Fox in the hen house?

[Judy G. Russell]

I know there are others who bear a great deal of responsibility but this strikes me as simply outrageous:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A congressional panel on Tuesday is expected to scrutinize the decision to keep ousted Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown on the federal payroll.

Brown told congressional investigators Monday that he is being paid as a consultant to help FEMA assess what went wrong in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, according to a senior official familiar with the meeting.
Talk about the fox in the hen house! (Dracula in the blood bank!)

[Dick K]

I know there are others who bear a great deal of responsibility but this strikes me as simply outrageous:...Judy -

I dunno. If he is kept on the payroll, he can be compelled to answer questions and to appear before various investigatory panels and commissions without the necessity for subpoenas and other forms of legal coercion. It might be cheap at the price...

[Judy G. Russell]

If he is kept on the payroll, he can be compelled to answer questions and to appear before various investigatory panels and commissions without the necessity for subpoenas and other forms of legal coercion. It might be cheap at the price...Hmmm... I hadn't thought about that. But the very idea of him sitting there, getting paid by us, complaining that it's all the fault of the folks in NOLA is just so... so... so offensive.

[Dick K]

Hmmm... I hadn't thought about that. But the very idea of him sitting there, getting paid by us, complaining that it's all the fault of the folks in NOLA is just so... so... so offensive.Judy -

Look at it as a kind of plea bargain: The death penalty is taken off the table in return for complete and honest testimony.

Feel better now?

[ndebord]

Judy -

Look at it as a kind of plea bargain: The death penalty is taken off the table in return for complete and honest testimony.

Feel better now?


Dick,

More like complete and honest horseshit...something Brown knows more about than disaster recovery.

[Judy G. Russell]

Look at it as a kind of plea bargain: The death penalty is taken off the table in return for complete and honest testimony. Feel better now?I'd buy that if I thought we were getting complete and honest testimony. But his "it's all their fault" whine is getting to me!

[Lindsey]

I'd buy that if I thought we were getting complete and honest testimony. But his "it's all their fault" whine is getting to me!
Not to mention that the reports I hear indicate that the right questions aren't getting asked in the first place. The focus is all on what Brown and FEMA did or didn't do, and not about the actions (or lack thereof) of anyone any higher up in the chain. Sort of like the Abu Ghraib investigations.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Not to mention that the reports I hear indicate that the right questions aren't getting asked in the first place.Keep in mind that the Democrats are basically boycotting these hearings so this is the worst of all possible situations in terms of truth-getting.

[RayB (France)]

**the reports I hear indicate that the right questions aren't getting asked**

What confuses me somewhat is, as Judy mentioned, why aren't the Dems there asking the 'right questions'?

[Judy G. Russell]

What confuses me somewhat is, as Judy mentioned, why aren't the Dems there asking the 'right questions'?The Democrats want a fully independent investigation along the lines of the 9/11 Commission. Anything less will end up being a whitewash, most likely, politically motivated in whole or in part, and without the teeth and the visibility to push real changes and real reforms. But if a fully independent commission is totally out of the cards and the choice is between a Congressional committee with all parties represented or a Congressional committee hand-picked by the GOP leadership, I'll take the former any day.

[RayB (France)]

**I'll take the former any day.**

So would I but that still doesn't answer my question.

[Lindsey]

But if a fully independent commission is totally out of the cards and the choice is between a Congressional committee with all parties represented or a Congressional committee hand-picked by the GOP leadership, I'll take the former any day.
I don't think it's a given that a fully independent commission is totally out of the cards. The White House didn't want in independent 9/11 commission, either, but public pressure eventually forced them to establish one. That's the purpose of the Democratic boycott: to keep up the pressure for an independent commission. If they participate, they give a partisan investigation legitimacy, and frankly, I'd rather have no investigation at all than a partisan one that is going to come to misleading partisan conclusions that are going to be put to partisan use.

Look at what happened to the investigation on pre-9/11 intelligence. A group of Republicans on the committee tacked partisan addenda to that report that have been used to trash Joseph Wilson. The conclusions in those addenda are NOT the conclusions of the full committee, but they are often portrayed that way by right-wing supporters. In addition, the Republicans insisted on setting aside any report on the Administration's use of the intelligence they received until after the 2004 election. And then after the election, they pulled a Lucy VanPelt on Jay Rockefeller and said, "Moot point now, and we don't have time anyway." The second part of the committee's report has never been issued, and it's not likely that it ever will be.

Fool me once...

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

So would I but that still doesn't answer my question.Preumably the Democrats don't think a fully independent commission is out of the cards, at least not yet.

[Judy G. Russell]

frankly, I'd rather have no investigation at all than a partisan one that is going to come to misleading partisan conclusions that are going to be put to partisan use.In this day and age, I'm not sure it's possible to have anything occur in Washington that isn't put, almost exclusively, to partisan use.

[Lindsey]

In this day and age, I'm not sure it's possible to have anything occur in Washington that isn't put, almost exclusively, to partisan use.
<sigh> You may be right about that. But we can always hope!

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

<sigh> You may be right about that. But we can always hope!You can always hope. Me, I'm a natural pessimist. I'm never ever disappointed, but I am occasionally pleasantly surprised.

[RayB (France)]

In this day and age, I'm not sure it's possible to have anything occur in Washington that isn't put, almost exclusively, to partisan use.

I sure wish you weren't right, Judy, but I'm afraid it's a fact. It makes me sad.

[Judy G. Russell]

I sure wish you weren't right, Judy, but I'm afraid it's a fact. It makes me sad.Both sides are so heavily invested in the slash-and-burn, take-no-prisoners style of politics that it's hard to see how it will ever end. I am desperately hoping for a centrist to emerge somehow somewhere in the next Presidential election. I truly believe that most people are neither far-left Democrats nor far-right Republicans but instead a blend of views that puts them in the center. A candidate from the center might be a uniter, and BOY do we need that.

The problem, of course, is that the party machinery in most states has been hijacked by the extremists, and I don't see either party producing a real centrist candidate. I think it's more likely that the Democrats will, but I doubt it.

[Lindsey]

I am desperately hoping for a centrist to emerge somehow somewhere in the next Presidential election.
The problem is, moderates have difficulty winning primaries, because all too often, it's the true believers who vote most heavily in primaries. And since moderates don't usually get 100% ratings from the vocal interest groups, they're easy to paint as wolves-in-sheep's-clothing by their opponents.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

The problem is, moderates have difficulty winning primariesIt isn't "difficulty" -- it's practically "impossibility", and that's the case in both parties.

[RayB (France)]

**The problem is, moderates have difficulty winning primaries, because all too often, it's the true believers who vote most heavily in primaries.**

I think you have hit the nail square on the head! When we lived in Jefferson County, CO we were very involved in the Republican Party. Jeffco was primarily GOP but with only a couple of exceptions who never got nominated, we did get moderates elected. The 'secret' is to get the moderates involved at the grassroot level. It is damned hard work and at times very frustrating but we did manage to do it. Could it be done now . . . . I don't know. I'm afraid I would have to agree with Judy on that.

[Lindsey]

and that's the case in both parties.
Yes, a problem on both sides, and that's one reason there's so little comity in Congress (or any other political body) these days.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Yes, a problem on both sides, and that's one reason there's so little comity in Congress (or any other political body) these days.I wish I had the slightest idea of what could be done about it... but I don't. I see things getting worse.

[Judy G. Russell]

The 'secret' is to get the moderates involved at the grassroot level. It is damned hard work and at times very frustrating but we did manage to do it. Could it be done now . . . . I don't know. I'm afraid I would have to agree with Judy on that.Frightening, isn't it? I think somewhere around 60% of the population -- probably more -- could be put into the "moderate" category, and has been scared or intimidated or disgusted out of both parties.

[RayB (France)]

Frightening, isn't it? I think somewhere around 60% of the population -- probably more -- could be put into the "moderate" category, and has been scared or intimidated or disgusted out of both parties.

A thought just ocurred to me . . . . This is a rare case of 'Too many indians and not enough chiefs!'. Hmmm?

[MollyM/CA]

I don't see either party producing a real centrist candidate. I think it's more likely that the Democrats will, but I doubt it.

Much as I hate to agree with my husband, I can't contradict his mantra:

If the Democrats keep on with their business-as-usual choosing of candidates, they damn well deserve to be beaten by the Republicans.

[Judy G. Russell]

Absolutely. Or at least "too many politicians and not enough statesmen"!

[Judy G. Russell]

I can't disagree with that, Molly: but I'd add "if they keep on with their business-as-usual choosing of PR firms and methods, they will keep being beaten by the Republicans." I disagree very strongly with what the GOP has done (the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign and the like), but it is very clever and very effective.

[Lindsey]

I wish I had the slightest idea of what could be done about it... but I don't. I see things getting worse.
It's not a silver bullet, but one thing that I think might help would be to have district lines drawn by independent commissions, to minimize gerrymandering and make districts more truly competitive. Voters in the center have more clout in competitive elections, and candidates are less likely to take extreme positions.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I disagree very strongly with what the GOP has done (the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign and the like), but it is very clever and very effective.
"Clever" is not the word I would use to describe a total disregard for truth. "Cynical and manipulative" strikes me as a better description.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

All I can say to that is, that'll be the day. My own Congressional district is so badly gerrymandered it's pathetic. I think the following is an accurate description of my district (parts of four counties -- NJ only has 21 counties -- and not even all of a town in many cases!):

Seventh Congressional District

ESSEX COUNTY: Maplewood (part), Millburn (part)
MIDDLESEX COUNTY: Edison (part), Middlesex Boro, South Plainfield, Woodbridge (part)
SOMERSET COUNTY: Bound Brook, Bridgewater (part), Franklin Twp., Green Brook, Hillsborough, Manville, Millstone, North Plainfield, South Bound Brook, Warren Twp., Watchung
UNION COUNTY: Berkeley Heights, Clark, Cranford, Fanwood, Garwood, Kenilworth, Linden (part), Mountainside, New Providence, Plainfield, Roselle Park, Scotch Plains, Springfield, Summit, UnionTwp. (part), Westfield, Winfield

[Bill Hirst]

All I can say to that is, that'll be the day. My own Congressional district is so badly gerrymandered it's pathetic. I think the following is an accurate description of my district (parts of four counties -- NJ only has 21 counties -- and not even all of a town in many cases!):

Mine only has parts of two counties, but just look at it:

http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/maps/congress/cong20.htm

All the Democrats are pushed in here to let Republicans win everywhere else.

[Judy G. Russell]

Mine (http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/pdf/congdist/NJ07_109.pdf) may match yours. It's really awful. My town is divided, with parts in two or three districts.

[Lindsey]

All I can say to that is, that'll be the day.
It would be difficult, but I have to believe that it is not impossible. One or two states already do it that way; the rest of us have to get off our duffs and keep pushing for it. If we don't, we're going to lose any real democracy we have left.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Mine (http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/pdf/congdist/NJ07_109.pdf) may match yours. It's really awful. My town is divided, with parts in two or three districts.
Take a look at Virginia's Third District (http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/pdf/congdist/VA03_109.pdf) (mine): It is made up of the counties of New Kent, Charles City, Prince George, Surry, and parts (and parts only) of the county of Henrico and the cities of Richmond, Hampton, Portsmouth, Newport News, and Norfolk. It's not even contiguous.

The rest of the city of Richmond and Henrico County are in the Seventh District (http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/pdf/congdist/VA07_109.pdf) , which extends all the way out to Page County in the mountains of the northwestern part of the state. It's ridiculous.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

the rest of us have to get off our duffs and keep pushing for it.As I said before, Edmund Burke had it right: if good people do nothing, we are in deep doo-doo. Except, of course, he said it with more elegance and grace.

[Judy G. Russell]

We have one like that as well, that's not contiguous. And NJ is a little bitty state, for heaven's sake!

[Wayne Scott]

The problem is, moderates have difficulty winning primaries, because all too often, it's the true believers who vote most heavily in primaries. And since moderates don't usually get 100% ratings from the vocal interest groups, they're easy to paint as wolves-in-sheep's-clothing by their opponents.

--Lindsey
Deeply as it wounds me to agree with you on anything political, in this rare case you are correct. Due to the disinerest of so many people in the primaries we keep getting a choice between a frothing at the mouth leftie versus a Neanderthal rightie in the final election.
I'm getting sick of going to the polls and voting against the more awful candidate. I first registered to vote 62 years ago. I've only voted FOR a candidate a handful of times.

Bitter in Bermuda

[RayB (France)]

**I've only voted FOR a candidate a handful of times.**

Same here. It is not limited to the US either. It happens in the UK all the time and here in France last time it was Chirac vs. LePen - Nolo Contendre!

[Judy G. Russell]

I've only voted FOR a candidate a handful of times.Ditto. I'm tempted to suggest that there should be a category "none of the above" in every election... and whenever more votes are cast for that category than for any candidate, make the political parties start over and try again.

[RayB (France)]

Ditto. I'm tempted to suggest that there should be a category "none of the above" in every election... and whenever more votes are cast for that category than for any candidate, make the political parties start over and try again.

I see . . . . you enjoy going through campaigns, do you? I'd vote for anyone just to get a few months rest!

[Judy G. Russell]

I'd vote for anyone just to get a few months rest!ROFL!!! Oh dear... I hadn't thought of that. Oh dear...

[Lindsey]

I'm getting sick of going to the polls and voting against the more awful candidate.
What's even worse is not having a choice of candidates in the general election, which is what happens all too often in legislative races.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

What's even worse is not having a choice of candidates in the general election, which is what happens all too often in legislative races.We don't have that very much up here. Each party does usually turn out a candidate. The race may be a runaway, but at least there is somebody else to vote for.

[Wayne Scott]

I think the only people who dislike Chirac more than Americans are the French.

[RayB (France)]

I think the only people who dislike Chirac more than Americans are the French.

C'est vrai, mon ami. We have become more and more familiar with the culture and politics here in the last three years and it is quite interesting to watch. Totally different to ours. We too are pretty disgusted with US politics at home on both sides of the aisle.

[Lindsey]

We don't have that very much up here. Each party does usually turn out a candidate. The race may be a runaway, but at least there is somebody else to vote for.
It's not at all unusual in Virginia, unfortunately.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

It's not at all unusual in Virginia, unfortunately.I've seen it occasionally here but not often. It still kind of surprises me.

[Lindsey]

It still kind of surprises me.
Yeah, it's like they say about the lottery: You can't win if you don't play.

Our gubernatorial race this year actually has three candidates: one rogue Republican is running as an independent. The GOP candidate has used that as an excuse to avoid having any public debates--he refuses to appear with the independent candidate. He finally did agree to one, though (I think the polls have been too close for comfort) but only with the Democratic candidate. So this Sunday, there will be a debate between the Kaine the Democrat and Potts the independent, and then sometime later this month, another debate between Kaine and Kilgore the Republican.

Potts is only polling about 5%, but he's a much more interesting candidate than either of the other two. It's probably because he has absolutely nothing to lose, so he can be freer to say what he really thinks.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Potts the independent...is only polling about 5%, but he's a much more interesting candidate than either of the other two. It's probably because he has absolutely nothing to lose, so he can be freer to say what he really thinks.It's a shame that's the case: it would be interesting to see what they all really thought, wouldn't it?

[Lindsey]

It's a shame that's the case: it would be interesting to see what they all really thought, wouldn't it?
Yes it would; but if they did that, the voters would punish them for it. Pogo was right: the enemy is us.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

if they did that, the voters would punish them for it. Pogo was right: the enemy is us.I wish I could disagree. But at times when so much is at stake, watching so many people sit home and not vote at all is very disheartening.

[Lindsey]

I wish I could disagree. But at times when so much is at stake, watching so many people sit home and not vote at all is very disheartening.
Not vote at all, or choose a candidate for frivolous or totally bogus reasons. For example:

My father voted for George Bush in 2004 because he was afraid a Democratic president would run up the budget deficit. (When I pointed out that Clinton, the Democrat, had not only eliminated the deficit, but put the budget in surplus, and it was Bush the Republican, emulating Ronald Reagan the Republican, who had blown the surplus and put the budget back in deficit, he just stared blankly at me, as if I were telling him that it was men from Mars who controlled the budget. And he still voted for Bush)

My mother voted for George Bush in 2004 because he was better looking than John Kerry.

The really sad thing is that if you talk with them about issues, they're both more in tune with the Democratic platform than the Republican one.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

The really sad thing is that if you talk with them about issues, they're both more in tune with the Democratic platform than the Republican one.Ouch. That hurts.

[Lindsey]

Ouch. That hurts.
And I think they're not unusual in that. Polls for years have shown that Democrats win on issues. The party just needs candidates that can make a stronger impression on voters than the Swift Boat ads.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Having a decent PR agency might help too...

[RayB (France)]

**The really sad thing is that if you talk with them about issues, they're both more in tune with the Democratic platform than the Republican one.**

Ooops, have I missed something . . . . . . the Democrats HAVE a platform?

[Wayne Scott]

**The really sad thing is that if you talk with them about issues, they're both more in tune with the Democratic platform than the Republican one.**

Ooops, have I missed something . . . . . . the Democrats HAVE a platform?
It seems to me in the last election the Democrat platform was:

W has a stupid Texas accent.
W is not the lying spellbinder that Slick is.
W didn't have enough sense to marry a very, very wealthy widow.
W is simply too crude and dumb to suit the northeast intellectuals.

If there was much more to it, I didn't notice what it was.

[Lindsey]

Ooops, have I missed something . . . . . . the Democrats HAVE a platform?
Yes.

--Lindsey

[RayB (France)]

Yes.

--Lindsey

Wonderful! Is there somewhere I could learn what it is?

[Judy G. Russell]

If there was much more to it, I didn't notice what it was.Unfortunately, you're precisely right, which is why the Democrats lost. They never managed to get their positions clear, much less clearly communicated. As you know I disagree vehemently with what Bush wants to do with Social Security. But before I voted last year at least I knew what Bush wanted to do. All I knew about what Kerry intended was that he didn't want to do what Bush wanted to do. And that, among other reasons, is why he lost.

[Judy G. Russell]

Both parties' platforms are on the web. Try here (http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf) for the Democrats and here (http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf) for the Republicans (both are PDFs).

[Lindsey]

Wonderful! Is there somewhere I could learn what it is?
I know you're not really being serious, because if you were, you would have found it already. But you might start here:

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

--Lindsey

[RayB (France)]

I know you're not really being serious, because if you were, you would have found it already. But you might start here:

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

--Lindsey

As I recall, that one was a 'loser'. Maybe if someone had talked about it, it might have gotten a few more votes . . . or not. Anything new on the books?

[Lindsey]

As I recall, that one was a 'loser'. Maybe if someone had talked about it, it might have gotten a few more votes . . . or not. Anything new on the books?
Kerry narrowly lost the election, at least by the official vote count, but I don't think that means the platform was "a loser". What won the election was fear. If the presidential election were to be held this November instead of last November, I think the results would be quite different.

In any case, you were trying to say the Democratic Party had no platform. You have seen now that indeed they do. That you don't like it is neither here nor there; the platform exists.

--Lindsey

[earler]

Kerry's loss wasn't that narrow in the popular vote. Bush received 50.73% of the popular vote; kerry got 48.23%. Nader's vote was of no significance in 2004. Compare this result with kennedy's 49.72% versus 49.55% in 1960 (thank you, richard daley!), carter's 50.08% versus 48.02% in 1976. And, remember that clinton never had a popular majority. He only got 43.01% in 1992. It was perot's 18.91% that lost bush sr. the re-election. In 1996 clinton only had a plurality, too, and his margin over the combination of dole's and perot's votes was only 0.11%. (Nader's votes were offset by a libertarian candidate.) Therefore, it is scarcely fair to say that kerry "narrowly lost" the election when compared with those results I have cited. Bush had a majority of the popular vote and beat kerry by a greater margin than clinton had in his 2 elections, when he only achieved a plurality, never a majority of the popular vote.

-er

[Lindsey]

As you noted, there was no significant third party challenge in this election, so comparing it with elections where there was one is misleading. Besides which, the margin of the win has nothing to do with whether it was a majority or a plurality.

Also note that in the 1960 election, Kennedy was not an incumbent president, which makes a huge difference, so I don't think that's an entirely valid comparison, either. Especially since that was one of the closest elections in US history. Carter wasn't an incumbent president in 1976, either.

Interesting that you don't want to compare Clinton's votes directly with those of the next highest finisher in those races, but want instead to combine Perot's vote with the Republican (though it's doubtful that if Perot weren't in the race that 100% of the votes he got would have gone to the Republican candidate). In 1996, Bill Clinton received 49.2% of the popular vote compared to Dole's 40.7--a margin of almost 9 percentage points compared with W's little better than 2. And Clinton at that point was a president under siege. I can remember hearing Mary Matalin predict in October that he would be buried in the November election. And in 1992 (when he was running AGAINST the incumbent, remember), even Clinton's 43.0% of the vote was nearly 6 percentage points ahead of Bush's 37.4%.

I still say that GW Bush's 2004 victory was a fairly narrow win for a president running for re-election. (Supporting evidence: In spite of Bush's claim that the election had given him a strong mandate and heaps of political capital, his flagship post-election initiative--Social Security privatization--went absolutely nowhere, and is now dead in the water. The narrow win didn't give him the strength of popular support he would have needed to push through a major change like that.)

--Lindsey

[earler]

Virtually all the perot voters would have voted for bush. Some would have abstained, too. Perot was the first real spoiler since the election of 1912. It is unfair to cite clinton's win as over bush since he would have lost if it hadn't been for perot. Clinton's wins were by a poor plurality, the worst performance since 1912, when wilson got only 41%, too.

Kennedy's win was not as an incumbent president either, and it is arguable that he won through some illegal manoeuvres.

Many, if not most of the elections in the past 50 years have been where the losing party has put up a very weak candidate. In the case of kerry, he wasn't terrible strong, but he certainly was a better candidate than dukakis or mcgovern.

Bush's problems with his initiatives are due to the congress, which over the years has become a monstrous place with more and more mediocre, if not frankly dishonest politicians, plus the polarization around abortion and the more extreme evangelical sects.


-er

[RayB (France)]

>>That you don't like it is neither here nor there; the platform exists.<<

First of all, you have no idea of what I think politically. Because I ask for clarification on statements made, you assume that I am on the opposite side of the spectrum from you. Secondly, would you like to speculate as to how many voters have any idea of what is included in that platform? It may be written down somewhere but it is still invisible in the eyes of voters. Furthermore, how many votes in the last election were FOR Kerry and the platform as opposed to AGAINST Bush. If any party cannot communicate to the voting public what they stand for, why would they ever vote FOR them? As Clinton said, Bush told the public what he was going to do, and then did it.
He won.

[Lindsey]

the worst performance since 1912, when wilson got only 41%, too.
And you yourself said that Perot was the first strong third-party challenger since 1912. Let's not compare apples to oranges. Besides which, Clinton was a challenger himself in the 1992 election. Bush was the incumbent. Incumbents traditionally have the advantage, and his performance in 1992 was poor, indeed.

Kennedy's win was not as an incumbent president either
That was my point. You were comparing the margins in the 1960 election with those in 2004, and I was saying that's not a valid comparison.

Bush's problems with his initiatives are due to the congress, which over the years has become a monstrous place with more and more mediocre, if not frankly dishonest politicians . . .
I agree that there is much corruption in Congress, but the problem with Bush's Social Security initiative wasn't Congress, but that it was hugely unpopular with the American people. There were plenty of Republicans in Congress (and even a few Democrats) who seemed ready enough to support it in the beginning. Then they started hearing from their constituents and getting pummeled at town meetings back in their home districts, and they couldn't back away from it fast enough.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Ray,

I assumed that you objected to the Democratic platform because you were so completely dismissive when I pointed you to it.

Again, you originally questioned whether the Democrats even have a platform. You have seen that they do. How the platform is sold is another issue entirely. Yes, I think Democrats need to do a better job of presenting their ideas. Part of the problem, though (and I'm not saying it's the only one, but I think it is a big one), is that it's very hard for them to make themselves heard over the Republican noise machine.

--Lindsey

[earler]

You know as well as everyone else that the economy was in recession during the period leading up to the 1992 election and that it was emerging from the recession by november, a fact many voters didn't know. Add perot, and the cocktail was lethal for bush's chance to be re-elected. Of course, it is a fact that clinton was one of the most charismatic politicians since fdr. For that reason, it is also curious that he was unable to achieve a popular mandate in 1992 or in 1996.

I don't know enough about the proposed reform of the social security system to be able to comment. But, as concerns the much needed reform of the tort system, this which ought to have passed. Alas, the trial lawyers are big contributors to the democrats in congress.

-er

[Lindsey]

You keep destroying your case for being able to compare one election with another.

Not surprisingly, I disagree with your "much needed reform of the tort system."

Big business wants to have it both ways. When the subject is regulation, they say, "We don't need regulation; if what we are doing harms someone, let them file suit and make their case in court." And of course, when they are taken to court, then they scream "tort reform!!!"

As I see it, either they accept the current tort system, or they accept more stringent consumer regulation. They can't have it both ways. One way or the other, they have to bear the cost of the harm their products or their manufacturing processes inflict on people.

--Lindsey

[Dan in Saint Louis]

One way or the other, they have to bear the cost of the harm their products or their manufacturing processes inflict on people.A huge problem with the way our system is headed is typified by the Daubert Hearing. Beginning as a method for weeding out shady experts who would say anything for a price, it has deteriorated into a venue in which if you don't like the message, you can shoot the messenger.

[earler]

How do I destroy my case? Just because you say it doesn't work.

As for tort reform, only in the usa is there so much litigation. The usa has more people in prison and more lawyers per capita than any other country. It isn't normal that every obstretrician in the usa has been sued at least once. The system encourages outrageous claims and juries often aware outrageous sums of money.

As for regulation, well there is certainly a lot of that in every country nowadays, even in the usa. Unfortunately, in some areas there isn't enough regulation and in others there is too much. I can't deny that some industries have too much influence in congress and necessary regulations aren't created. But, it is also undeniable that trial lawyers have also successfully blocked needed reform of tort law.

-er

[Lindsey]

A huge problem with the way our system is headed is typified by the Daubert Hearing.
The Daubert Hearing?

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

How do I destroy my case? Just because you say it doesn't work.
You start out by putting all these election results side by side to compare one with the other, and then in subsequent messages, you keep coming up with reasons that they're not comparable. You're destroying your own case.

As for tort reform, only in the usa is there so much litigation.
There's more litigation compared to Europe and Japan because there is far less regulation in the US compared to Europe and Japan. For a long time the attitude of business has been, "You don't like the way I operate? So sue me!" And when people do just that, then business complains about "abuse" of the court system and screams for tort reform--a phrase which all too often means, "Too bad for the victims, but their misfortune shouldn't be allowed to cut into the stock options and golden parachute clauses for our top executives."

--Lindsey

[RayB (France)]

Kerry narrowly lost the election, at least by the official vote count, but I don't think that means the platform was "a loser". What won the election was fear. If the presidential election were to be held this November instead of last November, I think the results would be quite different.

In any case, you were trying to say the Democratic Party had no platform. You have seen now that indeed they do. That you don't like it is neither here nor there; the platform exists.

--Lindsey

Interesting article-

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172518,00.html

[earler]

I showed that bush's win last year wasn't that close, compared to those in recent history. Then you drew some fallacious conclusions. Naturally, I pointed this out.

As far as litigation is concerned, what I am speaking about is independent of more or less regulation, though the usa has mostly caught up with most european countries in that regard. Remember, too, that each state has its own regulations, so a company often has to learn and adhere to as many as 50 different state laws or ordinances.

No, I am mean things like the fellow who sued the phone company in california when a car ran off the freeway and hit the phone booth. Or the guy who sued the ladder company because it hadn't told him he shouldn't place the ladder at too steep an angle. Or the fact that 100% of obstectricians have been sued at least once in the usa.

It isn't that I am against civil suits, but there has to be caps placed on the liability. Sure, a hospital should pay for an egregious mistake, but it shouldn't be measured in the tens of millions of dollars, for example.

-er

[Dan in Saint Louis]

The Daubert Hearing?In theory: http://onin.com/fp/daubert_links.html#whatisadauberthearing

In practice: If the defendants know that they cannot discredit the evidence; they instead discredit the expert witness. Without the witness, there is nobody left to explain the evidence to the jury and the case is dismissed.

[Judy G. Russell]

The authors posit that the last three losing Democratic Presidential candidates (Dukakis, Gore and Kerry) tended to talk primarily to highly educated upscale professionals who make up a significant part of the liberal base of the Democratic Party, rather than to less well educated working class voters who are also necessary for victory.

“If Democratic candidates do not ‘speak American’ as a native language, average Americans will find it hard to believe that these candidates really understand or care about them.”
I couldn't agree more with the authors of the article. The Democratic candidates simply aren't even talking to the average voter.

[RayB (France)]

**How the platform is sold is another issue entirely.**

Not to the voting public . . . . it remains invisible.

[Lindsey]

Interesting article-

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172518,00.html
And your point is...?

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

ALL party platforms are basically invisible. They certainly don't bind the candidate, and they're utterly forgotten about 30 seconds after the delegates cast their final votes on the final planks.

[Lindsey]

No, I am mean things like the fellow who sued the phone company in california when a car ran off the freeway and hit the phone booth. Or the guy who sued the ladder company because it hadn't told him he shouldn't place the ladder at too steep an angle. Or the fact that 100% of obstectricians have been sued at least once in the usa.
Do you have a cite for that last? I know the rate is high, especially for OB/GYNs in urban areas, but 100%? I have serious doubts about that.

For the rest: The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Anyone can dig up a couple of crazy cases, and as often as not, the issues even for those are misrepresented. See here (http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm), for example, for the phone booth story (which was 20 years ago in any case), for example. I'm not convinced that (a) product liability lawsuits are actually the problem that the insurance companies claim they are; or that (b) capping awards for non-economicl damage will actually do anything to fix the problem even if it is. If manufacturers don't have to fear large damage awards, aren't they more likely to consider injuries to people who use their products just a cost of doing business and be less inclined to avoid causing those injuries in the first place?

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

In practice: If the defendants know that they cannot discredit the evidence; they instead discredit the expert witness. Without the witness, there is nobody left to explain the evidence to the jury and the case is dismissed.
I'm not sure how that follows from what is on the page that you linked to, but I'm not at all familiar with the issue.

--Lindsey

[Dan in Saint Louis]

I'm not sure how that follows from what is on the page that you linked to, but I'm not at all familiar with the issue.

--LindseyFrom THAT page it doesn't follow. My dim outlook is from personal experience. We had a recent case in which the evidence was so clear that even the defendant's lawyer understood it.

He also understood that since we had not published our analysis methods in a peer-reviewed journal, and could not show that we had developed those methods independant from the investigation of this accident, he could attack the expert instead of the evidence.

The defendant was a corporation with greater capitalization than General Motors, and the judge was a "conservative" Republican appointee. He didn't even read our analysis.

Same kind of accident, same defendant, a case in another state. The new judge refused to review our evidence, said "what that other judge said is good enough for me". Now we have two very strong, almost obvious, cases dismissed, despite clear evidence -- because we are not allowed to introduce it.

[earler]

I must admit I have no citation as to the 100% of obstetricians. It is probably an exagerration. However, no one denies that nearly all of them have been sued during their careers.

Of course, I cite anecdotes. However, statistics reveal how litigious american society is and its exorbiatant cost, first of all shown in the amount medicial practioners must pay for liability insurance. Aside from the inefficiencies this is one of the reasons medical costs are so much higher than in any other country. For example, the french have the longest lifespan in the world, other than japan, and much less is spent on medical care. There are also de facto caps on liability for malpractice or negligence by hospitals.

-er

[Lindsey]

Sounds like you need to publish, Dan!

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I must admit I have no citation as to the 100% of obstetricians. It is probably an exagerration. However, no one denies that nearly all of them have been sued during their careers.
Thank you--yes, it does seem to be somewhat exaggerated. And the rate at which obstetricians are sued seems to vary quite significantly with their location (urban or rural). But it is true that a very high number of them, higher than for any other medical specialty, I believe, are the subject of a malpractice lawsuit during their careers.

. . . its exorbiatant cost, first of all shown in the amount medicial practioners must pay for liability insurance.
There are studies that dispute that claim, that suggest that the price of malpractice insurance is driven more by the rate of return that insurance companies can get on investments (and the drop in investment return in recent years has meant that insurance companies have compensated by raising premiums), and also by the rising cost of medical care itself. There are also studies that suggest that states that have put caps on non-economic damages have not seen any decrease in malpractice insurance premiums.

--Lindsey

[Dan in Saint Louis]

Sounds like you need to publish, Dan!Actually, we already had. The defense lawyer manged to convince the judge that the journal we published in was not sufficiently peer-reviewed to pass muster. I guess they failed to read the rules inside the front cover........

In any case, I am eligible for a sabbatical leave next year. I can get a semester away from classes to organize all our test protocols, recorded data, statistical analysis, etc; and turn it into one thick report. We'll be ready for them the next time (and two more cases are pending discovery).

[Lindsey]

Oh, I see--grrrr! But it does indeed sound like you'll be prepared to counter them next time around!

--Lindsey