Contributing Writers elwood Mike Hoefer susanthe William Tucker
Politicos & Punditry The Burt Cohen Show John Gregg Krauss Landrigan Lawson Pindell Primary Monitor Primary Wire Scala Schoenberg Spiliotes Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia. Paul Hodes Carol Shea-Porter Ann McLane Kuster Katrina Swett Jennifer Daler ActBlue Hampshire NHDP DCCC DSCC DNC
National Balloon Juice billmon Congress Matters DailyKos Digby Hold Fast Eschaton FiveThirtyEight MyDD The Next Hurrah Open Left Senate Guru Swing State Project Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network Alabama Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Dakota Tennessee Texas Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin
Feel free to enjoy this Open Thread.
To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
check out the videos too
The Bible as the law of the land? How did I miss that?
Leapin' Komodo dragons!
Not quite sure how it sails right over Kyl's head that disease kills more Americans than OBL ever dreamed of, but to simply spit out easily refutable baloney:
"I'm not sure that it's a fact that more and more people die because they don't have health insurance. But because they don't have health insurance, the care is not delivered in the best and most efficient way."
Here's Monty Python's rendition of Sen. Kyl's version of health care reform, death by spread sheet. www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com
Dear Jack, One of the great things about running for Congress is the chance to talk firsthand with so many people across the district about the big issues facing our country. This summer and fall, I've been overwhelmed by the level of engagement and thoughtful consideration I have heard in living rooms and backyards from Brookline to Milan. One issue that has grown in force and focus recently is the future of our military involvement in Afghanistan. I wanted to take a moment to share my views with you in a slightly longer email than normal, and I'd welcome your thoughts in return. Like many Americans, I am deeply troubled by the situation in Afghanistan, particularly because we have courageous American soldiers putting their lives on the line every day. General McChrystal has given the President a bleak assessment that should give us all pause. No matter how many troops the US sends to that country we cannot protect a regime seen as corrupt and illegitimate by its own citizens. Unfortunately there is little doubt about the level of corruption and international monitors seem convinced that fraud permeated the recent election. It does us no good to look back on the eight years our troops have bravely fought in Afghanistan and wonder what could have been if we hadn't made the deeply flawed decision to divert our focus and resources to the war in Iraq, which I opposed. We must make sure, however, that the same mistaken mindset and flawed reasoning that trapped us in Iraq does not control our future in Afghanistan. We must ask the tough questions we should have done a better job asking about Iraq: What is our goal and how do we know when we've achieved it? Is it possible to achieve that goal with the current Afghan government and its policies? What is our exit strategy? What are the risks and costs of our future involvement? And finally - is the international community committed to supporting the strategy and sharing its costs? In my view we should not consider sending additional combat troops to Afghanistan unless the Afghan government meets three conditions: 1. They must agree to a sustained crack-down on corruption at every level of their government. 2. They must create a political reconciliation involving President Karzai and his chief opponents that results in a real sense of legitimacy for the Afghan government. 3. They must substantially increase the size of their own military and police force. Even if those conditions are met, however, we must ask ourselves one additional and essential question before putting more troops in harm's way or spending hundreds of billions of additional dollars. The question is simple, though the answer is not obvious--is this war vital to preventing future attacks against the United States and its allies? Only those with direct access to intelligence information can make this judgment with any certainty, but I have grave doubts. The cancer of Al Qaeda seems to have spread to Pakistan and beyond. A wider war in Afghanistan will have little impact on the Al Qaeda leadership outside that country's borders. Moreover our recent successes against Al Qaeda have come not in large scale military engagements in Afghanistan but through pinpoint attacks. In short, the US should not commit more troops to Afghanistan unless that country commits itself to the reforms that are a prerequisite to success, as well as to building its own self defense forces; until we have a real plan for what it will cost and how it will end; and until we are convinced that defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan is necessary to prevent Al Qaeda from striking America. I hope this note gives you a sense of what you'd hear from me on this issue at our next house party, Democratic committee meeting, or grassroots event. I also hope this is a two-way conversation: please email me, post your thoughts on my facebook page, or come to our next event and let me know what you think. See you on the trail, Annie PS - We have over two dozen events planned in the next two months around the state, and I hope to see you at one soon. Here is the list of dates and towns where I will be speaking with voters and activists soon about our campaign and my vision for moving our country forward. For more details about any event, just reply to this email! Concord, NH - October 20th Jaffrey, NH - October 20th Salem, NH - October 23rd Whitefield, NH - October 24th Grantham, NH - October 25th Hopkinton, NH - November 4th Lebanon, NH - November 6th Holderness, NH - November 8th Bedford, NH - November 9th Harrisville, NH (Keene area) - November 11th Hanover, NH - November 12th Elkins, NH (Sunapee area) - November 16th Concord, NH - November 20th New Castle, NH - December 4th Lancaster, NH - December 6th Randolph, NH - December 6th Bethlehem, NH - December 6th
One issue that has grown in force and focus recently is the future of our military involvement in Afghanistan.
I wanted to take a moment to share my views with you in a slightly longer email than normal, and I'd welcome your thoughts in return.
Like many Americans, I am deeply troubled by the situation in Afghanistan, particularly because we have courageous American soldiers putting their lives on the line every day. General McChrystal has given the President a bleak assessment that should give us all pause. No matter how many troops the US sends to that country we cannot protect a regime seen as corrupt and illegitimate by its own citizens. Unfortunately there is little doubt about the level of corruption and international monitors seem convinced that fraud permeated the recent election.
It does us no good to look back on the eight years our troops have bravely fought in Afghanistan and wonder what could have been if we hadn't made the deeply flawed decision to divert our focus and resources to the war in Iraq, which I opposed. We must make sure, however, that the same mistaken mindset and flawed reasoning that trapped us in Iraq does not control our future in Afghanistan.
We must ask the tough questions we should have done a better job asking about Iraq: What is our goal and how do we know when we've achieved it? Is it possible to achieve that goal with the current Afghan government and its policies? What is our exit strategy? What are the risks and costs of our future involvement? And finally - is the international community committed to supporting the strategy and sharing its costs?
In my view we should not consider sending additional combat troops to Afghanistan unless the Afghan government meets three conditions:
1. They must agree to a sustained crack-down on corruption at every level of their government. 2. They must create a political reconciliation involving President Karzai and his chief opponents that results in a real sense of legitimacy for the Afghan government. 3. They must substantially increase the size of their own military and police force.
Even if those conditions are met, however, we must ask ourselves one additional and essential question before putting more troops in harm's way or spending hundreds of billions of additional dollars. The question is simple, though the answer is not obvious--is this war vital to preventing future attacks against the United States and its allies?
Only those with direct access to intelligence information can make this judgment with any certainty, but I have grave doubts. The cancer of Al Qaeda seems to have spread to Pakistan and beyond. A wider war in Afghanistan will have little impact on the Al Qaeda leadership outside that country's borders. Moreover our recent successes against Al Qaeda have come not in large scale military engagements in Afghanistan but through pinpoint attacks.
In short, the US should not commit more troops to Afghanistan unless that country commits itself to the reforms that are a prerequisite to success, as well as to building its own self defense forces; until we have a real plan for what it will cost and how it will end; and until we are convinced that defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan is necessary to prevent Al Qaeda from striking America.
I hope this note gives you a sense of what you'd hear from me on this issue at our next house party, Democratic committee meeting, or grassroots event. I also hope this is a two-way conversation: please email me, post your thoughts on my facebook page, or come to our next event and let me know what you think.
See you on the trail, Annie
PS - We have over two dozen events planned in the next two months around the state, and I hope to see you at one soon. Here is the list of dates and towns where I will be speaking with voters and activists soon about our campaign and my vision for moving our country forward. For more details about any event, just reply to this email!
Concord, NH - October 20th Jaffrey, NH - October 20th Salem, NH - October 23rd Whitefield, NH - October 24th Grantham, NH - October 25th Hopkinton, NH - November 4th Lebanon, NH - November 6th Holderness, NH - November 8th Bedford, NH - November 9th Harrisville, NH (Keene area) - November 11th Hanover, NH - November 12th Elkins, NH (Sunapee area) - November 16th Concord, NH - November 20th New Castle, NH - December 4th Lancaster, NH - December 6th Randolph, NH - December 6th Bethlehem, NH - December 6th
Ms. Ayotte blurts out the GOP parrot points
I would support like rigorous tort reform, allowing competition across state lines.
Oopsie!
FACT: Without reform and stronger consumer protections, allowing insurers to sell health plans across state lines would drive a "race to the bottom" and effectively gut consumer protections that many states have in place. It would allow insurers to offer individual insurance on a nationwide basis under the laws and regulations of a state of their choice - allowing them to choose states with the laxest oversight and fewest consumer protections. In effect, it would allow them to sell nationwide cheap insurance that doesn't offer comprehensive coverage - the kind that shocks consumers with the fine print when they file a claim. Indeed, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners in opposing this proposal has stated explicitly that it would create a "race to the bottom" and "insurers would be greatly rewarded for licensing their individual products in states with less regulation." Millions of Americans who have chronic health conditions or are older would be worse off than they are now - with fewer choices of affordable insurance products that meet their needs.
Indeed, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners in opposing this proposal has stated explicitly that it would create a "race to the bottom" and "insurers would be greatly rewarded for licensing their individual products in states with less regulation."
Millions of Americans who have chronic health conditions or are older would be worse off than they are now - with fewer choices of affordable insurance products that meet their needs.
She obviously doesn't read enough Blue Hampshire. ;v) www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com
Did you know that Lynch, a Democrat, is actually more popular among the Republican base living on the Massachusetts Border than he is along the left-leaning Connecticut Valley? Lynch approval ratings from UNH 10/6/09 Approve Disapprove Neutral Statewide 66 23 11 Mass Border 68 23 10 Conn Valley 61 27 12
Lynch approval ratings from UNH 10/6/09 Approve Disapprove Neutral Statewide 66 23 11 Mass Border 68 23 10 Conn Valley 61 27 12
http://www.americablog.com/200...
