Skip to main content

Pretty soon I'm going to be completely out of Presidential candidates. . . .

. . . .because after I just ruled out John McCain based on his morally bankrupt doctrine of pre-emptive war, I have to eliminate Hillary (big surprise!), if for no other reason than her weaseling answer on Oregon's medical marijuana program:

What would you do as president about the federal government not recognizing Oregon's Medical Marijuana Program as legal?

We've got to have a clear understanding of the workings of pain relief and the control of pain. And there needs to be greater research and openness to the research that's already been done. I don't think it's a good use of federal law-enforcement resources to be going after people who are supplying marijuana for medicinal purposes.

So you'd stop the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency's raids on medical marijuana grows?

What we would do is prioritize what the DEA should be doing, and that would not be a high priority. There's a lot of other more important work that needs to be done.

Should medical marijuana be covered by insurance?

I don't have enough information to know anything about that.


For a woman who has proposed 100% medical insurance coverage for all Americans, "I don't have enough information to know anything about that" is, simply put, total bullshit.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Oh, man. The poor woman is unable to answer that question. Can you really be mad at her for not saying yes? If she had said yes (which I think is the way to do it, eventually) she would be lambasted by every right-winger as being in favor of government-funded drug abuse.

"She wants to pay for our kids to get high"

"Hillary - the Pusher"

It would be endless. Al Gore said that while researching toxic dumps his committee learned about Love Canal. For months, the mantra was that Al Gore discovered Love Canal, right after he invented the Internet.

She was in a mine field and she walked around it. She isn't my favorite candidate, but you have to be a little fair to her on these politically charged issues.
No, Geek, I don't have to be fair--any more than you do.

I would have respected her if she had said, "I haven't made my mind up on that yet" OR "I think there are still some pretty difficulty public policy issues to be ironed out before we go there" But for the woman who is now--for the second time--claiming to have all the answers for nationalizing health care to say, "I dunno enough about it to comment"--that's so far less than credible as to be ridiculous.

(I should also add because my comment editor is fritzing that I got this from Drug War Rant that got this from Oregon, a paper that has been advocating legalization and decrminalization for years. She accepted an interview with them; she knew the topic would come up.)

But you're right about one thing--it was disingenuous of me to claim that this comment decided me against Hillary--there was no way she was ever getting my vote from the outset. Point to you.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...