Senator John Kerry (Democratic Prez Candidate)

Hellllllo Nurse, BSN, RN · Feb 1, 2004

Originally posted by -jt
have you ever seen any legislator have "NURSES" listed as an important issue right on their website?
All the other candidates websites talk about healthcare, medicare, medicaide, prescriptions, medical insurance and everything else, but none, except Kerry, said a word about nurses, nursing, nurses workplace environment and medical errors, or pt safety.

Not true.

Dean has a page on his site where nurses working conditions, ban on mandatory overtime, nurse to pt ratios and other issues affecting nurses are addressed. There is also the Nurses for Dean Assoc.

If you want to view it, go to http://www.deanforamerica.com click on issues>health care>nurses

I was fully behind Dean, but now Kerry is looking good to me. I will back the democratic candidate, no matter who it is.

Hellllllo Nurse, BSN, RN · Feb 1, 2004

I just read these statements on Kerry's site:

"John Kerry believes we need to ensure that there are adequate staffing levels of registered nurses in our health care facilities. When staffing is inadequate, nurses are forced to work overtime and care for too many patients. The difficult working environment for nurses, caused in part by understaffing, is part of the reason that we have a nursing shortage. And, as all nurses know, it can undermine the quality of care.

The Medicare and Medicaid programs give the Federal government the leverage to make sure we have appropriate staffing levels. John Kerry will implement rules that account for the number of patients that a nurse cares for in any given shift, the specific health needs of these patients, and the levels of experience and preparation of participating nurses. It is nurses who best understand what is required by the job and John Kerry believes they must be involved in developing safe staffing systems. The safety of millions of Americans depends upon swift and decisive action to implement appropriate nurse staffing levels nationwide. John Kerry will take this action."

BRAVO!

James Huffman · Feb 1, 2004

Originally posted by spacenurse
Earlier this week the Vice-President Dick Cheney predicted in a newspaper interview that President George W. Bush will win re-election, in part because of a divided Democratic party. He stated that the candidates had been unable to find common ground on either the war in Iraq or the economy, which appear to be the obvious major election issues. It was, I believe, his first one-on-one interview with a major newspaper in something like two years and, as such, gives us a unique look at the thinking of the man we saw seated behind Mr. Bush, as the President delivered his State of the Union address before Congress, the nation and the world on Tuesday evening.

A week ago I might well have quietly agreed that the chances of his being denied a second term in office were slight indeed. Having witnessed the opening salvo of the campaign, in the form of the Iowa Caucuses (an Algonquin word meaning "Elder"), followed by his smoothly presented address, I think there will be a real contest ahead which might well result in a change at the White House a year from now.

Conventional wisdom was once again overturned in Iowa. It seemed that Gov. Dean was going to win quite easily, but there was a surge in popularity for the winner, Sen.John Kerry, which would have been inconceivable a week ago. This will alter the dynamics of the Democrat's primary contest and ultimately the broader national debate. Just as impressive was the rise into second place of the North Carolina Senator, John Edwards. Both men stuck to a positive and optimistic campaign. Until very recently the two front-runners had been Dr. Howard Dean the former Vermont governor and the winner last time around, Rep. Dick Gephardt. The Bush-Cheney campaign had been betting on Dean's candidacy.

Now it is on to the snowy landscape of New Hampshire and a more traditional style primary. It will become increasingly challenging with the appearance of the retired general Wesley Clark. No one can doubt his military credentials and in the case of Kerry (a man with a distinguished war record) and Sen. John Edwards, both had voted for the war resolution in the Senate, so they will be in a good position to take the Republican administration to task for its stated reasons for declaring war in the first place.

As Kerry said, and will likely say again, "We need a nominee who can prove to America that we Democrats know how to make this precious nation of ours safer and more secure."

And then one day later we heard the President presenting, with considerable style and conviction, his State of the Union address. He used the time to remind the world of the lurking threat of terrorism and his record in defeating Saddam Hussein and his success in defending the American homeland. It was an address to the world as well as the United States. In it the President emphasized the importance of diplomacy and stated that "Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better." He's going to be selling that line between now and the day of the election. But, God forbid, what would happen if sometime between now and then, there was to be another major terrorist attack - How, do you think the electorate would react to the president possibly expanding the war; increasing our military commitment ? We are likely to be in for many, many surprises between now and then.

Some good thoughts.

In the first place, don't be surprised by what Cheney said. OF COURSE, he's going to say that he and GW will win ... it would be headline news if he said otherwise. And as far as his saying that the Democrats will lose because they are divided, well, let me play the devil's advocate, and suggest that Cheney is trying to stir the pot. What folks are calling "division" is nothing more than healthy debate, and that is a good, not a bad thing in something like a nominating process. It allows for spirited exchange of views, and should be encouraged. The Democrats would win IF they unite behind whoever is nominated this summer.

All of us might take a cue from this process. I honestly think that the Democrats running for the nomination have been fair, kind, and good-spirited with their rivals. (I especially like the way John Edwards has handled this). The only damage such a race might engender would be if those who lost (and their followers) were bitter in the end, and refused to go along with the nominee. Healthy debate is a good thing, and should be encouraged whenever possible.

I don't think Edwards will get the nomination at this point, but I wouldn't rule it out. He's young (hey, there's something nice about someone in his early 50s being called "youthful" ;-) and there's time for future races. He also bowed out of running for re-election in his senate seat here in NC. Which is a smart thing: the seat has a record of rotating from party to party every 6 years, and I suspect that Republican Richard Burr will take the seat in November. Not running in that seat keeps Edwards from being branded as a 2004 "double-loser" in the electorate's memory.

As far as terrorism goes, I won't get into it here, but I think there is much that we are not being told about the events of 9/11/01. Bush will use the terrorism issue to full advantage this year; I certainly hope I am wrong, but would not at all be surprised to see another "event" occur between now and the November elections, especially if the race starts looking close. This would enable the Republicans to argue that it would be dangerous to change presidents in the middle of such a time.

Jim Huffman, RN

Long Term Care Columnist / Guide · Feb 1, 2004

You've made a good point, Jim. Has anyone else noticed the frequency with which flights from Europe are being denied entry into U.S. airspace these days? Nothing at all has happened in the past 2 1/2 years, and then just before New Year's our government got hinky and started prohibiting certain planes from landing at our airports. Now, I'm not discounting the possibility that Al-Qaida is up to its old tricks, but it certainly seems more than a coincidence that this is happening in an election year. And as for Al-Qaida.....what self-respecting terrorist group would pull the same stunt twice when they know we're on the alert for just such an attack? I'd think they'd want to do something new and original and even more horrifying, although airplanes were VERY effective in achieving their objective the first time around.

But then, what do I know.........I'm just an ordinary citizen who happens to think this administration would do just about anything to improve its chances for another four years in office, including using real OR imagined terrorist threats to scare us out of changing horses in mid-stream.