Community Messageboard: Agreed, but Palin and other Republicans, not I, drew the comparison. by Joel

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Agreed, but Palin and other Republicans, not I, drew the comparison. Joel Send a noteboard - 15/02/2010 01:02:25 PM

Poking at POTUS for his 'telepromtper fetish' is a whole different tune then essentially calling Palin a phony because she wrote on her hand... I don't think I cans way you on this, and obviously that's vice-versa, so let's discard it for now. IT will either die away in a couple weeks or become a 'potatoe' or someone will find a tape of a dem politician with 'social security' written on his hand during a AARP speech.

I think it's ironic that she would imply she was somehow better than Obama because he used a teleprompter, at an event where she was subsequently seen referring to her hand for written notes about the very SUBJECT (not details) of her speech. Tell me God doesn't have a sense of humor.

Fair enough. I mainly mentioned it because Palin was stumping for Perry this weekend in between tea parties and because however I feel about their positions on the issues Perry is such a facade conservative it's disgusting.

Hutchinson is pro-choice, Perry isn't, that's typically about all the fodder someone needs on my side of things to tip a candidate over in the primary. I was a bit surprised that he decided to run for what will essentrially be term 3.5, since I consider term limits, especially executive term limits, pretty important. The feeling last year was that they'd basically be swapping positions, senate normally being a post-gubernatorial thing anyway. But while we tend to be okay with the occassional pro-choicer, we usually expect there other conservative credentials to be pretty sturdy, and there was the pistol ban and the TARP vote. By 'we' I mean conservatives, not the entire GOP. I happen to like her, so basically I'm fine by either, it's not my state anyway.

I was surprised to hear you say that, so I dug a little more; here's what Wikipedia says about Hutchisons abortion views:

"Hutchison supports the legality of abortion and considers herself pro-choice. She has however frequently voted for restricting abortion. Her average score from the NRLC between the years of 1997 and 2010 is 93%, with her highest score being 100% and lowest being 75%. [17] NARAL Pro-Choice Texas executive director Sara Cleveland once said, 'by our definition, Sen. Hutchison's voting record does not indicate that she is pro-choice.'[1

She also believes that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was appropriate and should not be overturned,[19] but is opposed to the Freedom of Choice Act because it would restrict the right of states to impose restrictions on abortion. In the past years NARAL has given her ratings of 0%, 7%, 20%, and 0%, indicating that her voting record mostly favored enacting proposed abortion restrictions.[20] "

The National Right to Life Committee scores her, on average, in the low nineties, and National Abortion Rights Action League scores her in the single digits; I'd say it's a little more complicated than her being "Pro-Choice. " It seems more like she likes telling Pro-Choice women she's Pro-Choice but wants the states to ban abortion despite Roe v. Wade.

A pistol ban isn't a blanket gun ban (I strongly support the Second Amendment AND pistol bans because I consider them murder weapons, since you don't need surprise for deterrence, but we've been over that) yet I see your point; she's not really after my vote anyway (though if I voted in the primary she'd get it. ) Term limits aren't the issue for me; as long as the people want to vote someone back, that's called, "democracy" (and as a rule I've noticed most Republicans only support term limits when Dems are in office; they wanted the 22nd Amendment repealed for Reagan even though they danced on FDRs grave with it, and forty years of "CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS111" rhetoric disappeared overnight in '94. ) Perry's gonna do what serves his interests though; maybe he should run for Kays seat, though if any credible Republican ran against him I think he'd still lose the primary.

Tolls on roads built by bonds are an issue mainly because people opposed to high taxation NORMALLY view it as a "double tax" (as Sen. Hutchison calls the toll roads, just one reason she'll mop the floor with Perry. ) Heck, the guy tried to put a toll on I-35 until Kay informed him that the feds weren't really cool with that (so Perry tried to buy back Texas' interest in the road just to toll it; I have mental images of Ft. Hood tanks going through toll booths.... )

I'm a pragmatist, I sort of take as a given that the gov't is gonna fleece me top and bottom, they need X revenue, and it's easier to get it if some of it's hidden a bit, not straight income tax or sales tax where you get handed the bill once a year or every time you by a pack of gum. YEs, it is double taxation, unless you can show the people using it are singificantly benefiting while the majority does not, or does not benefit similiarly. Then it's a targted tax, keep in mind Joel, conservatives are against massive and often punitive taxes to pay for things they object to, we don't object to the concept of taxes in of itself. Normally road funding is fine by us so long as it's not being wasted, like the Big Dig or the Bridge to Nowhere.

Of course, if you're Sarah Palin, whether the Bridge to Nowhere is a bad idea depends on whether you're running for Governor or VP.

But yes, I'm aware most conservatives only object to taxes for programs they don't support; that's part of what I find so annoying. A single mom with five kids in East L.A. is a "welfare queen" but giving millions in tax credits for people to buy gas guzzling SUVs when oil prices are bankrupting the country is "economic stimulus. " To say nothing of corporate welfare itself; for some reason it's OK for a multi-billion dollar multinational to mooch of Uncle Sucker, but not OK for a working mom. The point, however, is that Texas needs our roads just to function; that's why, until Perry took over, they'd been the envy of the country for decades. And he's tolling just about every major road in the state, and wants to toll more. I wasn't kidding when I said if things go as they want I'll have to pay a toll just to drive to my house. Yeah, it's a targeted tax, alright: It's targeted at Texas.

Realistically, I'd expect the US Army to be waved through,

Oh, yeah, we're exempt from that sort of thing on official business, unsurprisingly

but my point is the interstates were created to encourage and enable interstate travel (with specific emphasis on the military during emergencies) and slapping tolls on them inhibits that. To say nothing of the fact that the lions share of I-35 and the rest comes from that evil federal government, but Perry wasn't planning on providing them any toll revenue (in fact it pretty much all goes to Cintra, which is why they bought the bonds Perry induced people to vote for. ) Seriously, read a little about the Trans-Texas Corridor and you'll probably understand why it's another area where Perrys base thinks he sold them out--he basically did.

Hmm... well I've just scanned it, but the situation with Cintra looks a bit weird. I don't mind privatizing tollbooths, that sounds likle common sense, but a 50-year contract? Anyway, that is a local affair, lots of died in the red GOP act a bit purple on local stuff. Pork seems less fatty locally, I suppose. I have to tell you I haven't exactly been a mssive Perry supporter either way, the only real primary challenge (outside of Ohio) I keep and I on right now is Crist-Rubio, so I'll have to defer on the point.

Part of what's bothering me with the public toll roads is it looks like it's going to go like electric deregulation did in CA: The private owner will collect all the profits, but the state taxpayers will be responsible for maintenance and other overhead. Cintra didn't build the roads and they won't repair them; TXDoT will, at my expense. Cintra just shows up to collect the tolls, most of which are automated.

It's actually unusual in a lot of ways though; I bet when you drop your change in the tub on I-90 it's not $1.85 to go 11 miles (the set fee and maximum length you can go on the tolled stretch of US-183 that basically goes past a mall;

No, it's $3 to go from the PA border to bufallo (about 60 miles), and that's up $.15 recently, and of course it's NY prices, the fair per mile is a bit lower in Ohio, on RT 80. That does seem rather high.

I guess it depends on whether you're collecting or paying it.

we needed that. ) You won't be speeding along at high speed on it either; there are on/off ramps about every half mile. In addition to the lights. Yes, stoplights for cross streets on a toll road.

We don't have much like that in ohio, but the NY comparison, there are bridges to the island that run you .75, and that's maybe 5 miles, of course, that is a bridge and a pretty f'ing massive one, so a bit different, and again, it's in NY, not the most anti-tax state, I always make a point of brinigng smokes with me (still less than $5 in ohio) so I ain't paying $9 for a pack up there.

Right, but they don't have a bridge every half mile or so. I've been on REAL toll roads, where they've built in big rest stop areas as part of the road so you can pull off for gas and/or food without having to pay a toll to get back on again. This is just idiotic; why would I pay a toll to have merging traffic every half mile, then get down to the next CROSS STREET and wait for a light to change? This makes my commute faster (and thus justifies paying for it) how...?

I'm not a big fan of toll roads generally, and one of the things I USED to like about living in the South is they were very rare, but I HAVE lived places where they're common, and this isn't how they work. Texas roads in particular used to be the envy of the nation because we use them, we NEED them, and until recently TXDoT kept them in good shape for that very reason. Now I have to through a 3-S curve in a half mile to reach the 10mph 90° turn where old 183 crosses (tolled)183A just to get to my house. And they want more. Not only have they done a sorry job designing the toll roads, not only are the private foreign firms who own them making orders of magnitude more than they invested off of TX taxpayers, but they've incidentally made the FREE roads hazardous to drive (which makes what the logical alternative?)

Well, no argument there, if there are good reasons for this, as there may be, I am not familiar with them, and I don't defend actions taken by people just because they're members of my party.

Sorry, I kind of went off on a toll road rant there; I'm not a big fan of them, once again, but I can at least see some justification if they're done right and on a limited basis. These are done VERY badly in such a way as to make nearly every major road in the state a goldmine for a Spanish contractor and, despite the claims and commercials, they don't make travel faster, they make it slower in the interest of insuring people pay as much as possible. I've had to pay a toll three times in the past year because if you don't exit US183 at a certain point, getting off at the next exit forces you to pay a toll. Of course, if you take the two exits BEFORE the last one, they lead to a different toll road.

Why is someone so committed to less taxes and government she has to write it down or she won't mention it supporting this kind of stuff?

I actually doubt she knows. Politicians tend to have basically the wiki-notes level of knowledge on things outside their own comittees and district/state, and that's just so they don't sound retarded, it's not like they actually have in-depth knowledge (or really should be expected to) on specific matters local to a different area.

If you involve yourself in a party primary, better know the differences between your partys two candidates. Though sounding like she's an idiot doesn't seem a big concern for Mrs. Palin.

The biggest problem I, personally, have with the HPV vaccine is that 1) vaccine manufacturers can't seem to find a preservative that isn't a known carcinogen (or worse) but won't just manufacture preservative free vaccines with shorter shelf lives,

Things that kill of microorganisms tend to be unhealthy for large organisms too, gotta work within the confines of current science. It's a risk thing, not just real risk but also lawsuit risk (couch, cough... tort reform) they can't get sued for Thermosil, they could get sued for a dose of vaccine that had foriegn bacteria in it. The stuff is safe enough, it's just risk management, if you've got decent dat showing Y gives you W% risk of deaht, and by using X you significantly decrease W while slighlty increasing it in a different but smaller way, you do it. In combat, a helmet decreases your senses, thus slightly increasing your odds of being caught unawares, but singificantly increases your odds on survivability. Same difference. Of course, the ACH ones, redesigned for the new body armor and new tech, further increase survivability while decreasing the sensory loss, and I'd imagine some years down the road we'll be able to replace Thermosil and others with something similiar... but currently it ain't around.

Actually, thimerosal has largely been replaced in new vaccines; the technical term is that it's "being phased out" (which when you dig into it means they're dumping the old vaccines on the WHO and giving them to kids in places like Africa, but I won't even attempt cost/benefit analysis there. ) The two most popular alternatives last I checked seem to be formaldehyde (which had already been banned from public school labs as a known carcinogen when I was in school) and ethylene glycol, but the following link to the FDA lists the preservatives they approve (I know nothing about any of them save thimerosal. )

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm096228.htm#t2

I'm REALLY trying to avoid debating the relative benefits and risks of vaccination though, but feel obliged to say I agree it's a judgment call, and I therefore feel it should be left to individual discretion or, in the case of minors, that of their parents, as we do so many other things. I think it's kind of asinine to say parents can deny their kids life saving blood transfusions on religious grounds but can't deny them vaccines on the grounds it could kill them.

3) as with the toll roads owned by a private Spanish firm, one of Perrys senior aides just happened to take a position with the company benefiting about that time. However, the hue and cry from the religious right was exactly what you'd expect: Teenagers won't have sex if no one tells them about it, but if you give them the vaccine they'll sell themselves on street corners.

Well, I appreciate the analogy but I doubt anyone (beg pardon, large numbers of sane people) are saying HPV vaccinations will lead to a huge leap in prostitution. I'm not even sure why anyone needs to do anything with the kids beyond say "Roll up your sleeve, this injection reduces your odds of getting cancer" there's really no need to bring sex into the equation anyway. "Roll up your sleeve, this will keep you from getting the flu" doesn't have to be followed by "And now you can kiss any guy you want without worry about him giving you a cold, so put on some lipstick and run down to the lockerroom girlie." So basically I consider it a fairly invented issue either way. Just about every illness can be spread as a STD, I mean it's not like you can't get the flu by having sex too.
I don't agree with the logic (I object to making it COMPULSORY on completely different grounds) but that was the logic expressed. People, especially those who voted for Perry as almost a stereotype of a Southern Republican, were enraged. And many of them still are; the Legislature had to step in to overturn his executive order, and he had the sense to let it drop, but it did a lot of damage.

I'm inclined to agree with you about trusting the parents on medical treatment (which is what we do with just about every other form) but see sex ed as larger educational and public health issue; a lot of parents AREN'T qualified to teach their kids about it, and in many cases those very kids are proof.

Well, I'd say in the anecdotal sense it's pretty hard to be a parent without being qualified to discuss sex, a high school grad might not be the ideal person to teach people arithmetic or reading, but they are qualified IMHO to do it, the process involved in having children tends to pretty much result in knowledge of sex ed to the level we'd teach anyway.

Oh, I don't doubt they can teach their kids how to get pregnant but most of the time I don't think that's really where the trouble starts.

We need something a little more thorough than
"Janey says you can't get pregnant the first time"
"Er, no, I can tell you firsthand that's not true, sweety....

' /> "

But I stated my objections because you asked what they were; that's a separate and much larger debate (poisoned Chinese toothpaste and human food grade grain has eroded my faith in the FDA. )

Well, I'm not exatly a huge fan of the FDa, but they are pretty good at their job, overall.

When they don't let the profit motive preempt it, which happens all too often lately (cough, cough, tort abolition.

)

It may surprise you, but, yes, the bulk of the protests, or so it seemed from me (and I was among the group that opposed it for completely different reasons) came from people who insisted it would lead to promiscuity. It's the same logic that leads them to oppose teaching contraception: If you teach kids there's a safer way to have sex, they'll have sex, and the less they know about sex the less likely they are to engage in it. They regarded it as a betrayal, and the standard objections to compulsory vaccination, even the fact one of Perrys senior staffers had just become a Merck lobbyist, were almost an afterthought; the story had been going on for at least two or three days before I heard anyone mention it once (and that one I followed closely enough that I've actually downloaded copies of Perrys executive order. ) Conservatives, especially the religious right, got sold out by their own candidate. Literally. So again I ask: Why is their new national candidate supporting him over a legitimate conservative? I like virtually none of Kay positions, but I believe her sincerity. Perry, well, if I could make the highest bid I'm sure he'd be happy to work for me. Of course, since I'm paying is salary now he's supposed to do that already.

Well , I assume she was there because he asked to come, and because Kay isn't exactly on the conservative christmas card list these days. I hear you, but I'm not really in a position to debate these matters from lack of knowledge, and I'm not going to cede points I don't now about.

Fair enough; it IS a little unfair to ask you to comment on what's going on up the street from me, but combining Palin and Perry was sort of a perfect storm for me. I'd feel really good about Kay taking over, despite her being a die hard Republican, if I didn't fear it could be the springboard to successful White House run.

That conflict was to be expected; what was more noteworthy was that a supposedly far right Governor, heir to Bush and routinely stating his "family values" creds, totally betrayed his base on the issue. Again, Kay will mop the floor with Perry in the primary, and if you want an example of everything Palin claims to be, look there.

Bush wasn't far right, we had a lot of issues with becaus eof that.

On what? Maybe spending and civil liberties, but those were always couched in terms of the War of Terror, and I never heard much complaint from the right, but maybe that from the left drowned them out for me. He cut taxes, banned federal funding of new stem cell research because they come from aborted fetuses (that still got aborted) and probably only got re-elected because of the proposed gay marriage amendment that had a state equivalent on the ballot in nearly every swing state. If you're mad because of the prescription drug benefit and No Childs Behind Left, the former was going to happen because of our healthcare crisis and the latter didn't really cost anything because Bush never funded it.

A lot of Texas Republicans, most, I think (but we'll know soon) don't like Perry any better than I do. As another Texan once said, an honest politician is one who, when you buy him, he STAYS bought.

To be honest, I'd rather have her as governor than senator, her two sticky points in my book are abortion and guns, and obviously the governor of texas isn't a threat to the cause on those issue. If Palin wants to campaign for him though, well, that's her business... as I've said Joel, I'm not exactly a member of her fan club, I just don't like seeing people demonized over things I don't consider very demonic.

That's reasonable; believe it or not, I DID defend her one time, because I agree Newsweek was cheap to use her pic wearing running shorts for a sports mag in their political cover story.

Had McCain won he'd have been a year older than Reagan on their respective Inauguration Days; it worried the hell out of me and a lot of people. It reminds me of what they used to say about how Quayle fulfilled the goal of making America more religious, because the whole country prayed for Bushs health every night. And Palin is very obviously maneuvering for the Republican nomination; she just won't come out and say it because it's too soon and she hasn't locked up all of the base. Which I doubt she ever will because most savvy Republicans see her the same way a lot of savvy Dems saw Hillary: The one way to guarantee defeat.

Yeah, Mccain is still alive. Reagan lived the whole term, and a pretty good chunk of the presidents who died in office did so from lead poisoning, which isn't very related to age. Not saying I want someone who looks like they are about to fall over dead, but I don't play the age card that way, I want our POTUS to be 55+ coming in. I didn't want Palin either, I just didn't consider her a bad choice either. Of course, unlike most people I knew who she was before hand, because I'd seen her and Napolitano at a table fielding questions the year before, they both came off pretty well, I have to say they've both sort of disappointed me since.

McCain's still alive, but it's a long way till 2016. And Reagan ultimately admitted himself that he was feeling the effects of Alzheimers before he left office. Of course, his medical history is a little different than McCains, too; there's no cure for melanoma, I believe. I agree Napolitano's been a little disappointing, though the biggest thing there is probably the attempted Christmas bombing, and I suspect that was a case of telling the cameras what her boss said to say; HE'S been a HUGE disappointment thus far for everyone but Wall Street and Detroit.

Even so. Again I say, look to Kay, who has all of Palins fiscally and socially conservative credentials, a LOT more national and international experience and reflects those things in actually knowing her stuff and sounding like it.

National experience is good, but Perry happens to have 10 years experience at this particular job already, and while I think maybe you guys should be considering pass a term limits amendment, he clearly has the upper hand on her in relevant experience. With Kay, well, her saving grace on conservatism is that while she may support Roe v Wade, she has a NARAL rating of like 0%. of course, as governor her opinion on abortion is basically irrelevant, but it's a serious blow to her image as a conservative. So was the pistol ban, so was voting for TARP. WE (conservatives not GOP) warned them there would be consequences for those votes, I've got no prob with her winning but it's good to see those consequences come into action, regardles sof the specifics.

I don't believe in term limits. Even for someone as disgusting as Perry, the solution in a democracy is to vote them out of office; telling them they can't run at all is the kind of thing they do in Iran. I wouldn't worry much about Kay on abortion; when the NRLC rates her THAT much higher than NARAL her "pro-choice" statement is little more than talk. Incidentally, the Doe v. Bolton decision tied to Roe is a MUCH bigger problem than Roe itself if you're on that side; even I don't like Doe because it not only established the health exception, but interpreted it so broadly that "I'm depressed because I'm getting fat" would count. All Doe does is say abortions within the first trimester can't be categorically banned.

That said, I again say national legislative experience is just as important in a President as executive experience, and if you think Kay is trading a national stage as an important Senator to be Governor of one state, think again. However, under Bush Texas went to four year terms, so after one or two terms in Austin Kay will be able to claim eight years of executive and sixteen years of Senate experience, and not many people from either party will have those kinds of Presidential credentials.

From a purely cosmetic standpoint she's always struck me as looking a little severe (she might be more comparable to Hillary than Palin) but no one will ever accuse of her being either a "feminazi" or a "soccer mom" (it's just happy coincidence Palin EMBRACED the latter term; I have nothing against stay at home moms, but even if Palin was one that's not the credential I look for in a President. ) I personally thought from the start the only reason Palin was catapulted onto the national stage was as a trial balloon to see if people who joke about Hillary wearing the pants because she's got the biggest penis would accept a genuine conservative who also happened to be a woman. It seems they will.

The main problem with running Governors is that they frequently don't know how to work with Congress, particularly with Senators who had more power than them for the past 20 years. THAT'S where Obama got in trouble; normally that's the kind of thing electing a US Senator avoids, but not when he's only been there for four years. He hasn't had enough time to get dirt on people.

None of that prevents their election though, so you may be right; on the other hand, Kay wouldn't be too threatening either (she's not nearly as in your face as Palin) and allows the GOP to play the gender card: "You just hate her because she's a successful female politician but not a card carrying NOW member!"

Well, ideally you run a governor for Potus and a senator for VP, that seems to work well.

As long as the VP never has to serve as President, and you enjoy national gridlock. I don't think Governors Bush or Clinton were particularly effective as President, at least not in positive ways, and neither was Carter. In the 20th Century Reagan and FDR were the only effective Governors turned President that come to mind (Nixon, of course, had plenty of Senate experience before he was ever Governor. )

The difference is that people who self identify with the religious right share the same blind spot with the LDS, despite the fact the LDS has explicitly rejected the Nicene and Apostles Creed and its leadership is on record saying things like "As man is, God was; as God is, man may become. " I'm not going to delve into doctrinal validity for various reasons, but I will say that if you look at what Joseph Smith taught and the LDS leadership still affirms, it directly contradicts FUNDAMENTAL (if you'll pardon the term) Christian doctrines. Put more simply, while there are many good Christians in the Mormon church, some of whom I'm honored to count as good friends and privileged to call brother and sister, what Joseph Smith and the LDS LEADERSHIP teach is not Christianity. Teaching that Jesus was once a sinner is not Christianity; teaching that the Father had a father (who also had a father) is not Christianity, to name just two examples. And no one who's a congregation president and traces his pedigree to the Mormon Patriarchs can plead ignorance there.

Oh, I'm there with you on the LDS, but I'm not a long-term christian, I was agnostic most of my life and still a moral man, so I don't identify someone's specific religion as very important politically, beyond the obvious ramifications with the voters. I would vote for a muslim or a hindu, so long as they clearly backed the core political platform, so mine isn't a LDS blindspot, and actually that's closer to the norm for most of the non-populist conservative right.

The Senate may not be a good DIRECT route if we ignore the role the VP plays in the Senate, but unless you're Ike, Grant or Taylor nearly all of our Presidents got there based on either experience in the national legislature or as chief executive. Those are probably the two most important things a President can have. As a direct route, no, the Senate may not be a good choice, but the lessons learned there don't just vanish when you get a different job. Again, if Obama had spent more time making deals on legislation in the Senate perhaps he'd have a better idea how to do it as President.

All right, VP as a member of the senate, yes, but let's not nitpick.

Gravel ran as a Libertarian because the Dems wouldn't nominate him (just the opposite of what perennial Lib candidate Ron Paul did) and since we're comparing the potential nominees of the two major parties, yes, he counts. Even if we ignore the role Hillary played in Bills Presidency and Governorship (does that mean I can stop listening to people whine about Hillarycare?

)

I didn't know many people even mentioned Hillarycare anymore.

Only when there's a healthcare bill in Congress, or a candidate suggests there should be.

I think eight years in the Senate is more experience than four years as Governor of Massachusetts, and twenty years of sitting in on policy meetings in either Little Rock or DC seems like it's equal to the four more years Huckabee had as Governor. Did Thompson actually RUN?

PArallel case to Vilsack or Gravel.

I never mentioned Vilsack, but thought I remembered Gravel lasting through the first primary, maybe I'm wrong though.

He dropped out so fast I'm not sure if he made any of the primaries, but telling me that he and Guiliani, whose never even held a STATE office, have "executive experience meet[ing] or exceed[ing] any single one of the Dem nominees" seems a stretch. Gilmore and Romneys four years as Governor give them more experience than Hillary got in twenty years of writing state and federal policy and, oh, yeah, a Senate career as long as their gubernatorial ones COMBINED. They might have more executive experience than Biden, Dodd and Gravel, but those three have FAR more legislative experience and, though it may be hard to remember in the Obama era, that's just as important in a President. And while I may have missed your qualifier in an earlier statement, if you meant to put one on experience in this comparison, you didn't: You just said, "experience. " Legislative experience counts just as much in that context, and few of the Republican candidates had as much executive (or any other) experience as most of the Democrats had legislative. McCain was the pick of the litter, and Huckabee next. After that I believe it's three four year Governors and a city mayor. I'll stack Biden and Dodds three decades in the Senate up against that any time, as well as Hillary eight years there and time spent drafting legislation introduced by either the President or a Governor earlier.

Guilliani was the mayor of the NY, which is bigger and has a greater deal of complexity than most states. I would argue being mayor of NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, etc parallels governor of state. Obviously my little village mayor, with our pop of around 1000 or so, is not POTUS-ready, it's a broad term, like CEO. Mega-company CEO probably a good base for executive leadership, CEO of a company with 500 employees? Not really.

Unless you live in a city with a strong council form of government (and I honestly don't know with NYC) the parallel doesn't work because mayors don't have to deal with a legislature that's their equal individually or in concert. Still, in terms of pure political experience (and if you want to accomplish anything legislative is just as important as executive) Dodd, Biden and Clinton had few equals in either party (I'd give a pretty penny to hear the conversations between Biden and Obama about the latters handling of the Senate. ) Basically, McCain. Guiliani probably comes closest after that in terms of overall high level experience, but I want more experience than just mayoral, even if it is in a city the size of New York.

Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.

Reply to message

Palin reads Cheat Notes. LadyLorraine - 08/02/2010 12:43:02 AM 1321 Views

Is it really worse than reading answers on a teleprompter? sorry, I see no big deal here. *NM* everynametaken - 08/02/2010 01:02:49 AM 211 Views

yes yes it is. a teleprompter is subtle LadyLorraine - 08/02/2010 01:22:17 AM 501 Views

a teleprompter is not subtle random thoughts - 08/02/2010 02:25:46 PM 441 Views

staring openly and blatantly at your hand is? *NM* LadyLorraine - 08/02/2010 03:09:25 PM 285 Views

I think if anyone else had done the dame thing we wouldn't even had heard about random thoughts - 08/02/2010 06:13:44 PM 438 Views

you're right, we probably would not have heard about it LadyLorraine - 08/02/2010 07:56:09 PM 475 Views

Yes for what the notes were Roland00 - 08/02/2010 12:44:35 PM 466 Views

he is calling her content free while attacking her in such a content free manner? random thoughts - 08/02/2010 02:50:04 PM 462 Views

It's good the media still hounds her. I don't want her to be a candidate. *NM* AgentOrange - 08/02/2010 01:20:21 AM 244 Views

I don't have faith she could bring me coffee at a diner. *NM* Tom - 09/02/2010 02:47:37 AM 219 Views

no biggie *NM* Aisha - 08/02/2010 02:00:12 AM 234 Views

Tell her if she wants credit she should come take it herself.

Joel - 08/02/2010 02:30:06 AM 454 Views

Isn't her 15 minutes over yet? *NM* Mossman - 08/02/2010 02:45:58 AM 315 Views

This only obscures the rational reasons for duly decrying her political popularity. Moooooooo. *NM* Burr - 08/02/2010 03:19:45 AM 287 Views

I disagree, I think it underscores it. Joel - 08/02/2010 03:39:57 AM 435 Views

Or they might believe that a far left liberal random thoughts - 08/02/2010 04:16:51 AM 451 Views

Calling someone who needs a cheat sheet for their talking points stupid isn't an ad hominem, IMHO. Joel - 08/02/2010 12:13:36 PM 452 Views

soory but your wrong, again random thoughts - 08/02/2010 02:23:31 PM 411 Views

You shouldn't need reminders of your major themes after two years pushing them. Joel - 08/02/2010 02:55:22 PM 439 Views

I used to work in a call center and had a note to remind me to talk slower random thoughts - 08/02/2010 05:54:25 PM 555 Views

I don't hate her, and I think most liberals love her. Joel - 09/02/2010 10:45:25 AM 568 Views

way to play the pregant daughter card random thoughts - 09/02/2010 03:06:37 PM 446 Views

*shrugs* If you're going to suggest sex ed is harmful, unnecessary and promotes promiscuity... Joel - 10/02/2010 08:34:16 AM 533 Views

so if you don't support the liberal agenda your family is fair game for attack? nice to you admit it random thoughts - 10/02/2010 06:26:30 PM 474 Views

Um, no, if you're going to demand everyone follow your advice it better not be disastrous for you. Joel - 11/02/2010 05:29:01 AM 453 Views

Do you have anb example of when she demanded everyone follow her advice? random thoughts - 11/02/2010 05:33:17 AM 498 Views

Honestly, her sex ed position seems so muddled to me it's hard to say Joel - 11/02/2010 06:50:39 AM 663 Views

That's a bit silly Isaac - 08/02/2010 08:40:25 PM 603 Views

I'm perfectly happy to discuss her positions; I just think Huckabee does a better job of it. Joel - 09/02/2010 10:26:54 AM 616 Views

Well, let's discuss some of these points Isaac - 09/02/2010 07:13:33 PM 625 Views

Re: Well, let's discuss some of these points Joel - 10/02/2010 09:15:04 AM 648 Views

Re: Well, let's discuss some of these points Isaac - 10/02/2010 06:49:51 PM 696 Views

Ironically, Palin seems to agree this is different than using a teleprompter for a speech. Joel - 11/02/2010 09:05:19 AM 592 Views

Again, two seperate things Isaac - 11/02/2010 09:51:15 PM 431 Views

Agreed, but Palin and other Republicans, not I, drew the comparison. Joel - 15/02/2010 01:02:25 PM 559 Views

Just to get the obligatory Feinstein comment out of the way... Isaac - 15/02/2010 11:43:42 PM 627 Views

Hadn't heard, actually. Joel - 19/02/2010 06:58:50 AM 561 Views

Re: Hadn't heard, actually. Isaac - 19/02/2010 08:32:11 AM 551 Views

Ah. Joel - 23/02/2010 09:55:45 PM 633 Views

Re: Ah. Isaac - 24/02/2010 01:32:34 AM 585 Views

Yeah, I think we've reached an understanding if not agreement. Joel - 01/03/2010 03:51:49 AM 577 Views

Re: Yeah, I think we've reached an understanding if not agreement. Isaac - 01/03/2010 11:46:24 PM 766 Views

Re: Yeah, I think we've reached an understanding if not agreement. Joel - 05/03/2010 12:11:48 AM 662 Views

Random Title Isaac - 05/03/2010 02:49:59 AM 575 Views

Re: Random Title Joel - 15/03/2010 05:37:22 AM 510 Views

Re: Random Title Isaac - 15/03/2010 09:17:53 PM 823 Views

Re: Random Rejoinder Joel - 29/03/2010 03:45:08 PM 553 Views

Re: Random Rejoinder Isaac - 30/03/2010 12:34:23 AM 1191 Views

Oh dear, who ever let you two get into a subthread together?

Legolas - 15/03/2010 10:31:24 PM 637 Views

Ben was asleep at the switch, clearly.

Joel - 29/03/2010 02:48:46 PM 595 Views

I disagree. For all we know she has a learning disability. "Disability" does not equal "stupid". Tashmere - 09/02/2010 03:23:24 PM 523 Views

A possibility I hadn't considered, true, and sorry if I gave offense. Joel - 10/02/2010 08:25:52 AM 643 Views

I don't have a problem with people not thinking highly of her. Tashmere - 10/02/2010 04:39:31 PM 505 Views

Had it been one incident I'd have probably let it go. Joel - 11/02/2010 05:23:47 AM 450 Views

oh yes, and the right never uses ad hominem LadyLorraine - 08/02/2010 03:56:42 PM 405 Views

I do see as the primary focus like I see from the left these days *NM* random thoughts - 08/02/2010 06:15:22 PM 299 Views

could you rephrase? you seem to be missing a noun or something in there. *NM* LadyLorraine - 08/02/2010 07:57:19 PM 245 Views

misisng a couple actually random thoughts - 08/02/2010 08:04:35 PM 432 Views

Touch typing is easier, at least to learn, if you don't try to read it at the same time, FYI.

Joel - 10/02/2010 09:24:33 AM 494 Views

Really how many times can you rememeber a Bush press sec openly ridicule people in a press confrence random thoughts - 10/02/2010 06:28:57 PM 367 Views

Good point; all they used to do was have the VP say opponents helped terrorists. Joel - 11/02/2010 05:33:08 AM 430 Views

one is about actions ands the other is about personal attacks random thoughts - 05/03/2010 02:19:38 PM 393 Views

True, one is about what Palin DID and the other is just characterizing opposition as treason. Joel - 15/03/2010 04:39:45 AM 411 Views

This is petty and also rather ignorant Isaac - 08/02/2010 03:59:40 AM 585 Views

There had to be better ways, though BlackAdder - 08/02/2010 08:36:50 AM 356 Views

so you're saying you're as dumb as sarah palin?

moondog - 08/02/2010 10:55:00 AM 409 Views

Basically yes Isaac - 08/02/2010 06:57:16 PM 471 Views

a couple of points... moondog - 09/02/2010 01:53:29 AM 432 Views

Let me get this straight. beckstcw - 08/02/2010 03:59:40 AM 505 Views

In other news liberals can't get over someone being popular they don't agree with random thoughts - 08/02/2010 04:12:19 AM 570 Views

Okay, folks, it's not that she had a cheat sheet. LadyLorraine - 08/02/2010 04:39:06 AM 469 Views

Style is EVERYTHING, dammit! *NM* Cannoli - 08/02/2010 05:34:14 AM 246 Views

As Cheat Sheet was raised as an objection, so it clearly was Isaac - 08/02/2010 06:16:57 AM 564 Views

It's completely unprofessional BlackAdder - 08/02/2010 08:27:47 AM 428 Views

yeah, she should have had them inscribed into her nail polish instead... moondog - 08/02/2010 10:55:43 AM 405 Views

why? random thoughts - 08/02/2010 02:29:44 PM 456 Views

well it's all she's got going for her. *NM* LadyLorraine - 08/02/2010 03:10:37 PM 195 Views

You know that's a good question BlackAdder - 08/02/2010 05:19:10 PM 420 Views

maybe you are just projecting random thoughts - 08/02/2010 06:15:57 PM 428 Views

well what is the association we have with notes on hands? LadyLorraine - 08/02/2010 07:58:41 PM 445 Views

or people on the far left are being grossly disingenuous random thoughts - 08/02/2010 08:18:06 PM 557 Views

dude, only posted it because it was funny LadyLorraine - 08/02/2010 08:43:55 PM 417 Views

so you like to point at people and laugh and can't understand why others would object random thoughts - 08/02/2010 11:24:37 PM 503 Views

I agree on your title snoopcester - 09/02/2010 11:30:11 AM 492 Views

Who cares? She's hot. *NM* Tigr - 08/02/2010 03:06:58 PM 211 Views

I agree with your first sentence.

*NM* Legolas - 08/02/2010 03:07:31 PM 271 Views

I also totally agree with that first sentence. *NM* Mats Gambling Buddy - 08/02/2010 03:48:24 PM 236 Views

Much ado about nothing. She was just making sure she didn't forget anything. Tashmere - 09/02/2010 02:00:56 AM 404 Views

No, humble would have been note cards. *NM* LadyLorraine - 09/02/2010 05:55:27 AM 212 Views

Nah, note cards can be dropped or lost. Tashmere - 09/02/2010 03:03:25 PM 417 Views

She's such a retard. *NM* Tom - 09/02/2010 02:46:51 AM 236 Views

Maybe Camilla - 09/02/2010 09:29:45 AM 458 Views

No offense, girlie.

nossy - 09/02/2010 11:36:55 AM 555 Views

She should have left herself a note... Dannymac - 09/02/2010 11:04:34 PM 423 Views

I don't like the woman at all, but this is just silly. Who cares? *NM* Ghavrel - 11/02/2010 10:11:17 PM 203 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="81161">
<quote id="80429">Poking at POTUS for his 'telepromtper fetish' is a whole different tune then essentially calling Palin a phony because she wrote on her hand... I don't think I cans way you on this, and obviously that's vice-versa, so let's discard it for now. IT will either die away in a couple weeks or become a 'potatoe' or someone will find a tape of a dem politician with 'social security' written on his hand during a AARP speech.</quote>
I think it's ironic that she would imply she was somehow better than Obama because he used a teleprompter, at an event where she was subsequently seen referring to her hand for written notes about the very SUBJECT (not details) of her speech.  Tell me God doesn't have a sense of humor. ;)
<quote id="80429"><quote id="80245">Fair enough.  I mainly mentioned it because Palin was stumping for Perry this weekend in between tea parties and because however I feel about their positions on the issues Perry is such a facade conservative it's disgusting.</quote>Hutchinson is pro-choice, Perry isn't, that's typically about all the fodder someone needs on my side of things to tip a candidate over in the primary. I was a bit surprised that he decided to run for what will essentrially be term 3.5, since I consider term limits, especially executive term limits, pretty important. The feeling last year was that they'd basically be swapping positions, senate normally being a post-gubernatorial thing anyway.  But while we tend to be okay with the occassional pro-choicer, we usually expect there other conservative credentials to be pretty sturdy, and there was the pistol ban and the TARP vote. By 'we' I mean conservatives, not the entire GOP. I happen to like her, so basically I'm fine by either, it's not my state anyway.</quote>
I was surprised to hear you say that, so I dug a little more; here's what Wikipedia says about Hutchisons abortion views:

"Hutchison supports the legality of abortion and considers herself pro-choice. She has however frequently voted for restricting abortion. Her average score from the NRLC between the years of 1997 and 2010 is 93%, with her highest score being 100% and lowest being 75%. [17] NARAL Pro-Choice Texas executive director Sara Cleveland once said, 'by our definition, Sen. Hutchison's voting record does not indicate that she is pro-choice.'[18] She also believes that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was appropriate and should not be overturned,[19] but is opposed to the Freedom of Choice Act because it would restrict the right of states to impose restrictions on abortion. In the past years NARAL has given her ratings of 0%, 7%, 20%, and 0%, indicating that her voting record mostly favored enacting proposed abortion restrictions.[20] "

The National Right to Life Committee scores her, on average, in the low nineties, and National Abortion Rights Action League scores her in the single digits; I'd say it's a little more complicated than her being "Pro-Choice. " It seems more like she likes telling Pro-Choice women she's Pro-Choice but wants the states to ban abortion despite Roe v. Wade.

A pistol ban isn't a blanket gun ban (I strongly support the Second Amendment AND pistol bans because I consider them murder weapons, since you don't need surprise for deterrence, but we've been over that) yet I see your point; she's not really after my vote anyway (though if I voted in the primary she'd get it. ) Term limits aren't the issue for me; as long as the people want to vote someone back, that's called, "democracy" (and as a rule I've noticed most Republicans only support term limits when Dems are in office; they wanted the 22nd Amendment repealed for Reagan even though they danced on FDRs grave with it, and forty years of "CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS111" rhetoric disappeared overnight in '94. ) Perry's gonna do what serves his interests though; maybe he should run for Kays seat, though if any credible Republican ran against him I think he'd still lose the primary.
<quote id="80429"><quote id="80245">Tolls on roads built by bonds are an issue mainly because people opposed to high taxation NORMALLY view it as a "double tax" (as Sen. Hutchison calls the toll roads, just one reason she'll mop the floor with Perry. ) Heck, the guy tried to put a toll on I-35 until Kay informed him that the feds weren't really cool with that (so Perry tried to buy back Texas' interest in the road just to toll it; I have mental images of Ft. Hood tanks going through toll booths.... ) </quote>
I'm a pragmatist, I sort of take as a given that the gov't is gonna fleece me top and bottom, they need X revenue, and it's easier to get it if some of it's hidden a bit, not straight income tax or sales tax where you get handed the bill once a year or every time you by a pack of gum. YEs, it is double taxation, unless you can show the people using it are singificantly benefiting while the majority does not, or does not benefit similiarly. Then it's a targted tax, keep in mind Joel, conservatives are against massive and often punitive taxes to pay for things they object to, we don't object to the concept of taxes in of itself. Normally road funding is fine by us so long as it's not being wasted, like the Big Dig or the Bridge to Nowhere.</quote>
Of course, if you're Sarah Palin, whether the Bridge to Nowhere is a bad idea depends on whether you're running for Governor or VP. ;) But yes, I'm aware most conservatives only object to taxes for programs they don't support; that's part of what I find so annoying.  A single mom with five kids in East L.A. is a "welfare queen" but giving millions in tax credits for people to buy gas guzzling SUVs when oil prices are bankrupting the country is "economic stimulus. " To say nothing of corporate welfare itself; for some reason it's OK for a multi-billion dollar multinational to mooch of Uncle Sucker, but not OK for a working mom.  The point, however, is that Texas needs our roads just to function; that's why, until Perry took over, they'd been the envy of the country for decades.  And he's tolling just about every major road in the state, and wants to toll more.  I wasn't kidding when I said if things go as they want I'll have to pay a toll just to drive to my house.  Yeah, it's a targeted tax, alright: It's targeted at Texas.
<quote id="80429"><quote id="80245">Realistically, I'd expect the US Army to be waved through,</quote>
Oh, yeah, we're exempt from that sort of thing on official business, unsurprisingly
<quote id="80245"> but my point is the interstates were created to encourage and enable interstate travel (with specific emphasis on the military during emergencies) and slapping tolls on them inhibits that.  To say nothing of the fact that the lions share of I-35 and the rest comes from that evil federal government, but Perry wasn't planning on providing them any toll revenue (in fact it pretty much all goes to Cintra, which is why they bought the bonds Perry induced people to vote for. ) Seriously, read a little about the Trans-Texas Corridor and you'll probably understand why it's another area where Perrys base thinks he sold them out--he basically did.</quote>
Hmm... well I've just scanned it, but the situation with Cintra looks a bit weird. I don't mind privatizing tollbooths, that sounds likle common sense, but a 50-year contract? Anyway, that is a local affair, lots of died in the red GOP act a bit purple on local stuff. Pork seems less fatty locally, I suppose. I have to tell you I haven't exactly been a mssive Perry supporter either way, the only real primary challenge (outside of Ohio) I keep and I on right now is Crist-Rubio, so I'll have to defer on the point.</quote>
Part of what's bothering me with the public toll roads is it looks like it's going to go like electric deregulation did in CA: The private owner will collect all the profits, but the state taxpayers will be responsible for maintenance and other overhead.  Cintra didn't build the roads and they won't repair them; TXDoT will, at my expense.  Cintra just shows up to collect the tolls, most of which are automated. ;)
<quote id="80429"><quote id="80245">It's actually unusual in a lot of ways though; I bet when you drop your change in the tub on I-90 it's not $1.85 to go 11 miles (the set fee and maximum length you can go on the tolled stretch of US-183 that basically goes past a mall;</quote>
No, it's $3 to go from the PA border to bufallo (about 60 miles), and that's up $.15 recently, and of course it's NY prices, the fair per mile is a bit lower in Ohio, on RT 80. That does seem rather high.</quote>
I guess it depends on whether you're collecting or paying it.
<quote id="80429"><quote> we needed that. ) You won't be speeding along at high speed on it either; there are on/off ramps about every half mile.  In addition to the lights.  Yes, stoplights for cross streets on a toll road.</quote>
We don't have much like that in ohio, but the NY comparison, there are bridges to the island that run you .75, and that's maybe 5 miles, of course, that is a bridge and a pretty f'ing massive one, so a bit different, and again, it's in NY, not the most anti-tax state, I always make a point of brinigng smokes with me (still less than $5 in ohio) so I ain't paying $9 for a pack up there.</quote>
Right, but they don't have a bridge every half mile or so.  I've been on REAL toll roads, where they've built in big rest stop areas as part of the road so you can pull off for gas and/or food without having to pay a toll to get back on again.  This is just idiotic; why would I pay a toll to have merging traffic every half mile, then get down to the next CROSS STREET and wait for a light to change?  This makes my commute faster (and thus justifies paying for it) how...?
<quote id="80429"><quote>  I'm not a big fan of toll roads generally, and one of the things I USED to like about living in the South is they were very rare, but I HAVE lived places where they're common, and this isn't how they work.  Texas roads in particular used to be the envy of the nation because we use them, we NEED them, and until recently TXDoT kept them in good shape for that very reason.  Now I have to through a 3-S curve in a half mile to reach the 10mph 90° turn where old 183 crosses (tolled)183A just to get to my house.  And they want more.  Not only have they done a sorry job designing the toll roads, not only are the private foreign firms who own them making orders of magnitude more than they invested off of TX taxpayers, but they've incidentally made the FREE roads hazardous to drive (which makes what the logical alternative?)</quote>
Well, no argument there, if there are good reasons for this, as there may be, I am not familiar with them, and I don't defend actions taken by people just because they're members of my party.</quote>
Sorry, I kind of went off on a toll road rant there; I'm not a big fan of them, once again, but I can at least see some justification if they're done right and on a limited basis.  These are done VERY badly in such a way as to make nearly every major road in the state a goldmine for a Spanish contractor and, despite the claims and commercials, they don't make travel faster, they make it slower in the interest of insuring people pay as much as possible.  I've had to pay a toll three times in the past year because if you don't exit US183 at a certain point, getting off at the next exit forces you to pay a toll.  Of course, if you take the two exits BEFORE the last one, they lead to a different toll road.
<quote id="80429"><quote id="80245">Why is someone so committed to less taxes and government she has to write it down or she won't mention it supporting this kind of stuff?</quote>
I actually doubt she knows. Politicians tend to have basically the wiki-notes level of knowledge on things outside their own comittees and district/state, and that's just so they don't sound retarded, it's not like they actually have in-depth knowledge (or really should be expected to) on specific matters local to a different area. </quote>
If you involve yourself in a party primary, better know the differences between your partys two candidates.  Though sounding like she's an idiot doesn't seem a big concern for Mrs. Palin.
<quote id="80429"><quote id="80245">The biggest problem I, personally, have with the HPV vaccine is that 1) vaccine manufacturers can't seem to find a preservative that isn't a known carcinogen (or worse) but won't just manufacture preservative free vaccines with shorter shelf lives, </quote>
Things that kill of microorganisms tend to be unhealthy for large organisms too, gotta work within the confines of current science. It's a risk thing, not just real risk but also lawsuit risk (couch, cough... tort reform) they can't get sued for Thermosil, they could get sued for a dose of vaccine that had foriegn bacteria in it. The stuff is safe enough, it's just risk management, if you've got decent dat showing Y gives you W% risk of deaht, and by using X you significantly decrease W while slighlty increasing it in a different but smaller way, you do it. In combat, a helmet decreases your senses, thus slightly increasing your odds of being caught unawares, but singificantly increases your odds on survivability. Same difference. Of course, the ACH ones, redesigned for the new body armor and new tech, further increase survivability while decreasing the sensory loss, and I'd imagine some years down the road we'll be able to replace Thermosil and others with something similiar... but currently it ain't around.</quote>
Actually, thimerosal has largely been replaced in new vaccines; the technical term is that it's "being phased out" (which when you dig into it means they're dumping the old vaccines on the WHO and giving them to kids in places like Africa, but I won't even attempt cost/benefit analysis there. ) The two most popular alternatives last I checked seem to be formaldehyde (which had already been banned from public school labs as a known carcinogen when I was in school) and ethylene glycol, but the following link to the FDA lists the preservatives they approve (I know nothing about any of them save thimerosal. )

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm096228.htm#t2

I'm REALLY trying to avoid debating the relative benefits and risks of vaccination though, but feel obliged to say I agree it's a judgment call, and I therefore feel it should be left to individual discretion or, in the case of minors, that of their parents, as we do so many other things.  I think it's kind of asinine to say parents can deny their kids life saving blood transfusions on religious grounds but can't deny them vaccines on the grounds it could kill them.
<quote id="80429"><quote id="80245">3) as with the toll roads owned by a private Spanish firm, one of Perrys senior aides just happened to take a position with the company benefiting about that time.  However, the hue and cry from the religious right was exactly what you'd expect: Teenagers won't have sex if no one tells them about it, but if you give them the vaccine they'll sell themselves on street corners.</quote></quote>
Well, I appreciate the analogy but I doubt anyone (beg pardon, large numbers of sane people) are saying HPV vaccinations will lead to a huge leap in prostitution. I'm not even sure why anyone needs to do anything with the kids beyond say "Roll up your sleeve, this injection reduces your odds of getting cancer" there's really no need to bring sex into the equation anyway. "Roll up your sleeve, this will keep you from getting the flu" doesn't have to be followed by "And now you can kiss any guy you want without worry about him giving you a cold, so put on some lipstick and run down to the lockerroom girlie." So basically I consider it a fairly invented issue either way. Just about every illness can be spread as a STD, I mean it's not like you can't get the flu by having sex too. 
I don't agree with the logic (I object to making it COMPULSORY on completely different grounds) but that was the logic expressed.  People, especially those who voted for Perry as almost a stereotype of a Southern Republican, were enraged.  And many of them still are; the Legislature had to step in to overturn his executive order, and he had the sense to let it drop, but it did a lot of damage.
<quote id="80429"><quote id="80245">I'm inclined to agree with you about trusting the parents on medical treatment (which is what we do with just about every other form) but see sex ed as larger educational and public health issue; a lot of parents AREN'T qualified to teach their kids about it, and in many cases those very kids are proof.</quote>
Well, I'd say in the anecdotal sense it's pretty hard to be a parent without being qualified to discuss sex, a high school grad might not be the ideal person to teach people arithmetic or reading, but they are qualified IMHO to do it, the process involved in having children tends to pretty much result in knowledge of sex ed to the level we'd teach anyway. </quote>
Oh, I don't doubt they can teach their kids how to get pregnant but most of the time I don't think that's really where the trouble starts. ;) We need something a little more thorough than
"Janey says you can't get pregnant the first time" 
"Er, no, I can tell you firsthand that's not true, sweety.... :8) "
<quote id="80429"><quote id="80245">But I stated my objections because you asked what they were; that's a separate and much larger debate (poisoned Chinese toothpaste and human food grade grain has eroded my faith in the FDA. ) </quote>
Well, I'm not exatly a huge fan of the FDa, but they are pretty good at their job, overall. </quote>
When they don't let the profit motive preempt it, which happens all too often lately (cough, cough, tort abolition. ;))
<quote id="80429"><quote>It may surprise you, but, yes, the bulk of the protests, or so it seemed from me (and I was among the group that opposed it for completely different reasons) came from people who insisted it would lead to promiscuity.  It's the same logic that leads them to oppose teaching contraception: If you teach kids there's a safer way to have sex, they'll have sex, and the less they know about sex the less likely they are to engage in it.  They regarded it as a betrayal, and the standard objections to compulsory vaccination, even the fact one of Perrys senior staffers had just become a Merck lobbyist, were almost an afterthought; the story had been going on for at least two or three days before I heard anyone mention it once (and that one I followed closely enough that I've actually downloaded copies of Perrys executive order. ) Conservatives, especially the religious right, got sold out by their own candidate.  Literally.  So again I ask: Why is their new national candidate supporting him over a legitimate conservative?  I like virtually none of Kay positions, but I believe her sincerity.  Perry, well, if I could make the highest bid I'm sure he'd be happy to work for me.  Of course, since I'm paying is salary now he's supposed to do that already.</quote>
Well , I assume she was there because he asked to come, and because Kay isn't exactly on the conservative christmas card list these days. I hear you, but I'm not really in a position to debate these matters from lack of knowledge, and I'm not going to cede points I don't now about.</quote>
Fair enough; it IS a little unfair to ask you to comment on what's going on up the street from me, but combining Palin and Perry was sort of a perfect storm for me.  I'd feel really good about Kay taking over, despite her being a die hard Republican, if I didn't fear it could be the springboard to successful White House run.
<quote id="80429"><quote id="80245">That conflict was to be expected; what was more noteworthy was that a supposedly far right Governor, heir to Bush and routinely stating his "family values" creds, totally betrayed his base on the issue.  Again, Kay will mop the floor with Perry in the primary, and if you want an example of everything Palin claims to be, look there.</quote>
Bush wasn't far right, we had a lot of issues with becaus eof that.</quote>
On what?  Maybe spending and civil liberties, but those were always couched in terms of the War of Terror, and I never heard much complaint from the right, but maybe that from the left drowned them out for me.  He cut taxes, banned federal funding of new stem cell research because they come from aborted fetuses (that still got aborted) and probably only got re-elected because of the proposed gay marriage amendment that had a state equivalent on the ballot in nearly every swing state.  If you're mad because of the prescription drug benefit and No Childs Behind Left, the former was going to happen because of our healthcare crisis and the latter didn't really cost anything because Bush never funded it.
<quote id="80429"><quote id="80245">A lot of Texas Republicans, most, I think (but we'll know soon) don't like Perry any better than I do.  As another Texan once said, an honest politician is one who, when you buy him, he STAYS bought.</quote>
To be honest, I'd rather have her as governor than senator, her two sticky points in my book are abortion and guns, and obviously the governor of texas isn't a threat to the cause on those issue. If Palin wants to campaign for him though, well, that's her business... as I've said Joel, I'm not exactly a member of her fan club, I just don't like seeing people demonized over things I don't consider very demonic.</quote>
That's reasonable; believe it or not, I DID defend her one time, because I agree Newsweek was cheap to use her pic wearing running shorts for a sports mag in their political cover story.
<quote id="80429"><quote id="80245">Had McCain won he'd have been a year older than Reagan on their respective Inauguration Days; it worried the hell out of me and a lot of people.  It reminds me of what they used to say about how Quayle fulfilled the goal of making America more religious, because the whole country prayed for Bushs health every night.  And Palin is very obviously maneuvering for the Republican nomination; she just won't come out and say it because it's too soon and she hasn't locked up all of the base.  Which I doubt she ever will because most savvy Republicans see her the same way a lot of savvy Dems saw Hillary: The one way to guarantee defeat.</quote>
Yeah, Mccain is still alive. Reagan lived the whole term, and a pretty good chunk of the presidents who died in office did so from lead poisoning, which isn't very related to age. Not saying I want someone who looks like they are about to fall over dead, but I don't play the age card that way, I want our POTUS to be 55+ coming in. I didn't want Palin either, I just didn't consider her a bad choice either. Of course, unlike most people I knew who she was before hand, because I'd seen her and Napolitano at a table fielding questions the year before, they both came off pretty well, I have to say they've both sort of disappointed me since.</quote>
McCain's still alive, but it's a long way till 2016.  And Reagan ultimately admitted himself that he was feeling the effects of Alzheimers before he left office.  Of course, his medical history is a little different than McCains, too; there's no cure for melanoma, I believe.  I agree Napolitano's been a little disappointing, though the biggest thing there is probably the attempted Christmas bombing, and I suspect that was a case of telling the cameras what her boss said to say; HE'S been a HUGE disappointment thus far for everyone but Wall Street and Detroit.
<quote id="80429"><quote id="80245">Even so.  Again I say, look to Kay, who has all of Palins fiscally and socially conservative credentials, a LOT more national and international experience and reflects those things in actually knowing her stuff and sounding like it. </quote>
National experience is good, but Perry happens to have 10 years experience at this particular job already, and while I think maybe you guys should be considering pass a term limits amendment, he clearly has the upper hand on her in relevant experience. With Kay, well, her saving grace on conservatism is that while she may support Roe v Wade, she has a NARAL rating of like 0%. of course, as governor her opinion on abortion is basically irrelevant, but it's a serious blow to her image as a conservative. So was the pistol ban, so was voting for TARP. WE (conservatives not GOP) warned them there would be consequences for those votes, I've got no prob with her winning but it's good to see those consequences come into action, regardles sof the specifics.</quote>
I don't believe in term limits.  Even for someone as disgusting as Perry, the solution in a democracy is to vote them out of office; telling them they can't run at all is the kind of thing they do in Iran.  I wouldn't worry much about Kay on abortion; when the NRLC rates her THAT much higher than NARAL her "pro-choice" statement is little more than talk.  Incidentally, the Doe v. Bolton decision tied to Roe is a MUCH bigger problem than Roe itself if you're on that side; even I don't like Doe because it not only established the health exception, but interpreted it so broadly that "I'm depressed because I'm getting fat" would count.  All Doe does is say abortions within the first trimester can't be categorically banned.

That said, I again say national legislative experience is just as important in a President as executive experience, and if you think Kay is trading a national stage as an important Senator to be Governor of one state, think again.  However, under Bush Texas went to four year terms, so after one or two terms in Austin Kay will be able to claim eight years of executive and sixteen years of Senate experience, and not many people from either party will have those kinds of Presidential credentials.
<quote id="80429"><quote> From a purely cosmetic standpoint she's always struck me as looking a little severe (she might be more comparable to Hillary than Palin) but no one will ever accuse of her being either a "feminazi" or a "soccer mom" (it's just happy coincidence Palin EMBRACED the latter term; I have nothing against stay at home moms, but even if Palin was one that's not the credential I look for in a President. ) I personally thought from the start the only reason Palin was catapulted onto the national stage was as a trial balloon to see if people who joke about Hillary wearing the pants because she's got the biggest penis would accept a genuine conservative who also happened to be a woman.  It seems they will.

The main problem with running Governors is that they frequently don't know how to work with Congress, particularly with Senators who had more power than them for the past 20 years.  THAT'S where Obama got in trouble; normally that's the kind of thing electing a US Senator avoids, but not when he's only been there for four years.  He hasn't had enough time to get dirt on people. :P None of that prevents their election though, so you may be right; on the other hand, Kay wouldn't be too threatening either (she's not nearly as in your face as Palin) and allows the GOP to play the gender card: "You just hate her because she's a successful female politician but not a card carrying NOW member!"</quote>
Well, ideally you run a governor for Potus and a senator for VP, that seems to work well.</quote>
As long as the VP never has to serve as President, and you enjoy national gridlock.  I don't think Governors Bush or Clinton were particularly effective as President, at least not in positive ways, and neither was Carter.  In the 20th Century Reagan and FDR were the only effective Governors turned President that come to mind (Nixon, of course, had plenty of Senate experience before he was ever Governor. )
<quote id="80429"><quote id="80245">The difference is that people who self identify with the religious right share the same blind spot with the LDS, despite the fact the LDS has explicitly rejected the Nicene and Apostles Creed and its leadership is on record saying things like "As man is, God was; as God is, man may become. " I'm not going to delve into doctrinal validity for various reasons, but I will say that if you look at what Joseph Smith taught and the LDS leadership still affirms, it directly contradicts FUNDAMENTAL (if you'll pardon the term) Christian doctrines.  Put more simply, while there are many good Christians in the Mormon church, some of whom I'm honored to count as good friends and privileged to call brother and sister, what Joseph Smith and the LDS LEADERSHIP teach is not Christianity.  Teaching that Jesus was once a sinner is not Christianity; teaching that the Father had a father (who also had a father) is not Christianity, to name just two examples.  And no one who's a congregation president and traces his pedigree to the Mormon Patriarchs can plead ignorance there.</quote>
Oh, I'm there with you on the LDS, but I'm not a long-term christian, I was agnostic most of my life and still a moral man, so I don't identify someone's specific religion as very important politically, beyond the obvious ramifications with the voters. I would vote for a muslim or a hindu, so long as they clearly backed the core political platform, so mine isn't a LDS blindspot, and actually that's closer to the norm for most of the non-populist conservative right. 
<quote id="80245">The Senate may not be a good DIRECT route if we ignore the role the VP plays in the Senate, but unless you're Ike, Grant or Taylor nearly all of our Presidents got there based on either experience in the national legislature or as chief executive.  Those are probably the two most important things a President can have.  As a direct route, no, the Senate may not be a good choice, but the lessons learned there don't just vanish when you get a different job.  Again, if Obama had spent more time making deals on legislation in the Senate perhaps he'd have a better idea how to do it as President.</quote>
All right, VP as a member of the senate, yes, but let's not nitpick.
<quote id="80245">Gravel ran as a Libertarian because the Dems wouldn't nominate him (just the opposite of what perennial Lib candidate Ron Paul did) and since we're comparing the potential nominees of the two major parties, yes, he counts.  Even if we ignore the role Hillary played in Bills Presidency and Governorship (does that mean I can stop listening to people whine about Hillarycare? ;))</quote>
I didn't know many people even mentioned Hillarycare anymore.</quote>
Only when there's a healthcare bill in Congress, or a candidate suggests there should be.
<quote id="80429"><quote> I think eight years in the Senate is more experience than four years as Governor of Massachusetts, and twenty years of sitting in on policy meetings in either Little Rock or DC seems like it's equal to the four more years Huckabee had as Governor.  Did Thompson actually RUN?</quote>
PArallel case to Vilsack or Gravel.</quote>
I never mentioned Vilsack, but thought I remembered Gravel lasting through the first primary, maybe I'm wrong though.
<quote id="80429"><quote>  He dropped out so fast I'm not sure if he made any of the primaries, but telling me that he and Guiliani, whose never even held a STATE office, have "executive experience meet[ing] or exceed[ing] any single one of the Dem nominees" seems a stretch.  Gilmore and Romneys four years as Governor give them more experience than Hillary got in twenty years of writing state and federal policy and, oh, yeah, a Senate career as long as their gubernatorial ones COMBINED.  They might have more executive experience than Biden, Dodd and Gravel, but those three have FAR more legislative experience and, though it may be hard to remember in the Obama era, that's just as important in a President.  And while I may have missed your qualifier in an earlier statement, if you meant to put one on experience in this comparison, you didn't: You just said, "experience. " Legislative experience counts just as much in that context, and few of the Republican candidates had as much executive (or any other) experience as most of the Democrats had legislative.  McCain was the pick of the litter, and Huckabee next.  After that I believe it's three four year Governors and a city mayor.  I'll stack Biden and Dodds three decades in the Senate up against that any time, as well as Hillary eight years there and time spent drafting legislation introduced by either the President or a Governor earlier.</quote>
Guilliani was the mayor of the NY, which is bigger and has a greater deal of complexity than most states. I would argue being mayor of NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, etc parallels governor of state. Obviously my little village mayor, with our pop of around 1000 or so, is not POTUS-ready, it's a broad term, like CEO. Mega-company CEO probably a good base for executive leadership, CEO of a company with 500 employees? Not really. </quote>
Unless you live in a city with a strong council form of government (and I honestly don't know with NYC) the parallel doesn't work because mayors don't have to deal with a legislature that's their equal individually or in concert.  Still, in terms of pure political experience (and if you want to accomplish anything legislative is just as important as executive) Dodd, Biden and Clinton had few equals in either party (I'd give a pretty penny to hear the conversations between Biden and Obama about the latters handling of the Senate. )  Basically, McCain.  Guiliani probably comes closest after that in terms of overall high level experience, but I want more experience than just mayoral, even if it is in a city the size of New York.
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password