Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Best News Of The Day

Here it is:
For grand totals, vastly more Democrats than Republicans voted yesterday;

Democratic votes for Clinton and Obama: 14,622,822 (63.6%)
Republican votes for McCain, Romney and Huckabee: 8,370,022 (36.4%)

Put another way, the Clinton/Obama race drew 76% more voters than the McCain/Romney/Huckabee race.

Republican policies have soured this country on Republicanism and now the giant political pendulum swings properly, finally, left. Even the leading GOP candidate, John McCain, is reasonably moderate. With a giant FUCK YOU to the neocons and the religicons, it's as if the whole of America is anxious to step out of the Dark Ages and enter the Age of Enlightenment.

I couldn't be happier. I hope John McCain pisses all over James Dobson and Rush Limboob and Sean Hannity from here to November.
McCain: 43.1% (3,611,459)
Romney: 35.4% (2,961,834)
Huckabee: 21.5% (1,796,729)


Anonymous Elfinstone said...

What do you think the motivation of Limboob was to so aggresively go after McCain. This blunder is almost as bad as his Philadelphia Eagles Black Quarterback moment.

5:42 PM, February 06, 2008  
Blogger Logic101 said...

I'm not sure what his issue with McCain is.

If I had to guess I'd say that it's because McCain has insisted on his own old-fashioned brand of conservatism, has refused to cow to the totalitarian religion lords who think they own the GOP, and has actually practiced the art of... what's that word? Oh, yeah... POLITICS! by forming bipartisan coalitions to actually get shit done instead of playing the kind of partisan games that have kept Rush rich, fat, and dosing on Oxy.

I say all of this while freely admitting that I quit listening to Rush in 1991 when I bought a car with FM radio.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

6:36 PM, February 06, 2008  
Anonymous elfinstone said...

My thoughts: all the right wing radio hosts had a series of brain storming sessions. There egos got so big they thought they could lead the sheep to pasture. Rush obviously put it together. Ann Coulter went off the deepest end (again). Michael Medved being the only rational one....(because he's Jewish?)
I think it would be a very lovely race between Obama and McCain. Don't have your schadenfreude moment and wish Hillary upon the rest of us!

10:57 AM, February 07, 2008  
Blogger Logic101 said...

Nice assessment... lol

McCain is the only candidate that I question whether Hillary could beat.

I think Obama could beat them all.

1:25 PM, February 07, 2008  
Anonymous Elfinstone said...

Obama could, but you are obviously biased and drinking the Obama Kool Aid :-) By the way, the Atlanta Journal Constitution is bashing Obama's health care plan and recommending Hillary's as more feasible.

3:57 PM, February 07, 2008  
Blogger Logic101 said...

True, I am biased.

I don't know if Hillary's plan is more feasible since a mandate requires enforcement. Also, mandates are creepy. And finally, Hillary should know from experience that a president can't just demand healthcare reform... they have to negotiate it, win people over to it.

The whole point of a single payer scheme is to reduce insurance cost by leveraging one big giganto risk pool. It makes perfect sense if you assume everyone plays, or if at least "enough" people play.

The criticism from people like Paul Krugman is that the types of people who will opt out are the very low-risk types (young, healthy folks) you need to balance out the pool. I suppose that's true if you wanted to achieve the lowest possible cost. But I think we can still create a risk pool large enough to lower costs and cover more people without jumping head first into mandated coverage.

Keep in mind that employers are going to start dumping health care anyway, just like pensions and other 'benefits'. Single payer is going to happen in one form or another eventually.

I would rather try Obama's plan and see what happens. If he can sell it to congress, if it works, if people like it, if there's the potential to reduce costs even more, then let's expand it.

I think the difference between Obama and Hillary was best articulated thus: Hillary approaches the problem like finding coverage is the issue for people. But that's not the issue... it's the cost of coverage. And that's exactly how Obama approaches it... if we lower costs, more people will opt in.

Change is always a little scary and this is a big one. I still think is sounds very logical (but maybe that's just the Kool-aid).

5:00 PM, February 07, 2008  
Anonymous elfinstone said... would be much more enjoyable listening to the State of the Union address with Obama lifting the nation. Hillary is really irritating to listen to.

7:28 PM, February 07, 2008  
Blogger Logic101 said...

True, that.

Although I'd still take Hillary over Rudy 9/11 Giuliani 9/11 or Mike Huckabee speaking to us in perpetual religicode.

Obama Vs McCain would suit me just fine.

8:50 PM, February 07, 2008  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home