Armstrong at U.S. Senate

Lance Armstrong urges Congress to renew war on cancer
Friday, May 9, 2008 10:56 MDT
KIDK-3-CBS Idaho Falls, Idaho


WASHINGTON, D.C. - Seven-time Tour de France winner and cancer survivor
Lance Armstrong is calling on Congress to renew the nation's war on cancer.

"It's time for our country to refocus and relaunch a comprehensive war on
this disease," Armstrong said Thursday.

America's aging population and younger people who are less physically active
than they should be make it more urgent than ever to find better ways to
combat cancer, Armstrong said.

"This opponent is probably tougher than anything we'll ever face," he said.

Armstrong, who lives in Austin, Texas, and was raised in the Dallas area,
was diagnosed in 1996 with testicular cancer that spread to his lungs and
brain. But he recovered to win the world's premier cycling event from 1999
to 2005. The Lance Armstrong Foundation supports cancer research, prevention
and better care for cancer survivors.

"For me, this is not a cause that I picked," he said. "It picked me."

Armstrong appeared before a Senate panel with Elizabeth Edwards, the wife
of former Sen. John Edwards, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee.
Even after she was diagnosed with cancer and went through chemotherapy
following the 2004 election, the couple continued public activities and
she wrote a memoir.

After her cancer returned in early 2007, her husband remained in the 2008
presidential race and she continued to campaign for him before he dropped
out. She works on health care policy at a Washington think tank.

Armstrong said he backs legislation sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy,
D-Mass., and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, to create a more
comprehensive approach to fighting cancer.

The measure seeks to improve the coordination of cancer research, prevention
and treatment while giving more money to the National Cancer Institute and
other public research agencies.

"We think the American people want action - and they deserve action," said
Kennedy. "It's a complex disease and it requires comprehensive strategies to
fight it."

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

Leaky's hero - 34 years ago


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05092008/watch.html

"PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON:I shall propose a sweeping new program that
will assure comprehensive health-insurance protection to millions of
Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved
protection against catastrophic illnesses."

Catastrophic illnesses that won't financially ruin anyone living in a
civilized country - except the U.S.

On May 18, 1:10 pm, safire <saf...@telenet.com> wrote:
> Leaky's hero - 34 years ago
>
> http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05092008/watch.html
>
> "PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON:I shall propose a sweeping new program that
> will assure comprehensive health-insurance protection to millions of
> Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved
> protection against catastrophic illnesses."
>
> Catastrophic illnesses that won't financially ruin anyone living in a
> civilized country - except the U.S.

In the context of American history, I think Richard Nixon must be
placed slightly to the left of where Bill Clinton was. In those days
there was a general consensus that the reforms of the New Deal were
permenent. No one talked about making social security voluntary, and
tax rates were much more progressive. Nixon set up the EPA, and as
you point out, supported National Health Insurance. He did this
partly to counter liberal proposals, but he still did them.

"len" <len@math.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:d71dcb87-c0f3-4c43-b41b-822950c26e48@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

> In the context of American history, I think Richard Nixon must be
> placed slightly to the left of where Bill Clinton was. In those days
> there was a general consensus that the reforms of the New Deal were
> permenent. No one talked about making social security voluntary, and
> tax rates were much more progressive. Nixon set up the EPA, and as
> you point out, supported National Health Insurance. He did this
> partly to counter liberal proposals, but he still did them.

While I don't know about his being left of Clinton. Maybe JFK.

But, I agree he gets too many darts from the Dems and too few from the
Repubs.

The best one is blaming the war on him. So many Boomers blame him for the
war that was started two or three administrations before his. So few people
blame him for losing it.

On May 24, 10:12 am, "Steve Kramer" <skra...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
> "len" <l...@math.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:d71dcb87-c0f3-4c43-b41b-822950c26e48@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > In the context of American history, I think Richard Nixon must be
> > placed slightly to the left of where Bill Clinton was. In those days
> > there was a general consensus that the reforms of the New Deal were
> > permenent. No one talked about making social security voluntary, and
> > tax rates were much more progressive. Nixon set up the EPA, and as
> > you point out, supported National Health Insurance. He did this
> > partly to counter liberal proposals, but he still did them.
>
> While I don't know about his being left of Clinton. Maybe JFK.
>
> But, I agree he gets too many darts from the Dems and too few from the
> Repubs.
>
> The best one is blaming the war on him. So many Boomers blame him for the
> war that was started two or three administrations before his. So few people
> blame him for losing it.

We all read history differently. I would be interested in the
criteria you are using to make your evaluations. I gave some of
mine. I think few people at the time would have considered Nixon more
liberal than JFK or LBJ. The reason he was more liberal in some
policies than even the current Democratic candidates is that there was
an enormous shift rightward in American politics that largely undid
the political consensus from the New Deal, although many its
accomplishments, such a social security, persist.

I haven't ever heard of anyone blaming Nixon for starting the Vietnam
war. I think it is generally agreed that the first buildup was under
JFK, but the really massive involvement was under Johnson. Some peole
believe that JFK would have seen it wasn't worth the effort and would
have pulled out, but we will never know. The war certainly wrecked
any chance that LBJ's ambitious domestic program could succeed, and
there is evidence that he knew it but felt he couldn't "lose" the
war.

Nixon's sin, as far as I am concerned, was to promise he would get us
out in order to get elected and then remain there for quite a long
time afterwards. Our final failure there was based on the
hopelessness of the endeavor in the first place. You can't really
say that NIon and Kissinger didn't give it their best shot under the
circumstances. The American people would not have tolerated our
actively fighting an endless war there. There was of course always
the possibity of widening the war. But, remembering Korea and the
Chinese response to our march to its border, very few people had much
stomach for that.

Of course, after 30 years, we are now good buddies with the Chinese---
started under Nixon---and the Vietnamese, and the predictions of
falling dominoes proved largely incorrect. It is hard to believe
that things would have worked out much differently in the end if we
had the will to continue the war until it was "won".

"len" <len@math.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:010967ad-fb34-4dde-9d0d-17f169c8610e@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 24, 10:12 am, "Steve Kramer" <skra...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:


> We all read history differently. I would be interested in the
> criteria you are using to make your evaluations. I gave some of
> mine. I think few people at the time would have considered Nixon more
> liberal than JFK or LBJ.

Time always clarifies things.

I would not put JFK and LBJ in the same league. Nor would I put Nixon
anywhere left of LBJ. You fairly well nailed Nixon. I am not debating it.
Hell, I'm not debating anything you've said, I think. JFK however was a
"Tis not what your country can do for you" man. If you read his speeches
and those of Reagan, they're extremely close on point. The Great Society
was antithetic to that.

len wrote:
> safire wrote:
>>
>> "PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON:I shall propose a sweeping new program that
>> will assure comprehensive health-insurance protection to millions of
>> Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved
>> protection against catastrophic illnesses."

> Nixon ... supported National Health Insurance.

Tread lightly, guys .... when I brought up Nixon's national health plan,
the politics police raised holy hell, and my comment was relevant to
prostate cancer patients. You'll want to wear your liberal creds on your
sleeve if you want to avoid persecution.

I.P.