

PS.....Michael Moore is a moron and I refuse to watch or read anything from him.

Deane-
I realized that Rev. Wallis' account was only one personal experience and not to be seen as the way it truly is.

I think there are some good things we can glean from socialized medicine and others we can leave behind. From those I have known who live or lived with socialized medicine, such as Canada, it gets mixed reviews as does our healthcare system.

The sad part is in America if you have money you get the best treatment. The imbalance within our American health system seems to be in accordance with the way our society is in general. "What's in for me?!" It's all about me.

If you really want to build a quality healthcare system you must first build a quality community that cares enough for each other that no matter your social, economic, ethnic background, if you need medical attention you get it. The chasm, as I see it, is very wide and deep in our country.

There are indigenous cultures still thriving today because they have community as part of their social structure of taking care of each other. Research shows that when we are in good positive community our happiness factor rises.

We need to change our mindset pure and simple.

"if you claim the right to disregard left-leaning sources..."

Hardly. I simply reference all kinds of sources to show bias. That includes libertarians like John Stoessel, plus conservatives and liberals, too. Read Bernard Goldberg. He'll open your eyes.

Herb

Hardly? You won't even look at anything authored by Moyers. And if you are referencing all kinds of sources to show bias, where are these other sources? You'd be doing me a favor if you have the time to find them, I'm at work and kind of busy right now. Match your Stossel with a pro-socialized medicine source and let me draw my own conclusions.

Stossel has taken MANY neo-CON views and should be avoided at ANY cost. Libertarian with DUHbya talking points??? Sounds alot like Bill O'LIEly.....

Bernard Goldberg is a partisan hack, as is John Stoessel.

Now, if it comes to socialized medicine, or no medicine at all, which would be better for the 47 million Americans who currently have no insurance coverage?

Moyers is a far left bomb-thrower and a total partisan. One difference between him and people like Michael Moore is that Moyers won't admit his extreme bias and intellectual dishonesty.

You've apparently already made your mind up, so I won't waste your time or mine.

Herb

"Match your Stossel with a pro-socialized medicine source and let me draw my own conclusions."

A perfectly polite request.

"You've apparently already made your mind up, so I won't waste your time or mine."

What a petulant response from a grown man. And I call BS. Here's what Herrbocrite really means:

He can't do it, because it's not true.

Thanks for the backup, Mrs. M. I really do admire Herb's ability to slither through an argument like that and come out the other end looking - at least on the surface - as thoughtful and rational.

But his arguments are ironic on so many levels. He claims to consider multiple sources, but only cites one source or perspective. He will not logically deconstruct authors he disagrees with, but rather just demagogue them ("far left bomb thrower", "radical leftist", "extremist", "evil intent", "partisan hack", "twisted leftist", "pathetic excuse for a liberal", "lily-livered pinko", "devious, duplicitous, socialist"', "whine-fest time 24/7 with this guy").

And then, when I honestly ask for substance in order to develop some point-counterpoint on socialized medicine, Herb throws up his hands, calls *me* out for being close-minded, grabs his ball and stomps off.

Sometimes it's fun to play the Herb game. At other times, you just feel like whacking him. Hard. More often lately, it's the latter.

Darktemper said: PS.....Michael Moore is a moron and I refuse to watch or read anything from him.

I second what Darkemper says 10,000,000 times.

Michael Moore is a big fat STUPID white man (to quote the title of a good book)

STFU Michael.

"He claims to consider multiple sources, but only cites one source or perspective."

Wrong.

In the past 24 hours, I've sourced uber-liberal CBS News, libertarian John Stoessel and a conservative or two.

I'd like to see the left be so diverse in their sources. But we all know that when it comes to diversity they only talk a good game.

Herbert

I say speak up Michael!! Freedom of speech is a great thing!!

Free speech is a great thing and I thank our armed forces every day for protecting our right to it.

However, in Michael Moore's case the old adage is very appropriate: "It is better to remain silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"

He may be a fool in your eyes, but not all. I wouldn't say I'm a big fan, but I do believe he brings up some good points and points out a lot of hypocrisy on the right. I especially liked "Bowling for Columbine."

My mother was full of rural Iowa sayings while I was growing up on the farm. One of them was "people judge you by the company you keep". I see Vitalogy associates himself with Michael Moore. Not much else I can add to that.

You rarely add anything...Maybe you should follow Skybill's advice.

And speaking of free speech here are some emails that Moveon.org has received.

I have given a son to this country. My brother, my father, my uncle have all served honorably and bravely. I am a loyal American. I am outraged and sick to death of the tactics this administration uses to try to silence dissent to a war that is unjust, built and maintained on lies, political power, and greed. I was content to let others fight more loudly, but no more.
–Sharyn W., NC

I am a prior soldier who served in Iraq for 13 months, and am now an expecting mom with a husband who is deployed in Baghdad. I don't think I can ever forgive the Bush administration for the lies that tricked America into this war and hurt my family so badly. I am ashamed of those American politicians who would condemn an organization for practicing the Freedom of Speech that so many soldiers have died for.
–Danielle B., OH

As a US Navy veteran and an Iraq war veteran of over a year I want to ask, What has happened to us? What has happened to our voice? Where is this country going with stopping free speech and free press? ... Every time I think of the long nights I had in Anbar remembering what I was fighting for, well here it is....
–Ahmad H., LA

I've had three nephews serve since 2002, one of whom was killed in Anbar Province. I have a fourth nephew at Quantico training. I want this war over before he is deployed and before any more of our soldiers are sacrificed.
–Michele R., NE

Three members of my family are military. Two Marines have served in Iraq and an Army Lt. is deploying in November. If we had all spoken out when the administration used General Powell perhaps we would not be in this mess.
–Carol B., PA

As a Marine I served for many reasons but one of them was to allow people the freedom of speech, whether I agreed with it or not. Wearing a uniform does not mean someone isn't a shill, is spewing propaganda, and downright lies. MoveOn has every right to buy an ad and say what they want about a public figure. This administration has lied to us, deceived us, misled us and when posed with a challenge this is how they respond?
–Keith G., VA

No doubt there is probably equally as many emails that have the opposite view of Moveon.org and I would bet Herb has probably sent in his quota.

Free speech baby!!

Free speech indeed!

Say what you want. MoveOn has done an excellent job working their way into the discourse. IMHO, that's a good thing.

God bless Michael Moore. The NRA, the Bush admin, drug lobbyists, et. al., can no longer operate so freely without close scrunity. You can love or hate Moore, but he opened up a door never opened before: It can be PROFITABLE to scrunitize authority -- and that is what the right HATES most about Moore -- he's making money doing what he does. Heh.

Deane and Herb, not that it's imperitive that you have, but I am curious;

How many Michael Moore movies have you watched in their entirety? You each go through great pains to avoid things you THINK you would not agree with. I'm asking if you applied that same stance to Michael Moore movies.

Michael Moore movies watched: 0

American flags burned: 0

Communist rallies attended: 0

Number of times General Petraeus called a betrayer: 0

Dollars given to NAMBLA, NARAL, NOW the ACLU & Scammed Parenthood: 0

They're all endeavours of comparable worth.

Participation in leftist activities is kind of like golf. The lower score wins.

Herb

Like a steel trap huh?

How does one know if they really don't agree with someone / thing, while remaining ignorant about it?

Your question assumes there is only one source for information about health care: Michael Moore.

Mass media offers plenty of sources presenting the liberal view eschewing our current health care system.

I'll watch Michael Moore when you guys join the John Birch Society.

Herb

CJ, Michael Moore is an authority on nothing. There is no need to watch or listen to anything he has to say.

Closed minds are a terrible thing.

"Closed minds are a terrible thing."

I agree and don't suspect that any leftists will be attending a John Birch Society meeting anytime soon.

http://www.jbs.org/

But frankly, judging by their website, they may be a tad pink for me.

Herb

Deane is an authority on nothing. There is no need to watch or listen to anything he has to say.

I don't look to Michael Moore as an authority on anything nor do I use that as a guide to listen to someone.

I don't even know what The John Birch Society is. But if I implemented a few of the ways-of-thinking suggested by Deane or Herb, I shouldn't even click the link, right?

Herb challenged - "I'll watch Michael Moore when you guys join the John Birch Society."

It's 87 dollars to join. Before I do it, I would like you to confirm that you will hold up your end of the bargain.

A simple yes or no and a promise to watch to watch all of his movies ( available on DVD or Betamax or whatever ) within a month will suffice.

"...a promise to watch to watch all of his movies..."

One movie.

Herb

That seems to be a bit lopsided. 87 bucks, plus ones name on the rolls for only one movie?

C'mon, go for two or three at the least. I've got a coupla titles. Happy to send them, with no strings attached Herb.

I'm not where I can blow the $87, but I can easily spring for some postage! And I've seen the movies.

Tell you what.

Give $20 to either Birthright, Oregon Right To Life or Pregnancy Resource Centers, also known as PRC. You get to pick which one. They're all near and dear to my heart and they are all true charities. Unlike planned parenthood, no one's getting rich and they're truly helping the needy. All three of those groups help young moms and their pre-born babies.

If you can't handle those, then give the 20 quid to the Salvation Army. Those people go where no one else will. That includes under bridges, in dumpsters and on the streets to help those whom society has thrown away.

Then I'll watch a Michael Moore movie.

That seems fair. Plus, I'm more in line with the pro-life and Salvation Army folks than what appears to be a semi-pinko John Birch Society.

Herb

The challenge was to be open to a new idea or perspective. The John Birch Society was listed as a source for that, I accepted it. You are right, you said you would watch " A " movie. Not all of them. I will become a member and you watch a movie. Can it be Fahrenheit 9/11? Or are you going to pick one you already have the most in common with? ( Maybe it IS Fahrenheit 9/11 ).

I dunno. I'll see any one of them that are rated PG.

Aside from Dirty Harry, I don't do R's anymore.

Herb

Watch Bowling for Columbine.

It is a shame that Moore has been so polarized. He was once a simple advocate for working Americans.

With that in mind, I think the best place to start would be Roger & Me. This movie truly galvanized Americans of all backgrounds and political affiliations. It was powerful, vivid, and unless he does something even more amazing, it will probably be remembered as his very best film. A great movie about being an American.

I am very fond of his book tour documentary, The Big One. It features the utterly ironic closing of the Pay Day candy bar factory, a hunt for Cheap Trick, and the whole long strange trip ends in the great city of Portland, Oregon. Perhaps it is the lighting, but Phil Knight looks a whole lot like Satan in the film. I'm not saying he is, but there is a family resemblance.

Herb, you might get a kick out of his only non-documentary film, Canadian Bacon. It is a comedy about a preemptive strike north of the border. One of the taglines was, "You surrender pronto, or we'll level Toronto." It was the last work of the late great, John Candy. It also features great performances from Alan Alda, Kevin Pollack, and one of my all-time faves, Rip Torn. It is surreal to watch though, with all that has happened since it was released.

I give to Salvation Army anyway, but I will earmark it this time if you rent one of his titles.

I have spent some time now reading John Birch Society articles on their site.

Were is the big scary thing that I supposedly don't want to hear or know about or don't want to exposed to? I have some differences of opinions of a couple very minor things. But overall, it is, so far, another point of view.

I haven't combed through everything. So maybe there is some kind of hidden agenda I am not picking up on? Something sinister?

Honestly, I don't understand why this is supposed to be so hard for me to digest.

I think that's the greater point.

How can one really make a judgement about these kinds of things without actually just checking it out? Doing that is really no big deal.

You can bet there will some new information gleaned from the activity too. And that's the rub.

What if that piece of info actually matters?

Wouldn't one be better of knowing it? And if it actually does matter, is willful ignorance a better option?

I can rent Roger and Me.

Herb

Before you do that, Herb, you should know; I am not going to formally join. If it were free, I'm pretty sure I would. But I get the sense that that I CAN get much of the information I was curious about from them, for free. I will reserve the intention to do so if I find I am just not getting as much as I can handle.

Sorry to make it all about the buck, but in this case, it is.

Do what you want. I got to learn something new and will continue to read up very dilligently. THAT, I can promise.

The John Birch Society is something I am grateful for being exposed to. They articulate more than a few things that I will probably quote in some fashion or another.

While we're at it, are there other sites that you think I would just want to close myself off to? I mean, one that sort of represents how you see things?

Because I fairly certain that we can both agree to take NAMBLA off of some list that would take membership in order to understand. You cite them sometimes as if I have some sort of affiliation with them becuase I vote Democrat. But if a NAMBLA membership is what it is going to take for me to understand things better, I'm willing to admit that I am being intentionally blind to some stuff out there.

So be it.

I'll still send a title. When done viewing, pass it on. Let me know if that makes any sense. It's usually what I do with those and political books too.

"While we're at it, are there other sites that you think I would just want to close myself off to?"

I imagine websites of Phyllis Schlafley's Eagle Forum [www.eagleforum.org] and possible Oregon Right To Life [www.ortl.org] would not be ones you might normally visit.

By the way, kudos to you for supporting the Salvation Army. There are very few organisations which so well serve the neediest among us. They are angels on earth, as far as I'm concerned.

Herb

Herb said>>>>
By the way, kudos to you for supporting the Salvation Army. There are very few organisations which so well serve the neediest among us. They are angels on earth, as far as I'm concerned.

100% agree with you there! My wife and I donate close to $1,000 every year and my fathers company supplies them with over 3,000 free first aide kits every year.

Same here. I give nearly every year. I've a love hate thing with the bells too. Love it, because it's a timeless thing. Hate it by the time it's all over, just because of how bells are, not the SA.