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 — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...