This seems about right. I had never thought about the possibility of Afghanistan and Iraq being a way to defuse the Pearl Harbor Switch as it might otherwise have applied to our friends (and Bush friends) the Saudis. And perhaps the Muslim world in general. I remember well all the people calling for us to nuke Mecca. Which would be a Bad Idea if religiocide were not already well in the works. In any event, it’s easy to see how people could perceive us as soft and peaceful to the point of being pushovers, but it takes little perception to realize not to flip the switch.
I have become a fan of Carly, but Fiorina supported an individual mandate in 2013. Not the same mandate. A more sensible mandate. However, it is wrong either way. No matter what the NSA has and allowed Obama to use on Justice Roberts to get a decision that says otherwise, the mandate is unconstitutional.
I’m not convinced this destroys her chances utterly, and it’s going to be hard to do more than modify ObamaCare no matter who wins, but it certainly looks bad. You cannot, by definition, support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America if you support and pursue unconstitutional policies.
The problem may be a corporate background informing her views. The trouble with Republicans is that it’s OK if a corporation does it, the way a Democrat considers it good if the government does it, but then that extends to it being OK if the government does something of benefit to corporation(s). If you see an individual mandate as somehow benefiting business, especially big business, you are more likely to support it as a Republican. No principles need apply.
Perhaps it’s already time to bring back Rick Perry. He has the problem of invoking Jesus, but not to the extent of being a Christian theocrat as some Republicans might be.
So you’ve got this manmade global warming thing that not only hasn’t remotely been proven, but arguably the opposite. At minimum, the “evidence” has been subject to fraud or error. It’s more a money game than anything, for “scientists” pursuing it, and a power game for politicians and organizations pursuing it. Powerful motivators, those. Not like truth and accuracy for their own sake, and the sake of a clear conscience.
Now we have someone proposing to use RICO to bludgeon scientists who disagree! Seriously? Are you sure we aren’t living in a Randian dystopia, complete with a State Science Institute run amok?
This is a fun set of questions, taylored for each of the Republican candidates. One question. One followup. Since I haven’t examined every single candidate as closely as someone interested in political blogging could have, I learned a couple things. I agree on many points. This seems to be heavy on losing the religious angle some bring to the table. That’s a Good Thing. Religion should never be a factor in how a candidate or party campaigns or governs.
Bush has no serious chance anyway, but supporting gun control? That’s poison. Even Democrats are best of leaving that alone. It’s at least as much a lost cause as, say, gay marriage. More so, in that it has the Constitution more clearly and explicitly behind it, and the Constitution in that case is simply affirming the government will not interfere with a right that precedes and is not based in government.
I tend to agree on Carson. Why? How will he survive? Perhaps he’d be best off as Carly’s VP.
Speaking of Carly, she’s doing pretty well if the crony question is the worst you can come up with. Valid, perhaps, but a relatively modest concern.
Kasich supported Obamacare? Buh-bye.
Pataki’s question made me laugh my ass off. I won’t spoil it.
I didn’t quite finish a post about immigration I started the other day, but when the questions are about amnesty, I am not as strong in opinion as some. I’ve come around to less open borders as a matter of security, but otherwise I have always been rather more anarcho than libertarian on the topic.
Walker has been a disappointment. He, Perry and Fiorina have been my big three. I get the impression he is more muddled than it might have appeared when he did battle as governor. I was unimpressed by the Canadian border fence thing, and have wondered, since it was Just That Crazy a thing to say, whether it was overblown or taken out of context by the media, or was meant as a joke and taken seriously. My inclination to support him crashed hard with that. But he’d still be vastly better than what we have, than any running or potentially running Democrat or Socialist, and better than most of the Republican field in actual practice.
Huckabee is a joke. Was a joke before. Should even be running now.
Jindal is a technocratic policy wonk who would be adequate to good as President, but can’t get theah from heah. So yes, cabinet for him.
Trump apparently needs more of my attention. People I respect seem to actually support him! I have seen him as the clown car sideshow to entertain us before the real race gets underway. Instead he seems to have become the real race.
Didn’t mean for this to become a commentary on some of the candidates. Definitely go read the link if you haven’t already.
I got 100%, 33 right out of 33 questions, on this test. That’s better than typical people average, which in turn is better than elected officials average. I thought I’d miss one, as it looked like a trick question, but what probably happened is it was and I just answered opposite that.
I just can’t believe the furor over the mosque planned near Ground Zero. Well, I can. What I can’t belive is how obscenely misguided so many people are on the topic, and that some of the statements made by one of the worst Presidents ever are correct, yet being shredded to bits.
Look… Everything about the planned mosque is stupid, misguided, and couldn’t be more provocative if it were intended thus. It probably is. The location. The name. The size. The press. The one-sided appeal to tolerance.
It is right to feel strongly about that.
However, it is not acceptable by any stretch to attempt to get government authorities at any level to stop it from being built. Period.
Being annoyed by it, sure. Calling for it and in your wildest dreams having any expectation of it being prevented, that is about as wrong as it gets. Protesting? Sure. To try to persuade the folks behind it that it’s a PR nightmare… assuming that their goal is not to be offensive. Using government power? No. It would be wrong even if it were constitutional.
It goes both ways.
I’d never really thought about it, but it makes sense that we elect people based on integrity and commitment – heck, willingness to do more than pay lip service to both law and norms – to one degree or another. If you are flagrant before the fact, that’s probably it for you, when it’s a marriage.
It doesn’t even matter whether you and your spouse are differently normed and have a relationship you might consider more open than others, or if your marriage has alteady undergone zombification. Public perception is everything.
It may be old-fashioned, but there it is.
After the fact? Then it’ll look bad, as with Clinton, but performance matters and, frankly, perception of your spouse and relationship matter as well. If yours is widely perceived as a marriage of power and convenience, the sting might be less. And even so, look at the frenzy over Monica.
It may not be right, but it’s reality. Speaking of which, Republicans need to tout less morality and more reality, if they are to have a chance.
I’m watching some folks in a forum rehash bits and pieces of the abortion argument, and in response to the token extreme-right-wing-christian, the much more liberal majority keeps asking, what gives you the right to give your opinions the force of law?
It’s painful. They are so heartbreakingly close to making sense, but they cannot ask the question of themselves, and without that…
(To clarify: They’re exactly right on the topic of abortion. It’s nobody’s business at all. The terrible thing is that they cannot seem to generalize from that observation. If one may not give one’s opinion of abortion the force of law, then why can one give one’s opinion of motorcycle helmets the force of law? Or one’s opinion of proper income distribution, for that matter…they are so damned close to the root of the thing, they could see it from where they are, but they never will. There’s a beam in the way.)