Demo's need a new way to find a candidate.

[Chuckiechan]

Although I am not generally supportive of Democratic platforms, I really hate to see an inept candidate. I say this because presidents do their most important work when they are "lame ducks" since the first term is all about getting elected.

A strong, rational opponet often brings issues to the table that are often addressed by the lame duck in his second term, since they usually show lots of popular support.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/21657.htm

Dick Morris's article expresses my feelings about the Democrat's process pretty well.

They need to fix it.

[M_Six]

Well if anyone would know an inept politician when he saw one, it would be someone from California.

[M_Six]

Having defeated the three candidates of his party who might have beaten Bush - Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman and John Edwards - Kerry is finding out that America is a centrist nation.

If this guy thinks Lieberman had a chance of beating Bush, he doesn't have a clue. Talk about inept.

[Bovon]

IMHO, the Democratic Party has not found THE candidate. Kerry is beginning to show "colors" that kinda scares me. Besides that, he appears to be an arrogant individual..and I am now beginning to analyze him today as compared to his after Vietnam speeches and campaigns. What I originally thought was more of the old Vietnam hurt suffered by so many vets..may actually be just a bit of Jane Fonda mixed in..

As for me, I will be studying this character much more before I will vote for him

[osprey4]

"Yesterday Senator John Kerry changed his mind and now supports the ban on gay marriages. I'm telling you this guy has more positions than Paris Hilton." - David Letterman

"According to a new study, Botox injections can help back pain. So you see, that's why John Kerry had all that Botox - his back was killing him from all that flip-flopping on issues." - Jay Leno

I loved this one...
"The head of the AFL-CIO endorsed John Kerry, saying, 'The time has come to come behind one man, one leader, one candidate.' Then he said, 'And until we find that man, we will have to endorse John Kerry.'" - Conan O'Brien

[Chuckiechan]

The whole country loses when we get a bad race. Dole running against Clinton comes to mind. No wonder Billy was so bored and got himself into trouble.

After Kerry sinks to a certain level in the polls, him and his ideas get ignored. Aside from the bad ones, there are some good ones that should get attention (jacking up social security cut off for those paying in, forcing drug companies to dump their R & D budgets for cheaper drugs, and some others, but they will only get attention in a tight race.

Don't bother sticking up for Kerry or bashing him, the polls are showing that his eternal slide into oblivion has begun. What can he do to turn it around?

[osprey4]

So, just to take up one point, Kerry wants pharmaceutical companies to "dump their R&D budgets" so we can have cheaper drugs? Perhaps you can explain why this will help our nation in the long run.

Or perhaps this is just one of the many Kerry positions that's just too stupid to hold up to any scrutiny. Oh well, back to the focus groups for the next great idea!

[Chuckiechan]

R & D budgets are where the money comes from the design the new drugs. Mexico and Canada aren't the same. Canada is a prosperous country that can afford the stuff. I understand that Canadian drugs are primarly drugs that are not new or cutting edge, and few "name brands". So much of the beef is with the generic manufacturers.

It can be argued that the greedy pharmaceutical companies are giving Mexico a break because they are a poor country.

The smart play is to equalize prices in Canada to boost the R & D budgets, and keep giving Mexico welfare prices. If we cause prices to be reduced here, where will the money come from to create new drugs?

Also, I wonder if it is harder to sue a drug company in Canada and Mexico? Maybe that is part of the difference...?

Last night I saw a poll showing Kerry at 45 and Bush at 48. It seems many people know it might be a tight race and the stakes are high. I like to think that people are being a lot more independant in the way they decide who they are supporting.

If Kerry falls below 43 I wonder if the Demo's will dump him to save themselves? Hillary could still be a player, she's been awful quiet lately.

[Pexster]

Here's the truth about R&D budgets in the big pharm companies from a 60 Minutes interview with Dr. Marcia Angell, an 11-year executive editor of The New England Journal of Medicine--

Safer asked Dr. Angell about the case the industry invariably makes to justify drug prices.

“This is a kind of blackmail. What they're saying is, ‘Don't mess with us. Let us charge whatever we want for our drugs. Otherwise, you won't get the miracles,’” says Angell. “And the truth is that they spend less in R&D then they make in profits. And far less then they spend on marketing. And they don't make that many miracles in the first place … The problem is, is that we're no longer getting our money's worth.”

As for Kerry, don't you think it's little bit early to be counting him out? Eight months is a long time!

Finally, I agree that the Dems need a better way of choosing candidates. So do the Republicans. They could both start by changing the primary schedule. No offense to Iowa or New Hampshire, but this process is skewed so badly it's becoming a joke. Media pundits start writing people off before the campaign's in full gear.

[Bovon]

Pexster....if available, please post or PM me the URL or link to the above 60 minutes interview to the R&D budgets.. At my age, and paying thru the teeth for meds that have increased over 500% in the recent 5 years.. I could certainly use that information..

Thanks!

For the rest of you that feel the cost of meds for the elderly is of no concern to you, I have one small statement...do not plan on growing old. Arrange to be put-down with retirement!.

(I apologize for the thread crap).