Maine course
March 20th, 2012
By ddepledge
By ddepledge
U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, will appear at a fundraising luncheon in April for former Gov. Linda Lingle’s Republican campaign for Senate.
Lingle has cited Collins, a moderate, as an example for the kind of bipartisan path she would take if elected.
The April 12 luncheon is scheduled at the Sheraton Waikiki’s Kauai ballroom.
U.S. Rep. Mazie Hirono and former congressman Ed Case are the Democratic candidates for Senate.
Posted in In Politics | 5 Comments »
Political Radar
March 21st, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Thousand dollar a plate imported Maine lobster dinner.
lingle is as lingle does and never was once in favor of bipartisan. As governor she was for the republicans, of the republicans and by the republicans, not the people of Hawaii. I question again her birth certificate to represent Hawaii, since she herself was not born or raised in Hawaii. she ate poi with a silver spoon.
March 21st, 2012 at 4:37 pm
AUWE!!! Lingle just got through showing that “bipartisanship” is no more than a campaign slogan when she shared the fundraising stage with a character like Senator Roy Blunt, a LEADER of the far right’s anti-woman agenda and author of the extreme Blunt-Brown amendment. For weeks, Lingle refused to issue a position on the Blunt amendment, hoping to just surf by it. Then when it was leaked to the press that she was standing side by side with Blunt at a fundraiser for her, she issued a position…a day AFTER the fundraiser!!! Here’s one more question Ms. Lingle won’t answer: How can electing a Republican from Hawai’i, risking the loss of the thin Democratic majority in the Senate and then losing Senator Inouye’s chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee, be good for Hawai’i or the country?
March 22nd, 2012 at 12:53 am
If I recall, the only candidate in this race that was born in Hawaii is Ed, and our current Gov. is from . . . Buffalo, NY? Don’t see how that should matter much anyways. Also the so-called Blunt Amendment only came to be because the President was going to issue totally new federal regulations under the PPACA mandating that some religious organizations provide contraceptive coverage. Sen. Blunt responded to his constituents by drafting the amendment, which was rejected. But when the President’s plan didn’t play well with the nation’s voters, the President now created his own Blunt Amendment-type exception in his proposed regs.
I don’t see anyone complaining about President Obama’s “extreme” religious exemption he is carving out to the PPACA!
March 22nd, 2012 at 4:53 pm
PolitiNalo Guy
The news coverage of the controversy has been pretty bad, so I can understand why you believe Obama’s policy on contraception was “totally new.” Ignored in most news reports was the actual legal history. A lot of states which mandate employer-provided health insurance provide no exemption of institutions owned by religious organizations, unless they are the churches (mosques, temples) themselves. The Catholic Church had filed lawsuits trying to get a broader religious exemption in several suits and have, each time, lost. Even the US Supreme Court, under the control of conservatives, has refused to set aside lower court rulings which have found employers, including religious employers, do NOT have the right to impose their beliefs on their employees by restricting coverage of contraception and other medical procedures prescribed by a doctor.
There was nothing “extreme” in the Presidents proposal. It was consistent with widespread practice and with numerous federal court rulings. It is just that the Religious Right saw this as an opportunity to attack and demonize Obama for political purposes.
As for how well Obama’s plan “plays with the voters,” polls are showing his position has strong support from the public, including a strong majority of Catholics. Public support for Republicans, on this issue, has fallen tremendously and will damage them in the fall if they do not beat a hasty retreat or move on to another demagogic issue.
March 27th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
President Obama mentioned Health Care when he spoke of contraception. I did hear words that came out of thin air about abortions or birth control but was said by those who oppose President Obama.
The avoiding of spreading aids and other venereal diseases by men wearing condoms.
Not getting a woman pregnant by wearing condoms.
For women a choice of not getting pregnant by consenting sex or by forced rape. In either choice they don’t have to think of getting an abortion. “Birth control” to regulate the population. As America is growing in population where China practices “Zero Population” of where a family can only have one child. A woman has a third choice of having children and not needing contraception.
Just my assumption and approximation.