GilfordGrok

This is where I give my views on her stances.  Disagree with me?  Leave a comment! 

Civil Liberties

• Now we have a president and many legislators who believe that those laws don't apply to them

This is a personal assertion, not back up in any given fact.  I would like to see names, and especially see if the names would only have an R after them, and also see specifically which laws at what times she is talking about.  One of the things that I see is that politicians (right or left) are able to throw out something without facts to back them up

• They are spying on American citizens through electronic home invasion, snooping on phones and computers.

Electronic home invasion?  This is a new one on me, especially the computer one.  Prove it; give specific examples.

• They search the bank, phone, library and medical records of not just terrorists, but law abiding Americans.

Think about this - are we to first assume that everyone is law abiding until they break the law?  And how would we find out?  I understand the bank records - the illegally divulged SWIFT techniques showed that.  Data mining phone records is not snooping, and the wire taps are on international calls.  Besides, can she give us another way to find terrorists that, by definition, do not wish to be found until after they have committed terror?

Medical records are a new one.....can she justify this claim? 

• They frighten the librarian who has to turn over the records if he or she receives a National Security Letter, and they threaten to prosecute if the librarian ever tells anyone

Sure, librarians are shivering in their boots.  Remember, Democrats also voted for this part of the Patriot Act.  All of this is law.  The use of the word "frighten" is a throwaway - if you follow the law, there is nothing to be afraid of.  All the librarian is doing is turning over records; unless they have a predisposition to be guilty themselves, all they are doing is paper shuffling - they themselves are not being charged.  Of course they should be prosecuted if they break the law!

• We must eavesdrop on terrorists and search their homes to find out what evil they are planning, but America should not abandon its laws governing invasive searches and surveillance.
  

OK, tell me.....do terrorists have a special electronic flag on their phones or houses that say "I'm a terrorist?"  How does she propose going about this?  Specifics please....

Besides two items above, she decries the searching of these self same items.  Can't have it both ways! 

This is one of those areas that drive me nuts.  It is ok if you disagree with current policy. However, if you do disagree, but still insist on the same outcome even if the policy is removed, how are you going to get the same results?  Tell us SPECIFICS, if you were running the program, EXACTLY what you would do to go about the eavesdropping.  Flapping your arms and spewing the generic words above doesn't answer the question.

• America must be vigilant, but not bullying, alert, but not fearful, careful, but not liberty-trampling.
  

Semantically, the above statement says absolutely nothing.

Education

• Against school vouchers - public schools are sufficient

Ah, she believes in monopolies and all powerful teacher unions.  Yet, if the monopoly was held by a private company, would she still feel the same?  A monopoly is still one be it in the private or public sector.

• Get rid of the No Child Left Behind law.  Not in favor of standardized testing

What better way to really measure how our kids are not being taught?  Yup, let's continue the process of dumbing down of America  where kids cannot count out change out of a register....let's not hold anyone accountable.

• Wants the Federal government to get out of education and leave it to the states

Finally, something that I can agree with (at least to some extent)

• Schools are underfunded and teachers underpaid in many districts

Does not square too well with her above statement in the big picture view.  Also, does not speak to districts that are overfunded and overpaid to the results the teachers accomplish in their student outcomes.  Has she studied the per capita spending and compared that to actual results?

• Wants the low or no interest loans so that students do not have a debt that cripples them after graduation.

Her policy wants no crippling debt after graduation.  The only way to do that is to forgive that debt entirely.  My problem with that is the earning of a degree is not just educational, there is an economic cost and a value to that degree.  Generally, the more expensive an education, the more economic worth a degree has once the student graduates.  Should society at large, for example, just give a student that gets a Harvard MBS a debt free education so that they can start at a six figure salary?  I don't think so....you have to be able to account for that economic worth.

Healthcare

• Medicare for all

Social medicine - which ends up rationing medical assistance.  Just look at the problems that the Brits and Canadians are having.

• The Federal Government would have an obligation to the American taxpayers to spend their money wisely and create an efficient, fiscally responsible program

Why should the government be responsible - people should be.  Why should government be in charge of this?

Privacy 

• I believe we have a right to be free from electronic surveillance unless there is strong suspicion and a warrant.

From her stance above, this seems to be a problem.  How does one get a warrant to tap a phone when it is a cell phone that is used just once?  By the time the warrant is issued, it is irrelevant.

And, this doesn't square away too well from her above items - again, please tell me how you are going to differentiate between law abiding citizens and terrorists?  Taking it to the extreme - Are you willing to allow children to die in an attack before you allow the government to take action?

• I believe that we have a right to make our own medical decisions.

Agreed (hmm, that's twice...uh-oh)

• Women have a right to make their own reproductive decisions

And what about the rights of that potential life that she is about to kill (yes, I am pro-life, and no, I don't believe it is "just a clump of cells").  Er, what about the father;s rights - and don't dive off the cliff and immediately bring up rape and incest (and yes, in those areas, I could be persuaded [ but I still have some problems]).  Talk about the average case, which certainly is NOT rape or incest.

• Families have a right to make end of life decisions.

Agreed - three times....

• We must insist that our representatives in Congress represent us and protect us,

Another statement that doesn't have to be made - none of us goes around voting for people that would hurt us - oh, forgot about the Senate and illegal immigration.....sorry!

Speaking of which - what is your stance?

• I pledge to be a forceful defender of an individual's right to privacy.
  

The above says nothing without nitty gritty details......please provide. 

National Security

• Terrorists will only be defeated if there is goodwill and cooperation among various governments, so that all nations will aid in hunting them down.

A truism, not a policy.

• There are certainly a few rogue nations, but by invading Iraq, we have lost credibility with many other nations who could be helpful.

Name them, realizing that some have never liked us, some dislike us because of our status anyways, and some don't like it when our national interests negatively impact theirs (like despots).  Besides, some of these (like France and Pakistan) ARE helping.....

Please note that I HARDLY consider John Murtha or William Odem as being "conservatives". 

• We only create cynicism by saying that even though there were no WMD's, we stayed there to create a democracy in Iraq.
  

Do your homework....both the Senate resolution authorizing the war spoke to many items. So also all of the UN resolutions that were broken.  Review those and answer more fully.

• The United States must physically leave, abandon our "lone wolf" approach, and work with other nations to stabilize Iraq.

This is one main reason that if she wins the primary, I will not vote for her.  For example, in areas where we have not gone the "lone wolf" way, North Korea and Iran, absolutely NOTHING has been acoomplished.

Ms. Shea-Porter - please speak to the subject that most other countries refuse to act at all, even when in their own self interests are at risk? 

Please let us know what you feel the ramifications are if we left right now.....in specifics and not in politician-ese. 

• We need to concentrate now on protecting our own country from terrorists and natural disasters, while we repair our international relationships.
  

This is getting old.....and this is way too broad of a sentence.  Specifics please, at the lowest possible level (e.g., this requires careful thinking and a long list of specifics).  The above statement signals an intention, merely a political statement - tell us what you would DO other than just TALK.

Economy

• Wants to rollback the tax cuts
  

Class warfare.  She laments the "loss" of revenue, yet she fails to acknowledge that since the tax cuts have happened, federal and state revenues have soared, far outpassing any amount "lost by the government".  Besides, why should it be the government's money versus those that have actually gone out, worked hard, and earned it?

• Blames the tax cuts for making it harder on the middle class - high insurance, medical costs, soaring housing prices, and reductions in services
  

There is just NO way she can actually demonstrate that the tax custs have caused these problems.  Please elaborate.

• Wants the minimum wage raised.

No economist has ever agreed that this actually helps the poor. This is nothing more than a feel good, politics only statement that helps unions.

• Wants to raise taxes on corporations ("pay your fair share")

She says in the Aug 16 version of the Citizen (story found here at the parent paper, Foster's) that she is

a "fiscal conservative" who said the country is "broke" and one way to fix the nation's financial woes is to stop giving away tax cuts to the wealthy.

If she was a fiscal conservative, she would have the financial where-with-all to know that while a check is cut to the government, it is the customers of that company that actually pay the tax as part of the cost of sales of the product. 

And again, if she did her homework, she'd realize that it isn't the tax cuts that have caused the deficit, it is the organization that she is running for that has with none too temperate spending.  With Federal revenues at all time highs, there is NO problem with the income side of the statement. 

What are her plans for reigning in the other side of the equation - spending? 

• We all must contribute according to our ability, so we can protect our nation.

First part of this sounds like a socialist type statement, but I will leave that alone for now.  I still haven't figured out what she means by this......?

• Will work to guarantee Social Security's long-term health by voting to put a Social Security tax on someone's full income, not just the first $90,000.
  

• Will fight this fiscal irresponsibility and work towards a budget that is financially sound and morally fair to all.

I agree with the first part.  I have a hard time with the last part, as my "morally fair to all" means letting people keep as much of THEIR money as possible, as opposed to government taking as much as it wants to.

BTW, in the same article quoted above, she had the following to say:

As for health care, Shea-Porter believes Medicare should be extended to every American. And while she believes the government should pick up the tab for the costs, health care should be provided privately, she said.

"We're paying for the uninsured now anyway. People without health insurance have access to care — it's called the ER (emergency room)," she said. "The insured are paying for the uninsured. I don't want government to deliver health care, but we, the taxpayers, are already paying for it."

What is the point here?  If taxpayers / insured are already paying for the uninsured, what does she expect to gain by pushing everyone onto Medicare (except lots more red tape)?