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

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?