Posted on 02/26/2008 10:11:22 PM PST by ThePythonicCow
...
One Reagan adviser had predicted such a win shortly after Reagan had become the de facto nominee the previous spring. In a memo about the coming general election contest with Jimmy Carter, Richard Whalen wrote Reagan's "secret weapon" was that "Democrats fail to take him very seriously."
Are Republicans making the same mistake with Barack Obama?
...
In just the past week, conservative commentators have accused Mr. Obama of speaking in "Sesame Street platitudes," of giving speeches that are "almost content free," of "saying nothing." He has been likened to Chance the Gardner, the clueless mope in Jerzy Koscinski's "Being There," whose banal utterances are taken as brilliant by a gullible political class.
...
The assumption behind much of this criticism is that because Mr. Obama gives a good speech he cannot do substance. This is wrong. Mr. Obama has done well in most of the Democratic debates because he has consistently shown himself able to think on his feet. Even on health care, a complicated national issue that should be Mrs. Clinton's strength, Mr. Obama has regularly fought her to a draw by displaying a grasp of the details that rivals hers, and talking about it in ways Americans can understand.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Calcified - as in hardening of the arteries.
We're still in the "been healthy for years" stage of partial denial, like a man in his late forties, shooting hoops with his teen-age son. We're the wealthiest, most powerful, man on the block, with the biggest house. It's been quite a run.
Nations have their ages, just as do men.
I sure wish we were doing better looking after our nations health.
I woke up after a refreshing nights sleep, trundled over to my computer, hit refresh on my FR window, and the first thing I read was your post.
You present a depressing case.
Maybe I’m a bit too pessimistic, but I was one of the ones in deep denial about the 2006 midterms, even when all the indicators pointed to a Dem win. I don’t want to make the same mistake.
McCain could pull it out, but he’s going to have to run one a*skicking campaign, and I don’t know if he has it in him. I’m not seeing it so far.
And you write well.
Damn.
I think my sister and brother in law are both naive dreamers who want to go back to something that is probably gone forever. However, his family in Holland is still doing well - they were at the higher rungs of their professions so maybe this is why. They paid the big taxes and got it back in benefits - that in recent years have become handouts to “immigrants”. So there is another system in decline because of P.C.
We’re trying to be too many things to too many people in this world and I just don’t think the American taxpayer can afford it anymore.
Obama is a very cool customer and I do think he’ll end up President for the reasons you mentioned. Also, he has taken apart the juggernaut of Hillary and that’s something that is quite surprising and how he has handled her is no small matter.
I think the $4 + per gallon of gas is going to cause an explosion. The American taxpayer can only take so much. How are we going to afford the war when we can’t afford to drive to work?
It’s highly difficult to see how McCain is going to convince the country that he’s the one to lead us through this.
In our first Electoral College look since John McCain basically secured the Republican nomination, we see that the Democrats lead the GOP 355-183, securing 85 more votes than are needed to win the presidency. The following “red” states from 2004 have turned “blue”: Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. …
gopnation @ February 26, 2008
WV, NV and TN going blue? Wow, even Al Gore couldn’t turn TN blue. They’re more pessimistic than I am.
the original release of the track
Cult of Personality
was 1988 from their debut album, Vivid...
Awesome album by the way!
BTTT!
According to my mother, I owe my life to an osteopathic surgeon. This would be in the late 1940's. I was born with skull bones that weren't moving like they should, squeezing on my brain, and leading to increased breathing difficulties. An old lady, as I remember her from later in my childhood, who was a retired osteopathic surgeon still doing a few hours of work, manipulated my skull bones, and got them moving as they should. My brain and lung capacities have been doing just fine since then.
Thank-you for your service.
I'm only an osteopathic physician. My skin didn't tolerate all of the scrubbing during medical school's surgery rotations. My winter "eczema" now is a real pain. Regardless, this phony Obama can't go unchallenged.
At Cornell College on Dec. 5, for example, a student asked Mr. Obama how his administration would view the Second Amendment. He replied: "There's a Supreme Court case that's going to be decided fairly soon about what the Second Amendment means. I taught Constitutional Law for 10 years, so I've got my opinion. And my opinion is that the Second Amendment is probably -- it is an individual right and not just a right of the militia. That's what I expect the Supreme Court to rule. I think that's a fair reading of the text of the Constitution. And so I respect the right of lawful gun owners to hunt, fish, protect their families."
So now, if you live in the country, your Second Amendment rights are OK, but not if you live in a city like D.C. So much for this teacher of the U.S. Constitution. Maybe that's what we can call him?
Isn't Self-Defense Common Sense? - Barack Obama's Second Amendment is all about hunting and...(target shooting)
IMHO, I don't think this teacher of the U.S. Constitution can weasel out of these money quotes. Did any one ever see the Second Amendment linked to fishing before this? Maybe it is one of the hazards of demagoguery.
If you believe in a living Constitution that changes from place to place and time to time, vote for this teacher of the U.S. Constitution, Obama.
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Thanks for the ping!
The drug companies know how much they sell to Canada and to the US. If we started reimporting drugs from Canada on a large scale, those numbers would begin to go seriously out of whack. The drug companies would then restrict the supply to Canada.
As told to me by the CFO of a large drug company.
Thanks neverdem.
Richard Whalen wrote Reagan's "secret weapon" was that "Democrats fail to take him very seriously."Same goes for GWB. Same goes for GHWB. I scarcely believe that anyone on FR doesn't take Hillary or Barry seriously, except for the a-holes who plan to vote for either of them in November.
The Black Senator Who Could Challenge Hillary
The Telegraph (UK) | 10-6-2006 | Alex Massie
Posted on 10/05/2006 9:19:24 PM EDT by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1714603/posts
Because the high prices for drugs in the US subsidizes drugs everywhere else in the world. Most drugs cost very little to make, once they are developed. One high price market (the US) repays the cost of development. Everywhere else, prices are set either by what people can afford to pay (so long as it’s above the cost to produce), or by what a government says is the most it will pay.
I did simplify a bit, but that’s the gist of it.
Thanks for the ping. Interesting thread. Thanks to all posters.
af is correct. The US public subsidizes Canada’s (and Europe’s) drugs. Most of the R&D and new drugs come from US. US patients pay full board. Canada and Europe pay discounted prices. If everyone only paid at the discounted rate, ie getting them from Canada, the drug companies would have to raise prices to Canada and the price disparity would even out.
here is an excellent article that explains it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.