WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Sen. John McCain described them as “bad guys.” Was he talking about terrorists? No, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate was actually referring to pharmaceutical companies.

McCain bemoans the high cost of pharmaceuticals and, with a heavy dose of anti-corporate rhetoric, he champions the idea of drug reimportation — allowing consumers and commercial distributors in the United States to obtain prescription drugs from Canada at lower prices.

Reimportation is politically popular; it’s also bad policy. McCain would be better served by abandoning this idea and speaking out instead in favor of reforms that will help Americans pay a fair price for prescription drugs.

Americans are concerned, even angry, about drug costs, so the appeal of reimportation is easy to understand. Most upsetting of all is the fact that Canadians and Europeans pay less than Americans for the same drugs.

But as anyone who has been to a flea market knows, sometimes a bargain isn’t such a good deal. Drug reimportation does little more than import price controls, meaning that along with Canadian-style prices, Americans would also get Canadian-style drug innovation.

And Canada — where insulin, the greatest pharmaceutical breakthrough of the first half of the 20th century, was developed and marketed — stands today as a backwater for drug development. Price controls kill profitability, eliminating the enormous capital needed to fund research and development.

Reimportation poses other practical issues. Congress has actually authorized reimportation more than a half-dozen times, contingent on the Food and Drug Administration’s certification that it can be done safely.

To date, the FDA hasn’t been able to do so, in part because drug counterfeiting is so easy and lucrative; witness the problems of the European Union, where reimportation has been legalized. The World Health Organization estimates that the fake-drug industry tops $35 billion a year globally in sales.

And reimportation is not a panacea in any case: Even if all profits of the pharmaceutical industry were eliminated, the total health care savings would be small, reducing drug expenditures from 10 percent of annual spending to about 8 percent. That reduction translates to a one-time freeze in health inflation of about three months.

Still, McCain is right to suggest that Americans deserve a better deal on their prescription drugs. There are two basic reforms that he could put forward:

» Make drug pricing a cornerstone of trade negotiations.

With the rest of the developed world embracing price controls, America now largely foots the bill for the world’s pharmaceutical development. It’s one thing for Sudan to want a deal on life-saving medicines, but the world’s most affluent nations should be paying their share of the bill.

When negotiating trade deals with these countries, the United States should insist that they not only drop their tariffs, but also their price controls on drugs. During the Bush years, Australia agreed to phase out its price controls as part of a comprehensive trade pact. McCain should make clear that, in his administration, free trade includes fair pricing.

» Reform the FDA.

Today it costs nearly a billion dollars to bring a drug to market, in part because of the heavy regulation of the Food and Drug Administration. And requirements increase by the year. In the mid-1980s, a typical drug trial involved 1,300 patients; today, the number is nearly four times higher (and for some drugs, such as blood thinners, the number may be 25 times higher).

Yet, despite the incredible cost and bureaucracy, the FDA still withdraws from the market just about the same number of drugs as it did two decades ago. In other words, drugs aren’t fundamentally safer.

Sen. McCain has built his political career on challenging the kind of Washington malaise embodied by the FDA.

He should push for an end to tenure at the agency, create an ombudsman’s office and press for review (through congressional oversight) of the agency’s sluggish drug-approval times.

He could go further by experimenting with the contracting-out of drug testing to not-for-profits that President George H.W. Bush employed during his term. McCain should offer Americans a way forward to lower drug prices, without endangering the innovation that has sparked the pharmaceutical revolution.

It may not give him a punchy sound bite, but as a cancer survivor, Sen. McCain should know that it’s the right policy.

Dr. Gratzer, a physician, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Comments from Examiner Readers

8:28 AM MST on Fri., May. 9, 2008 re: "Timothy Carney: Big Government churns out more Democrats"

Examiner Reader said:
All major , big cities run by democrats are sinking big time start in Philadelphia, and go from there.

2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

12:31 PM MST on Sat., May. 3, 2008 re: "Roger Severino: Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches"

Examiner Reader said:
I guess it is only supposed to work one way. You support RLUIPA which imposing religious "freedom" on secular zoning, but oppose a law which imposes secular law on religious freedom I do support your representation of religiouos groups, e.g., freedom for polygamists and goat sacrifice. This is not meant to be a tongue in cheek observation. Robert I. Rhodes, Chairman, Preserve Ramapo

11 agree | 11 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:23 AM MST on Thu., May. 1, 2008 re: "Jay Ambrose: Obama should actually read the Constitution"

Examiner Reader said:
�Well, it isn�t the mindset,� Scalia said, as later reported in a CBS online account of the exchange. �It�s what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution.� How does this differ from Obama's opinion? I'm of the opinion that a constitutional scholar's interpretation is more meassured than appointed court judges!

12 agree | 11 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:17 AM MST on Thu., May. 1, 2008 re: "Jay Ambrose: Obama should actually read the Constitution"

Jim said:
No one in Washington (except Ron Paul) gives a flying damn about the Constitution. You could subsitute in the name of just about any political figure in the last 50 years (except Ron Paul) and say the same thing about them. The Constitution ain't hard to figure out. It lists exactly what government is allowed to do. If it isn't in there, they can't do it. Simple. Clear. Elegant. Is that too complex for you?

15 agree | 11 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:24 AM MST on Thu., May. 1, 2008 re: "Meghan Cox Gurdon: The delicate dance of the seven evasions"

Terrence Briggs (Gaithersburg) said:
"Part of everyone�s problem is that it has become acceptable to express only certain views, to follow only certain narratives, and if your private thoughts depart from these, you�d better keep �em private." It has not "become acceptable", Ms. Gurdon; it has ALWAYS been this way. Most polite adults realize that there are some comments and observations that you cannot share with mixed company. (Remember, there are four things that you can't discuss: religion, politics, s-x, and The Great Pumpkin.) Of course, that goes for liberals, conservatives, black, whites, men, women, and so on. I realized this in college.

16 agree | 14 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:11 AM MST on Thu., May. 1, 2008 re: "Meghan Cox Gurdon: The delicate dance of the seven evasions"

Barely About Barack said:
Ms. Gurdon said, "...if blacks lean toward black candidates, why, nothing could be more natural". You will be hard-pressed to find many black voters who leaned toward Al Sharpton. Fewer leaned toward Alan Keyes. Very few leaned toward BOTH. I mentioned this fact to my uncle, who suggested that black candidates are innately more in tune with the concerns of black voters, and he conceded the point.

16 agree | 17 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:39 PM MST on Tue., Apr. 29, 2008 re: "Melanie Scarborough: U.S.�s only unregulated killing industry"

Examiner Reader said:
I wish animals in slaughterhouses were treated as humanely as unborn fetuses. Melanie, you clearly need to take a trip to a slaughterhouse, or a chicken factory, to see how horrid the conditions are. That Food Safety and Inspection Service policy is just a guideline, not a law, so there are actually no laws protecting poultry--imagine having your nose and fingers seared off without anesthesia, then hung upside down by your feet and dunked head first into boiling water and then if you're still alive, having your throat slit at the same time as being skinned. That's the death of a chicken. And with the comment "if kittens were treated with the same brutality afforded unborn humans"...I'm spaying an at-term cat tomorrow (they're kittens, not fetuses), feel free to come watch. There's no uproar going on about this cat.

14 agree | 15 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:01 AM MST on Fri., Apr. 25, 2008 re: "Timothy Carney: NBC�s �Green Week� and GE�s green"

Thomas said:
Typical. The far- & rabid-left news elites (& all the other F/RL's, for that matter) condemn tyrannical capitalism, big companies, & anyone who disagrees with them-until they get bribes. It's almost like MTPPV: Mob Tactics Pay-Per-View. I'll be the first to admit that there is some of that with the right (Ann Coulter isn't quite that bad, but comes close), but this is ridiculous. It takes an accomplished liar & bigot to do something like this, then clame that they are completely unpartisan, followed by shooting down anyone who disagrees.

17 agree | 18 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:48 PM MST on Thu., Apr. 24, 2008 re: "Jay Ambrose: �Going green� may mean going bananas soon"

Jim Schulman, Sustainable Community Initiatives said:
1) Mr. Ambrose, Genetically modified foods have been shown to do documented genetic damage to insects and plants in the vicinity of where they are grown, thereby potentially affecting whole species (e.g. killing Monarch Butterflys) and impacting ecosystems. People who eat the modified food may not be directly impacted, but could be indirectly affected. 2) For those who have paid attention over the last couple of years, the process that selected the Nevada nuke waste repository has been revealed to be heavy on strong-arm politics and somewhat scientifically-fudged. The hydrology of Yucca Mountain looks like it could be a protected site for maybe 300 years, not 100,000! A big ooops! The nuclear power industry is sadly still thus fatally flawed. Conservation, windmills, photovoltaics, wave, and tidal power are looking awfully worth our attention.

17 agree | 25 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:45 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 24, 2008 re: "Meghan Cox Gurdon: She�s awful but at least Hillary is not a snob"

Anti-Partisan said:
By the time I graduated college in Texas, I experienced more than enough partisan elitism from both sides. Gurdon touched on liberal bigotry, but doesn't seem very bothered by the misogynistic, xenophobic, negrophobic, anti-Semitic, and Islamophobic bigotry that also infects conservatives. Are the targets of such bigotry not "common" enough to be branded as "elitist"? And what could be more "elitist" than chauvanism, which infects conservatives, as well. Gurdon's shallow charge against liberal snobbery isn't holistic mirror-gazing, but chauvanistic navel-gazing.

22 agree | 27 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

3:56 PM MST on Wed., Apr. 23, 2008 re: "Jay Ambrose: �Going green� may mean going bananas soon"

Efficiency is King said:
Challenging one of Jay's remarks: "To avert imagined catastrophic climate change, the Senate is considering a bill that would mandate reductions of greenhouse emissions by 66 percent over the next four decades...that could give us catastrophic social change...we would simply have to live with less energy, which is another way of saying we would have to live with less of everything: Health care, transportation, food, clothing, housing, you name it." This binary logic eats away at your argument, Jay. Do you honestly believe that it's impossible to be more efficient energy consumers? Efficient use of indoor climate control, gasoline, and water is already being done! Future growth is NOT directly proportional to past energy use. Economies don't crumble because the air conditioner isn't set below 70 in the summer. Educated consumers will adjust to a more efficient lifestyle. So let's educate, rather than complain.

21 agree | 22 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:01 AM MST on Mon., Apr. 21, 2008 re: "Melanie Scarborough: U.S.�s only unregulated killing industry"

Todd (2 of 2) said:
In truth, Melonie never offer solutions, just her personal outrage based on her narrow and rather unworldly views. She would have us all believe that abortion is the only issue upon which to select a U.S. President. Tragically, to her and others, it may be. As for the rest of us, with a more balanced perspective on abortion throughout the history of the human race, we may choose to elect a president on all of the issues facing our country, world and future. We understand that compromise may be necessary where our beliefs with each candidate differ. The fact that Melonie believes that making abortions illegal will stop abortions proves her inability to understand the real abortion issue, just as making animal abuse illegal did not stop the two workers from hurting cows in California (or Michael Vick or tuna fisherman). Melonie doesn�t have solutions to the real problem, just a platform provided by The Examiner to make spurious arguments for her personal causes. I vote to fire her!

27 agree | 35 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:50 AM MST on Mon., Apr. 21, 2008 re: "Andrew Rys: Compromise is America�s lost civil virtue"

Erica Jacobs said:
Fine essay! I like the small revisions you've made recently.

29 agree | 28 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

2:00 AM MST on Sat., Apr. 19, 2008 re: "James Kirchick: Who is really stifling honest debate about the Middle East?"

Examiner Reader said:
You are, quite simply, wrong in almost all of your ill thought out beliefs.

27 agree | 25 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

2:58 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 18, 2008 re: "Timothy Carney: Tax bandits will have plenty to celebrate this April 15"

Examiner Reader said:
When republicans controlled congress the abuse of ear marks were an all time high, now the democrats have a narrow majority in congress and neo coned fools start crying about ear marked money. Bush has added his own earmarks into the budget, not to mention all these fake republican supported contractors who have stolen billions of dollars in this fake fiasco Iraq war.

22 agree | 25 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:38 AM MST on Fri., Apr. 18, 2008 re: "Quin Hillyer: Court should stop California�s patent theft"

Examiner Reader said:
Very well said. California should not be able to sue others repeatedly for infringment of its patents, and then claim "sovereign immunity" from suit by others when it is itself guilty of wholesale infringment. It is even more egregious when, as in this case, the State of California enacted legislation which made it illegal for any private licensee under the BPMC patent to practice the patented procedure in California without sharing its data (and proceeds) with the State. This effectively precluded many existing commercial labs (including Labcorp of America, Quest Diagnostics, and SmithKline Beecham) from continuing a portion of their lawful business activities within the state. In effect, California usurped the legitimate rights of the patentee to reap the rewards of activities within the state that are covered by the BPMC patent. That's just wrong, from any viewpoint - and certainly cannot be within the purvue of what was intended by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

19 agree | 20 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:35 AM MST on Fri., Apr. 18, 2008 re: "Meghan Cox Gurdon: Looking for hope in the wrong face"

Bill Evans said:
Re: "Looking for hope in the wrong face". Mehgan, You seem to have a very limited view on the world. Let me point out to you that the pope does not have exclusive rights on hope. He is not God and everyone is not Catholic. But everyone can have hope for a better country and a better future. My hope is that we can focus on lifting people up instead of tearing people down. Is that all you have to contribute to the conversation is negativity?

18 agree | 20 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:27 AM MST on Mon., Apr. 14, 2008 re: "Bryan O�Keefe: Labor bill empowers government to set wages, benefits for private workers"

Examiner Reader said:
Business leaders and owners could have prevented this legislation by ceasing their practice of preventing unionization of their organizations. It was their decision to spend the last 30 years thwarting workers interests, now, because of their failure to act prudently, they find themselves confronted with an outcome guided almost entirely by the interests of organized labor. Bush, will, of course, veto the bill when passed, so it's hard to see what all the whining and hysterics are all about. But, the days of being able to "run the table" against workers is likely coming to an end and wise businesses will get prepared to negotiate with organized labor rather than just attempt to defeat them.

22 agree | 20 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:39 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 11, 2008 re: "Quin Hillyer: Senate Dems ignore Puryear despite Thurgood Marshall praise"

Examiner Reader said:
This article is full of lies. CCA, for instance, doesn't operate prisons for 5-20% less than public prisons. A good study on the issue was done for the state of Arizona. The for-profit prison industry has 30 times as many escapes as do public prisons. They overbill the states with whom they contract for millions of dollars. They've gotten away with a lot more theft than the inmates they hold.

30 agree | 24 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:58 AM MST on Fri., Apr. 11, 2008 re: "Robert A. Levy: Should Congress or the courts decide D.C. gun ban�s fate?"

Examiner Reader said:
churches dont have to marry people they can go and be married by a judge or something although i am not for gay marriage::i think that if we were meant to have gay marriage we would all be the same sex:: yet i believe we should let the gays do whatever floats their boat... as long as it dosnt interfere with me

26 agree | 28 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

4:14 AM MST on Fri., Apr. 11, 2008 re: "Chris Stirewalt: Campaign hounds didn�t bark at Petraeus�s Senate hearing"

Examiner Reader said:
Mr. Stirewalt has come to the rescue of the urbane and sophisticated perceptions of themselves and those outside the beltway. Scrolling through the comments we see "offense" at the notion that voters in the upcoming Appalachian Democratic primaries may actually confront racial concerns in casting the ballot. Shocking! What the readers certainly are determined to say is that such behavior could only be exhibited in the Republican primary.. Nevertheless, hard truths (which are not necessarily inconvenient)are sometimes difficult and jagged pills. More difficult to swallow for one reader who offers up that their own Appalachian heritage was impugned. This fine West Virginian (and yes, I am one too) should note the polls. His or her WV party's support goes overwhelmingly to Sen. Clinton. Beyond being difficult to swallow for the "offend-istas", these columns are truly refreshing for your readers. I welcome such common sensical, and pleasantly communicated, commentary.

26 agree | 26 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:22 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 10, 2008 re: "Meghan Cox Gurdon: Are members of U.S. media mostly of pacifist bent?"

Examiner Reader said:
its not the media,its an ignorant,de-educated,sheep mentality population that allows for a total takeover of brain cells.

26 agree | 23 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:01 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 10, 2008 re: "Meghan Cox Gurdon: Are members of U.S. media mostly of pacifist bent?"

Examiner Reader said:
Surely some American journalists are pacifists; surely many are not. I do think, however, that inevitably, individual viewpoints bleed into all but the very finest reporting (and perhaps is necessarily reflected even there, too), and that we are kidding ourselves to assume otherwise.

23 agree | 22 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:28 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 10, 2008 re: "Roger Severino: Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches"

Conscious Reader said:
How will gay marriage spark lawsuits against churches? Churches, from my understanding, don't have to marry a "straight" couple, if they don't want to! Straight people that aren't married by a church aren't suing them to make them do it. Who would want to be married in a church they had to force to do it in the first place? Not me! The churches are trying to strong arm the law, and this is just wrong. Separation of church and state was for good cause. It is sad that years after those bandits drafted the Constitution, implicitly keeping the church from having power over the law, that we seem to actually be going backwards from their thinking...Are Americans "really" getting dumber? Are we really so hell bent on creating enemies, religion is fine with creating enemies, that we have to start doing it to our own citizens? First it was through slavery (sanctioned by the church), then Jim Crow (church), interacial marriage...I could go on. We have to better, this is a waste of time!

23 agree | 25 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

3:39 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 10, 2008 re: "Roger Severino: Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches"

Jonathan for Equality said:
If anti-marriage-equality lawyers expect to win cases on the merits of the arguments of Mr. Severino, they are in for a heap of trouble. Remember the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Severino argues that government employees may impose their religious beliefs on people seeking government services: "We need only look at Massachusetts for a preview of what to expect. There, in 2004, justices of the peace who refused to solemnize same-sex unions due to religious objections were summarily fired." What about justices of the peace who believe in marriage equality but work in states that have banned it? Would Mr. Severino defend their religious liberty? Also Mr. Severino, it's not charitable to refer to families as "families". Would you like to be referred to as a "lawyer" or a "Christian"?

24 agree | 29 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:45 PM MST on Wed., Apr. 9, 2008 re: "Roger Severino: Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches"

John D said:
I would ask Mr. Severino this: interfaith marriages are completely legal in the United States. Many clergy will not perform marriages for individuals who are not in their denominations. Where are the lawsuits? There are no grounds for retaliation against denominations that do not perform same-sex marriages. They have the right to continue to do so. They trample on the rights of others when they seek to block civil authorities from applying the laws equally or to block other clergy from blessing marriages as they see fit. The flip side of this argument is the clergy forbidden to perform marriages their denominations permit. That's real oppression on the basis of religious belief.

18 agree | 23 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:31 PM MST on Mon., Apr. 7, 2008 re: "Roger Severino: Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches"

Examiner Reader said:
Firstly I would like to point out that this article is not only discriminatory but highly offensive. When talking about adoption rights, the author suggests that gay couples are incapable of properly raising a child or that they may have negative influence on the child. Also, I would like to say that times are changing and, although we can respect religious beliefs, we cannot let them stand in the way of the progression of our nation as an accepting one. Additionally we should recall that the United States practices the separation of church and state. By allowing religious influences to be the deciding factor in our government's position regarding gay marriage, we are therefor allowing church and state to mix. Similarly, a judge's duty is to make decisions based on the law of the state, therefor the judge in question should have kept his personal religious beliefs aside, and performed the marriage. I was shocked and dissapointed upon reading this article.

22 agree | 31 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:29 PM MST on Sun., Apr. 6, 2008 re: "Chris Stirewalt: Hillary Clinton still has the hillbilly firewall"

Examiner Reader said:
is this a joke? Do you really want to insult, ridicule and stereotype that many people who vote for Senator Clinton? So who are the other 49.25% of the Democrats who voted for HRC... actually it is probably more because BHO has gotten many Indie and Republican votes. I guess you should know you have created a firestorm among the "hillbilly's" in W.Va. and elsewhere. This article is becoming a viral email campaign to get out the vote. Even some Obama supporters are insulted and threatening to change their vote. Nice Work, Thanks a bunch! Oh, If you could write a few more of these columns stating such well thought out stereotypical "insights" insulting other swaths of society we would all greatly appreciate it. Gotta luve the internets. It even lets us ol hillbilly's figur out stuf we nvr cudda lernt without it. you no how 2 yuse that thart spell chickin thingy?

30 agree | 27 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:42 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 3, 2008 re: "Meghan Cox Gurdon: Into the great, unplugged silence"

Unplug Close to Home said:
I'm sure it would be nice to pay for an excurison to Maine or the Carribbean, but there are plenty of places to unplug that are clsoe to D.C. that don't require a massive schedule change. Pretty much any place on the Eastern Shore, or in the Appalachian Mountains can be reached in less than a few hours. At least you won't have to worry about the price of gas that way.

31 agree | 28 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:02 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 3, 2008 re: "Meghan Cox Gurdon: Into the great, unplugged silence"

Examiner Reader said:
Ms. Gurdon's column reminds me of a vacation on (what my husband and I thought was) a remote beach in the Caribbean. As we walked along the beach while the moon rose and the waves crashed, we saw a beautiful woman walking in a sarong padding along in the sand clad alongside a handsome man, who was yacking into his blackberry and completely ignoring her. My husband and I thought about chucking his blackberry into the sea in her honor, but decided the guy was probably a lost cause.

32 agree | 25 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:26 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 3, 2008 re: "Chris Stirewalt: Is Hillary Clinton like Rocky on race?"

...But Rocky Backs McCain! said:
Why did Chris Stirewalt's "Rocky" column completely ignore the fact that Rocky's writer-director-lead actor (Sylvester Stallone) is backing John McCain? Does that mean McCain shares Rocky's view on race? Even worse, is this why Arizona was so resistant to celebrating Martin Luther King's birthday as a federal holiday?! This makes Obama's connection to Jared Wright seem downright quaint! Wright will never win an Oscar for his racially provocative sentiments. Stirewalt's last two columns are perpetrating a disturbing meme about Hillary Clinton: That she's courting white bigots. Heck, Bill Sammon pretty much parrotted Chris' "hillybilly" story last week. (I guess the editor must be doing his job, if he's sending out the foot soldier journalists to support the story the editors want promulgated.) What next? Will Clinton push for referenda to same-gender marriage, as Carl Rove apparently did in the 2004 election?

25 agree | 25 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

5:29 PM MST on Mon., Mar. 31, 2008 re: "Timothy Carney: Pepsi dives into dangerous global warming wars"

Examiner Reader said:
"There�s a lot of money to be made in the global warming lobbying game, but there will also be plenty of losers. Will those losers include PepsiCo�s shareholders?" Probably not. They can just pass on the cost to their customers because guess what? Coke is going down the same route. Now if Pepsi didn't do what they are doing they would still probably face higher costs since much of this stuff looks inevitable; however, Pepsi would not have built up brand loyalty of young trendy consumers the way it is now by kowtowing to Green demands. Hence they lose brand equity; and brand equity is a lot more valuable to Pepsi than fighting a probably unsuccessful effort to keep input costs low. sorry, looks like they are doing right by their shareholders.

30 agree | 25 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:22 PM MST on Sun., Mar. 30, 2008 re: "John R. Graham: What if the doctors went out on strike?"

Examiner Reader said:
Dont compare doctors with truckers when it comes to a strike.This united states could be helped by the president if he would only help but he does nothing,years ago other presidents saw the need to freeze gas prices but not Bush cause he owns one himself.Gas prices are going up so high it is hurting everyone except the rich,these truckers are the backbone of this country,i would like to see president bush work for min.wage,these truckers can bring EXXON AND MOBIL to their knees,we could help too if we took one week like they are going to do beginning april 1st,and not buy gas for a whole week,thats what its gonna take to let them know we are tired of the high gas prices,only buy gas on weekends for that week,no gas thru the week,the truckers are taking a stand,all of america should too!

34 agree | 29 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:01 AM MST on Sun., Mar. 30, 2008 re: "Timothy Carney: Pepsi dives into dangerous global warming wars"

Examiner Reader said:
It's sad that the government education system produces people who cannot understand basic history, math or science. The streets in London are named after grapes and wines for a reason, and that reason surfaced back in the medieval warm period. The sun runs Earth's weather and climate, not taxes. I just put new purchases of anything Pepsi on permanent hold.

25 agree | 24 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:01 AM MST on Thu., Mar. 27, 2008 re: "Jay Ambrose: Free Tibet, like Hong Kong"

Profit from Decency said:
What China, or at least some stubborn leaders fail to realize is that a single act of decency would bring tremenduous global goodwill. China leased out Hong Kong, not necessarily for money, since fighting with the then mighty British Navy over a trading port was not a smart idea. What it did not realize then is that when people are allowed to pursue their happiness, tremenduous wealth -- both material and sometimes spiritual can be created. To hold on to bits of antiquated territorial treaties, China risk paying a far higher price of turning the world against its people, products, and its progress. Consider the price that Isreal and Middle East pays everyday for how many or few acres of land.

26 agree | 29 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:30 PM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008 re: "Jay Ambrose: Free Tibet, like Hong Kong"

Mike O said:
Not only decency, but also for precedence. Now that the Nationalists are back in charge of Taiwan, they have people who are willing to discuss reunification, but only as a free autonomous state in the federation mold. If the Maninlan Chinese want to even retain what they currently hold, they need to consider that model.

38 agree | 31 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:20 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008 re: "Jay Ambrose: Free Tibet, like Hong Kong"

PersonFromPorlock said:
"In Hong Kong, your motive for granting a high degree of autonomy was making money. In Tibet, the motive would be decency...." I don't know for sure, but I suspect that 'decency' translates into Chinese as 'respectful behavior towards authority'.

34 agree | 30 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:35 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008 re: "Jay Ambrose: Free Tibet, like Hong Kong"

Examiner Reader said:
Dear Mr. Ambrose, I thank you for your article. You spoke the truth. Dear reader, If your lies & narrow minded comments can be posted, Mr. Ambrose's thought-through & honest comments should be posted. But I am not surprised by your comments, chinese government or who are brainwashed by Chinese government never liked the truth. Chinese government's main intention is to built the qinh