Nanny State?

I dsont see why not, but Caroline Kennedy has the inside line.

I'd rather see Fran get it, but I wouldn't bet against anyone named Cuomo. The Guv getting arrested throws this up in the air a bit.

No more ludicrous than a wrestler being elected gov. of Minnesota, an action hero being elected gov. of California or a B-movie star being elected President of the United States.

Just because someone is a tv/movie or film personality dosen't mean they CANT do the job. I don't think a degree in law or political science is absolutely necessary to represent the citizens. There are other more important things, like general smarts, industriousness and integrity.

I would like to see her in the Senate if for no other reason than to have the rest of those yahoo's have to listen to her. Even better yet send in Steve Urkel too.

Send in Palin, she has been to NY – that counts, right?

She falls short in the "general smarts" category, a requirement which can't be off set by ambition.

Holland what do you have against a strong willed woman? Oh the humanity!

Reagan is hardly a model of integrity, he betrayed the actors union members by taking millions of dollars in oceanfront california homes from the studios while he pretended to be the head of the actors union. The wrestling governor was a little better, but Arnold has been doing surprisingly well, acting more for the people than for the corporate crooks it seems. but to include reagans name on a list of people with integrity is like putting crap on your plate at Mancys. Remember reagan, the deregulation man. Again i say, dig him up, haul him to court and jail him for his crimes, along with nixon,, and haul in bush 1 and 2 and their evil minions too.

Palin is a 44 yr. old former pageant winner who is still seeking the limelight any way she can. Really, all this woman wants is to be the center of attention. If you're too old for pageants anymore then, well, politics. A little short on brains, L..O..N..G on ambition.

I was being sarcastic, just so you know. We are eye to eye here. She is a joke.

• governor of Illinois trying to auction the Senate seat of President-elect Obama to the highest bidder-ap

vote CHANGE

Ah, yes....the democratic party....the party of tolerance. Not content with having won the White House and expanded its majorities in the House and Senate, the Left is now spewing its vitriol. But it was to be expected.

I'm laughing Ryan, I'm laughing. I just really, really want her to stay in the limelight. Maybe she'll twirl a baton or play her flute or remember what newspapers she reads.

Darkseid, this is one of those things that is horribly but truly sexist. Every little girl at some point in her adolescent life dreams of being crowned Miss something or other. Some are actually able to achieve that goal. But, even those who are successful, usually outgrow it. It's easier for a woman to recognize pageant syndrome than for a man to recognize it.

The party of tolerance.

Poor Darkie.

The DemocRATic Party...The party of Death & vitriol.

Poor Darkie
---------------------------------

<br/>By davidlee<

LOL, I love that little "That's Racist" kid. I see him everywhere!

Why are people still bashing Sarah Palin? I mean, guys, yo. You won. Got it? You get that, right? I mean, you read the papers and everything on November 5th, yes? Maybe caught a little MSNBC that day? Your guy's going to be the president! Roll out the party hats! Wa-hoo! Your problems are solved! Yay team! You did good! Hope! Change! Yes, you did!

Or, just keep kicking the loser based on hand-picked and out-of-context anecdotes and media-driven misconceptions. I guess that's more fun.

Really. I get sore losers. I get them. I know where that comes from. But "sore winners"? Foreign concept to me. And it doesn't seem to fit with the hopey-changey meme. I seriously do not recognize my own (former?) party anymore. I thought Dems were the good guys?

**

As for Fran Drescher, I REALLY have no idea about her fitness for Senate. Wouldn't have crossed my mind. I doubt she can prove she is the most qualified for the job, but if she can, then more power to her. Anyone dedicated to the noble idea of public service should at least have the opportunity to prove they are worthy. She in all probability will not even be considered, but that doesn't pre-empt a future run if she's serious.

There are good losers and there are bad winners.

I am not a sore winner. Are we supposed to act like Palin is no longer an idiot because the election is over? She is still and shall remain an idiot for a long time to come and needs to go away.

She needs to stay, Ryan. There's a segment of the republican part that will follow her anywhere, which is nowhere near political victory

I just cannot wrap my head around that type of thinking. And they call Dems lemmings. It’s like that crazy Ed guy. What’s his last name? He always runs as a Pub against Kaptur. He loses of course, but he gets some votes and that is just insane to me.

Of ourse you can't. You're a logical thinker who makes decisions based on facts. Facts don't threaten your ideology. The right wing Republican base doesn't employ logic and clarity. Here's a well known for instance; They believe that gays choose to be gay. John Stewart on the Dailey Show last night asked Mike Huckabee that, if this is true, then when did he, Huckabee, choose to be straight? The normally quick witted Huckabee was silent. You can't argue with someone who bases their entire world belief system on the Bible. The Bibile is not logical. It defies logic.

But I like The Bible!

Just not an extremist is all.

I'm not bashing the Bible. I'm not bashing faith. Allow me to clarify: You can't argue with someone who bases their entire world belief system on the Bible as absolute and does not recognize it's contradictions.

Fuckabee=ELMER GANTRY /Bill Clinton w/ ministerial credentials.
The two main pricks I wanted to see fall in the repugnant candidates were him & The Stormin' Mormon (Romney). Hated their guts. Same with Clinton & Richardson on the dem side. You people here are REALLY fucked up if you think you know who conservatives really are and how they think.

Well I agree with you there Darkseid. I have absolutely no idea how some conservatives can come to some of the conclusions they do. I don't understand them, at all.

You always see us as evangelicals. Many in the primaries were against Huckabee for that very reason. It was pretty much the only support he had. Other than the religion, he's a big-government loving nanny stater. I believe in the government STAYING OUT OF MY LIFE as much as possible. Many 'conservatives' were content with that as long as they saw him as religious. Same with Romney (another nanny-stater big-govrnment lover) Not me. He (huckster) would have been smashed with about a 48-state loss.

My question to that is what Pub would make the gov smaller? Bushie and his cronies blew it up!

Which is precisely why I didn't like Bush. How many times must I use the term RHINO here before you understand what I mean by it? To me, Bush was never a conservative, other than on taxes. I wanted Duncan Hunter, then Fred Thompson after Dunc dropped out. I was going to vote for Barr until the left and the media began to savage Palin. I felt she believed in small government, even if McPain didn't.

So, I need to learn to differentiate between evangelicals and true small government conservatives. Point well taken darkseid. It does get confusing with support for Palin. I'm not opposed to small government. I am opposed to an elected official who would use government to impose their religious beliefs on me. In my view, that's precisely what Palin would have done, given any opportunity. That would be government intervening in my life. I want government to stay out of my bedroom and out of my doctor's office. I'll choose my "life partner" and I'll choose my birth control method and I'll choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. Those are the places where I believe government does not belong. Hence I support abortion rights, availability of the morning after pill and gay marriage. Small government I do not have a problem with.

I'm against homosexual marriage, but it has little to do with religion. And get real, Holland, NO president is going to dictate to you what you can do about abortion. That's just an excuse you use to vote against republicans. I'm for limited abortion (no partial-birth) and against the death penalty. I don't like sudden change of ANY type, because most humans can't process it.

Abortion has always been the excuse/litmus test. I'm not surprised by that.

On the other side of the spectrum, I don't believe ANY president is ever going to take everyone's guns away, either. The Clintons tried strongly in some areas there and failed.

The Supreme Court has effectively ruled on the right to bear arms. I'm in favor of the Texas style "Castle Doctrine". So, no, no president is going to take away an individual gun owner's rights. I'll go out on a limb here and predict that Obama won't touch the gun issue even regarding the high powered non sporting machine guns. I see some merit in fire arms registration and licensing, on a similar vein as cars. My fire arms are voluntarily registered. If one would get stolen it might turn up somewhere ( crime, pawn shop, sold at a gun show, whatever). I'd like a chance to get it back.

You once mentioned that you didn't like having a choice taken away (plastic grocery bags). Well that's how I feel about abortion. Don't take away my choice. I don't mean to imply that abortion and plasctic bags carry equal weight. My goodness, not at all. But the underlying principle is the same.

In the year 2008, there is absolutely no need for partial-birth abortion. With the technological advances, it's known quite early on in pregnancy if there are complications. And I can't see abortion just because a woman doesn't want wrinkles. Half the problems begin because people no longer have or want to accept any resposibility for their actions. Oh...before one of you libs bring it up-sorry to disappoint, but I'm against the death penalty too.

I agree with Darkseid. If the mother does not want to raise the child there are "Safe Harbor" laws that protect the newborn. Even if there are genetic defects, the state is the proper place for taking care of such (especially with the expenses now involved). I have a friend whose sister has been in the care of the state for 40 years now. He continues to act as her "guardian" for medical matters, but she is a ward of the state for her other concerns. His mother was physically unable to care for her as she became more agressive as a teenager. She was tendered to the state, and they eventually put her in good conditions.

Good thing we have that "socialist" program in place otherwise it would have been much harder on your friend.

This country ORIGINALLY (or at least as I grew up with it in the 40s/50s) actually used aspects of both capitalism and socialism, but at a good balance.

My friend does worry about what will happen in the future. Madicaid pays for her medical needs, but that may be on the way out. He cannot do it. He may just have to watch her starve to death when care is gone.

Well, in Los Angelos last year a hospital dumped some uninsured, disabled patients out on the pavenemt. Literally. It's not too far fetched.

I try to make sure nothing like that will be on my conscience. I'm careful about how I pull that voting lever. And you oldsendbrdy, could you standby and watch that happen? Could you take over her care or is it preferable she die so as not to be a burden on society? Or if medicare/medicade fails should society take steps to euthanize the disabled who are without the financial means for care, perhaps as early as birth? That's a dangerous road you're proposing to let happen

Holland, how do you propose that the tax burden be lowered then? I assume you are a business person who would like to see a reduction in taxes. I am 60 years old. I have diabetes. I know that I am a burden on a society whose only concern is how to use consumption to ensure profitable enterprises. I am taking care of my mother plus doing shopping and other chores for two elderly women. Yet, this has no value to a capitalist society.

Only those who consume have any value. The rest are a drag on that society. And wouldn't it be ideal if we could eliminate the dead weight of illigitimacy from our economy? This seems to be one price of freedom we could do without. But how to do that? Let the children die because they have no nutrition/health care? I live in a country that is so different from the one I grew up in the 1950's and 1960's. Is it better? Certainly, I would think a black person would value what they have now. But what does it say that people throw away their children's future by having children without a father in the household?

Huh?

"Only those who consume have any value."

Is that what you believe or what you think society as a whole believes? Either way, I don't want to live in your world. I find that kind of thinking so repugnant and morally bankrupt that I will not participate further in this discussion.

I think that is what those who want political power in this country believe. Even Clinton pushed NAFTA through Congress. I've always thought he was as much a Republican as anyone in that party. The Republican Party has been trying to "change" Social Security for several years now. One of their methods has been to use deficit spending to bankrupt the country.

Obama is being held to a standard he cannot possibly meet. In four years we will have another Republican as President because he cannot get us out of this economic hole we are in. Am I cynical about the future. Yes, I am.