Josh Dicker: ‘You spend way too much of your weblog on politics and social policy. My objection, you should know, is not based on the fact that your opinions are mostly misinformed exaggerations. Rather, I object because you have attracted me to your site by offering me guidance about finance. The old bait and switch. Boo.’

☞ Fair enough. Next year, no more Super Bowl ad luring you to the site. But how can I limit myself to mortgages and index funds when I get e-mails like this next one?

Larry Loiello (who usually votes Republican): ‘I hate to encourage you, because I really miss the days when you wrote more about money and not so much about politics, but you’ve worn me down! Today’s column finally pushed me over the edge. I think I will not be voting for Bush in November. (And if you want to feel even better about this, I should tell you that I recently moved from NYC and will be voting in FLORIDA this year!)’


Steve Baker: ‘Up here in Canada a recent poll by a reputable monthly magazine (Maclean’s Canada’s answer to Time) showed 85% would not vote for Bush (if Canadians had a say). This is the overwhelming opinion of your largest trading partner. The same partner, who might not like having its health care system attacked by senior cabinet minister Secretary of Health & Human services Tommy Thompson who went on CNBC and proclaimed that the Canadian drug supply was unsafe and that was why the US wouldn’t allow re-importation from Canada. ISN’T THAT SPECIAL? It probably had nothing to do with the fact that Bush’s campaign sold out to big pharma.

‘These dolts can’t appreciate that the drugs are manufactured by multinational drug companies, and the Canadian supply comes from the same plant – these companies didn’t set up separate plants to service the Canadian demand. Never mind that there have been no reported cases of people in Canada getting sick due to inferior quality medication (the only thing that is different-to be sold in Canada the labels have to be in both English & French). At the same time, Bush passes a drug plan that prohibits bulk pricing for the states or federal government.’


Dan Stone: ‘GREEN is actually an acronym for Get Republicans Elected Every November. How can they live with themselves?’


Speculating on Kerry running mates in the New York Times yesterday, NYU Law Professor Stephen Gillers asks, why not Bill Clinton?

‘The first objection, the constitutional one,’ he writes, ‘can be disposed of easily. The Constitution does not prevent Mr. Clinton from running for vice president. The 22nd Amendment, which became effective in 1951, begins: ‘No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.’

‘No problem. Bill Clinton would be running for vice president, not president. Scholars and judges can debate how loosely constitutional language should be interpreted, but one need not be a strict constructionist to find this language clear beyond dispute. Bill Clinton cannot be elected president, but nothing stops him from being elected vice president.’

And, he argues, Gillers, if Kerry couldn’t complete his term, ‘Mr. Clinton would succeed Mr. Kerry not by election, which the amendment forbids, but through Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that if a president dies, resigns or is removed from office, his powers ‘shall devolve on the vice president.’ The 22nd Amendment would not prevent this succession.’

☞ No, it’s not going to happen. But wouldn’t it be fun?


Comments are closed.