Guliani is dropping out today to endorse McCain and Huckabuck is an interesting no-hoper who has a chance to influence the party platform - but probably not on foreign relations. No, I see his influence will be in his recognition of the pain many ordinary Americans are experiencing in this lovely 'New World Order' we have constructed.

That leaves McCain and Romney as the serious candidates remaining going into Super Tuesday, with McCain the clear frontrunner.

David's comments about Romney are interesting. I'm not sure I agree with him that Romney is superior to McCain in dealing with the economic crisis, for two reasons. The first is that I'm not certain that the economic crisis will be a long term thing, and McCain has superior credentials in most of the other areas one would look at.

The second is that if the economic crisis should prove to be long-lasting (like the Great Depression was for example) I feel the causes will be rather more fundamental than we perhasp realise today. And we will need reform rather than patches. I see Romney as a true believer in the current world order, which tells me that he is more likely to patch than to reform. He's too close to it, too much of the insider. McCain is more likely to be a reformer. He's never been an insider, not even in the Senate, the US's most exclusive political club. McCain is a bit of a heterodox - and I think we need a heterodox this year.

One more thing I look at is which candidate would make the better effort of being a President for all the people rather than the priviledged few. McCain wins that one hands-down in my eyes.

Why I hate Romney

Well actually I don't. But there are two things about Romney which grate on me. The first is his apparent opportunism - this is a political leopard who changes his stripes just a bit too much. As Governor of Massachusetts he was a *moderate* GOP'er, but as a Presidential candidate he's transmuted himself into a raging conservative. It doesn't quite wear.

The other thing which I dislike is his background as a successful businessman. Normally this would not be a problem for me, but this year it is. I think the GOP has gotten way to chummy with the CEO and forgotten about the welfare of the employee, which is a great reason why they are suddenly losing elections left, right, and center. Because people ae fed up, and not just about Iraq. Not even primarily about Iraq, I think.

So in this atmosphere you're going to nominate a successfull businessman so he can be chummy with the other businessmen on top? I don't theeeeennnnnkkkkkk so!

David, from your description of the Massachusetts health insurance plan it sounds much like the French system. Mandadtory private insurance for most working people (possibly financed by their employer?). The other half of the plan is state subsidized insurance for those unable to finance it themselves.

The major difference seems to be that the Massachusetts state subsidies aren't sufficient to cover those not paying for themselves. Thus the deficits Pat mentions.

I'm uncertain how France manages to square the circle. Possibly through higher taxation, the lower administrative costs of a universal system, and possibly more rigorous gatekeeping limiting which treatments are available. I do know that the French health insurance is well regarded by the people who matter most - the 'customers'. Which speaks well for it.

It's important not to forget the 'hidden' cost of a non-universal system - the costs to the society of having a significant portion of the populaion in poorer health than they should be because preventative care isn't available to the uninsured.

Don't forget that the system in the US mostly pays for emergency care when an uninsured person collapses and has to be rushed to the hospital. So we're paying for the emergency care and paying for poor health. It could be that a limited form of publically financed or subsidised universal health insurance for the currently uninsured would actually save money - when all the costs of the current system are considered