![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Here's the most recent (and seemingly most accurate) update on VP candidate questioning the Wassila librarian about banning books.
In December 1996, Emmons told her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin three times asked her -- starting before she was sworn in -- about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose.
Thanks to Constance Ash for the link
In December 1996, Emmons told her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin three times asked her -- starting before she was sworn in -- about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose.
Thanks to Constance Ash for the link
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
For the economy, we need better quality Republicans. I admit, the crowd in office right now aren't much to write home about. But the ones in office the latter 1990s, Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America boys, were pretty darned good. Balanced the budget. Reformed welfare. Impeached the president... okay, the last part was dumb, and they deserved what they got. Gods, hubris, you do the math.
I think the economy works better when government is divided between the parties. They both tend to keep each other's craziness in check.
Foreign policy? Suppose Gore had been elected in 2000. He probably still would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. Same deal there. Iraq? Probably not. Saddam Hussein would remain in power, the sanctions would be gone (they were collapsing rapidly even in the late 1990s), and Saddam would be back to murdering the Shiites and Kurds, and invading a neighbor again. When we'd be forced to step in again, and probably depose him at that time, instead of in 2003. Gore would be blamed for the resulting quagmire, and the Republicans would sneer, "If only we had been in power, things would have been *very* different."
Iran? Still playing at building nukes. North Korea? The same. France would still be stand-offish in public, but cooperative in private (as they are now). Israel and the Palestinians would still be at each other's throats.
We might have economic relations with Cuba. That's really the only substantial foreign policy improvement I could see happening in a Gore administration.
Or maybe I'm just nuts.
From:
no subject
We wouldn't have been in Iraq --a great thing
Iran--IS still playing at building nukes
North Korea would have been dealt with years ago, instead of as an emergency--gee, maybe we should start talking to them-- in the last year
Israel and the Palestinians --Bush did nothing the first 7 years in office. The only reason he's trying to do anything now is his legacy. I'd love to see peace between Israel and the Palestinians but so far the Republicans have done little to further that in my eyes, while the Democrats did, particularly Clinton (although ultimately his peace effort failed thanks to Arafat.
Clinton reformed welfare not Newt.
From:
no subject
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act)
Bill Clinton gets credit for signing the bill, but it was the Republican Congress' doing. I recall that he signed it reluctantly, promising at the signing to fix it later. But he never did.
Clinton also gets credit for signing the Republicans' balanced budget bills, although he was unable to balance the budget on his own in the two years he had a Democratic House to work with.
Bill Clinton has always had a good sense of where the wind is blowing, and has always been willing to trim his sails accordingly. As a politician, he doesn't seem to have many fixed principles.
But in a democracy, you can make a case that a politician who is able to steer rapidly in the direction of evolving public opinion may not be wholly a bad thing.
From:
no subject
Afghanistan would have been a lot better off than it is now because Gore would have concentrated US energy into fixing that rather than running off spending billions on an unjustified war in Iraq.
Gore would not have squandered the good will from the rest of the world after the 9-11 attacks as the Bush administration did.
Gore would have worked towards decreasing US dependence on foreign oil by working to create new energy sources and encouraging conservation rather than by working to destroy the natural resources of our beautiful country...
oh and on and on... A lovely alternate history or two could be written about what would the US would be like to day were it not for the Bushies getting into and staying in power.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject