I skimmed a few of the papers today. I see that Kucinich and Conyers introduced a national health insurance plan. I read something last evening to the effect that our health care system hobbles our entry into the global market. Considering how well General Motors and Ford are doing right now, I think we will see them demanding a national health insurance program. It seems that the union bashers are out again. The UAW caused GM and Ford failing in the global market by getting healthcare benefits. Probably the same people who bash the idea of national healthcare as socialism and predict national healthcare will be our national apocalypse. The United States avoided national healthcare because the big corporations paid the bill for healthcare. That was easy to do when there was little international competition. Now we got lots of international competition from companies where there is national healthcare.
E.J. Dionne has an op/ed piece in the Washington Post about California moving its primary. This paragraph caught my eye:
And it's time that our candidates get tested early by broader electorates. Was it really good for the country that South Carolina's Republicans put an effective end to the battle between George W. Bush and John McCain so early in 2000, on Feb. 19 to be exact? Was it helpful that the Democratic battle between Al Gore and Bill Bradley that same year effectively ended after New Hampshire voted on Feb. 1, or that John Kerry wasn't tested harder in more places after his Jan. 27, 2004, victory there?I am one of those who would say that none of us were served well by Kerry wrapping up the nomination before all of the primaries were done. Call me a chauvinist but I think the Midwest ought to have its say and maybe we would get a better selection of candidates.
Our Senator Lugar also has an op/ed article in the Post, Beyond Baghdad. I had a great-aunt who lived in Indianapolis who said Lugar talked like butter would not melt in his mouth. She did not mean it as a compliment and she was a Republican. Reading this article reminded me of that. Reading between the lines I see a conflict between Lugar trying to be a good Republican by offering to salvage his President's new Iraq plan and his intelligence.
The administration must avoid becoming so quixotic in its attempt to achieve the optimal outcome in Iraq that it fails to adjust to shifts in the region or political realities within Iraq. Although any administration would be reluctant to talk about a Plan B when its primary plan is still in motion, the president and Congress must reach a consensus on how to protect our broader strategic interests regardless of what happens in those Baghdad neighborhoods or on the floor of the Senate. Otherwise, the fatigue and frustration with our Iraq policy that is manifest in the resolutions of disapproval before the Senate could lead not just to the rejection of the Bush plan but also to the abandonment of the tools and relationships we need toPublish defend our vital interests in the Middle East.Ever wonder if Dick Lugar wakes up at night with the cold sweats wondering how this idiot got elected President and he did not?
Comments for this post
