2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread 13: Victory Lap

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Bobby Jindal, why are you addressing the U.S. people like we're a kindergarten class?

He came across better on Meet The Press last Sunday.

Oh, you silly, out-of-touch, Republicans? We're not just going to start voting for people because they're a minority.:doh: But way to wear that Conservative racism on your sleeves!

In addition to being a minority, Jindal has been a Rhodes Scholar, LA state secretary of health, US congressman, and governor. All before turning 40.
 
He came across better on Meet The Press last Sunday.



In addition to being a minority, Jindal has been a Rhodes Scholar, LA state secretary of health, US congressman, and governor. All before turning 40.

I'm not saying Jindal isn't an intelligent, accomplished person (although he didn't come off that way last night). That comment was directed towards the Republican party in general who seems to think that if they try and show that they're diverse (see, electing Michael Steele the RNC chairman), that Americans will come flocking back. In reality, this just gives further proof that they are completely out-of-touch with what Americans are looking for in their government leaders right now. Regardless of popular Republican belief, Obama didn't win because he's African-American. He won because Americans were tired of the past 8 years of failed Republican policies that led to the economic disaster, the Iraq war, and numerous other failures. Beyond that, they were tired of Boomer politics that are just left over fights between 60 year olds who are stuck back in their college days. Trotting out minority members of their party (Steele, Jindal, even Palin as a woman) is not going to win them anything because Americans aren't looking for diversity for diversity's sake. They're looking for real answers.
 
When I looked at a transcript of that speech, it wasn't good but it wasn't that BAD either. The problem was his really terrible, awkward delivery of it. The cadence in his voice, etc, does he always talk like that?
 
When I looked at a transcript of that speech, it wasn't good but it wasn't that BAD either. The problem was his really terrible, awkward delivery of it. The cadence in his voice, etc, does he always talk like that?

I agree. It wasn't what he said that bothered me (although, I obviously disagreed with the political aspect of it), it was the way he sad it. I felt like I was being addressed like an idiot, like I was being talked down to. It was very strange. If this is the future of the Republican party, I'd say they're screwed.:lol:
 
He came across better on Meet The Press last Sunday.

He did. Unfortunately for him many more people saw him last night, and since people are much more likely to remember a "WTF is he doing???" performance such as last night's, he has some work to do to repair his image.

I'm sure it wasn't the performance he or the GOP wanted.
 
Jindal embraces to the most ignorant elements of American society, I'm not sure that it counts as pandering if he actually believes it
In the Republican response to last night's presidential address to a joint session of Congress, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal chided the lawmakers for earmarking "$140 million for something called volcano monitoring." The funds he was referring to are part of the $787 billion stimulus package signed into law by Pres. Obama earlier this month; some 12 percent ($98.3 billion) of the monies are set aside for transportation and infrastructure projects, including volcano monitoring and other natural disaster prevention programs.

The U.S. Geological Society (USGS) is in charge of keeping tabs on volcanoes in the U.S. and its territories. The agency is currently monitoring more than 150 of them (from Yellowstone in Wyoming to Kilauea in Hawaii), some 65 of which show signs of seismic activity and are more likely than the others to erupt (including Redoubt in Alaska and Mauna Loa in Hawaii). But USGS officials aren't just worried about Hollywood-caliber lava blowups. Other threats include potentially deadly landslides, falling rocky ash, and inundation by toxic gases that can be triggered by volcanic eruptions.

But most active U.S. volcanoes are in remote reaches of Alaska, where few people live and relatively little economic damage stands to occur. So is monitoring volcanoes really necessary?

To find out, we spoke with Ed Venzke, a specialist at the Global Volcanism Program at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

What is volcano monitoring?
It's exactly what it sounds like. There are a lot of different methods, but it's basically researching exactly what is happening at the volcano. That can include seismic activity, small earthquakes, gas emissions, deformation (bulging of the volcano or sinking), stuff like that.

What can we learn from volcano monitoring?
The main purpose of the monitoring is to learn when new magma is rising in the volcano that could lead to an eruption.

Is it important?
It's extremely important. There are obvious hazards to nearby residents. Beyond human safety, there are huge economic concerns. It's not that eruptions can be stopped, but, like a hurricane, it's good to know when it's coming.

Associated with the monitoring is research of the surrounding area to see where previous lava flows have gone and to see where previous ash fall has occurred. So you get some idea of the history of the volcano and the types of eruptions it typically has. Each volcano is different, so you have to do individual research and individual monitoring.

There's a huge hazard in the air from eruption plumes. Volcanic ash is not like ash from the fireplace. It's basically pulverized rocks and glass particles. Putting glass in a jet engine isn't good. That's why the monitoring in Alaska is extremely important to the aviation industry.

Where are most of the volcanoes?
In the U.S., most of them are in Alaska. Just this summer, there were three erupting at the same time. It's rare that a volcano in Alaska is not erupting. Mount Saint Helens [in Washington State] just recently stopped erupting and Kilauea in Hawaii has ongoing eruptions.

So, they're pretty far from Louisiana?
They are. But there's a volcano down in the Caribbean on Montserrat that's been erupting. There are ash plumes from Alaskan volcanoes that have been tracked all the way to the east coast of the U.S. Some of the plumes from eruptions last summer in Alaska reached as far as Iceland and beyond. You can track the gases from these eruptions around the world. These volcanoes can affect air travel over huge areas.

With airplanes, basically what happens is the glass and ash particles go through the jet engines and are heated up and partially melt and get sticky. As they get part of the way out, they cool and harden in the engine. And if you don't have airflow, the engine stops working. It's not clear how dense a plume you have to go through for this to happen.

What volcanoes should be monitored most closely?
Yellowstone has had huge eruptions in the past, but they're extremely rare events. Certainly in terms of immediate human impact, the biggest worry would be if another one of the Cascade Range volcanoes on the U.S. west coast had another eruption. The worst scenario would be if Mount Saint Helens had another eruption of the size it did in 1980 [which killed 57 people and caused an estimated $1.1 billion in damage]—or Mount Rainier near Seattle or Mount Hood near Portland, Oregon. Those are more likely to erupt sooner than Yellowstone. It's great to talk about Alaska, but there aren't a lot of people there. It's a big aviation hazard, but if a volcano [blows] on the west coast, there would be a much greater human impact.

Can you name an instance when volcano monitoring has paid off?
Mount Saint Helens was a great example. The ideal example was not in the U.S., rather it was in the Philippines from Mount Pinatubo in 1991. The USGS's Volcano Disaster Assistance Program (VDAP) responded to that. From the U.S. Navy base there, VDAP officials went in at the first sign of activity and installed a lot of monitoring equipment and did quick emergency research.

Are there any natural disasters the government doesn't monitor?
I can't think about any offhand. There are earthquakes and volcanoes as well as floods, tornadoes, hurricanes—all the weather events. You know, compared to flooding, volcanic eruptions don't impact as many people on an annual basis, but they're dramatic events and can certainly have huge human and environmental impacts when they do come. And it's good to know when one's coming!
Ask the Experts: What's the Point of Volcano Monitoring?: Scientific American

Seriously, Lousiana got a boycott from the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology over Jindal pushing creationism into public schools, and he attacks geoscience funding as useless pork, I think the GOP deserves a big :down: if it runs with these clowns.
 
Yeah the fact that a Governor of a state that depends heavily on federally funded weather tracking brought up the volcano issue is just pure comical gold...:lmao:

This is the shining beacon the GOP is looking toward...

Jindal and Palin were
monkey_fingers_in_ears.jpg
in school, and now they get rewarded for it...

Oh what a world...
 
I'm not saying Jindal isn't an intelligent, accomplished person (although he didn't come off that way last night). That comment was directed towards the Republican party in general who seems to think that if they try and show that they're diverse (see, electing Michael Steele the RNC chairman), that Americans will come flocking back. In reality, this just gives further proof that they are completely out-of-touch with what Americans are looking for in their government leaders right now.

Appreciate your views, but it seems like you have a hard time accepting a Republican who isn't a 'typical white person'. And then when they do put up the typical white males, you can argue that Republicans aren't diverse.

What's wrong with Jindal and Michael Steele? Was Condi Rice a token, a double whammy of both black AND female? Colin Powell? Snowe and Collins aren't two of the most powerful senators as female Republicans?
 
What I have a problem is with is this blatant attempt by the Republican leadership to show how they're suddenly the party of inclusiveness and diversity, as I said earlier. There have been a few prominent minority leaders in the party (Condi, Colin Powell), but they were never shown as the future of Republican politics. The Republican leaders (not individual members) didn't give two licks about presenting a face of the party to the electorate that reflected the different cultures, races, genders, etc. that make up the U.S. population. They were content (once again, just referring to the party leadership) to remain the party of the rich, white man until it stopped working for them. Republican leaders seem to mistakenly think that Obama won mainly because of his race and not because of his vision, his policy goals, and the American public finally rejecting the narrow-minded goals and failed policies of Bush and the neocon movement. Rather than looking inward to see where they've gone wrong, they're looking outward trying to become what they think people want, rather than what they need to become in order to reach a larger group of the American electorate. Sending one of the few minority leaders of their party out to give the party's response to Obama's first major Congressional address, just screamed, "Look!! We have a guy that's a minority too! Vote for him next time! We're relevant! We get you!". Electing Steele sent a similar message.
 
thehill.com

Sebelius to face questions over abortion

By Reid Wilson
Posted: 03/01/09 07:53 PM [ET]

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D), President Obama's choice to head the Department of Health and Human Services, has touched off criticism over her association with a Kansas abortion provider.

Sebelius vetoed a late-term abortion law in 2008, and in 2007 she held a reception at the Kansas governor's mansion that included Dr. George Tiller, a Wichita doctor whose clinic provided late-term abortions. Tiller was under investigation for violating that state's restrictions on some forms of abortion.

The reception, which Sebelius office said Tiller won at an auction, has nonetheless ignited a furor among anti-abortion rights groups and activists.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins called Sebelius an "extremely pro-abortion" pick to head HHS.

"In her time as an elected official in Kansas, Mrs. Sebelius has fought against popular pro-life measures such as parental consent and efforts to curb late-term abortions," Perkins said in a statement. "Additionally she has had a close personal and financial association with the nation’s most infamous abortion doctor, George Tiller, who specializes in late-term abortions and, by his own count, has performed over 60,000 abortions."

Patrick Mahoney, executive director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said within an hour of the news of Sebelius' nomination on Saturday night, he had been in touch with many social conservatives about formulating a strategy to oppose the nomination. One facet of that strategy will be to hold a news conference this week, he said.

Mahoney acknowledged it will be extremely difficult to thwart the Sebelius nomination in a Democratic-controlled Senate, but claimed that Obama's selection will hurt him with Catholic voters.

Along those lines, Mahoney said, the Sebelius confirmation process could be hampered if Catholic leaders speak out against Sebelius. Mahoney said he will be in touch with such leaders in the coming days.

Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, said his group will make sure that senators are provided information about the connection between Sebelius and Tiller.

The pick of Sebelius shows the "radical nature of Obama," Newman said.

Like several other Catholic Democratic politicians, Sebelius has come under fire from Church officials who say she should repudiate her pro-abortion rights positions. In 2006, Joseph Neumann, the archbishop of Kansas City, said Sebelius should refrain from receiving communion until she changed her views.

Sebelius has won backing from several pro-abortion rights organizations who point out several steps Sebelius has taken they say have reduced abortions in the state. Catholics United even launched a website -- CatholicsForSebelius.org -- backing her nomination.

"Gov. Sebelius is a proven and tireless advocate for children's health care, education, adoption, and support for pregnant women, all components of a public policy agenda intended to benefit the common good. Under her leadership, the state of Kansas has witnessed sharp declines in both abortions and teen pregnancy," said Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United.

Kansas Republican Party executive director Christian Morgan avoided the abortion issue in his criticisms of the governor, instead focusing on her record on health care.

"With the announcement today, the Governor leaves behind her a long string of broken promises. Chief among these is her promise to provide health care reform to Kansans—but none ever occurred," Morgan said in a statement.

Barring complications that have plagued other Obama administration nominees, though, Sebelius is expected to sail through the Senate. Top Republicans in Washington expect Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to take the lead in opposing Sebelius.

Obama will formally introduce Sebelius in the East Room at the White House Monday at 1 p.m.
 
Back
Top Bottom