Homestead mailing list

["Marie McHarry" <mmcharry AT gmail.com>]

Bev wrote:
> > It's funny to me that current and past presidents are almost always
> > blamed for tougher laws whether they veto or not.  You just don't hear
> >   the Senate getting any blame or credit for the laws they pass or the
> > justices they approve...no...what you hear is a president's name
> > attached to it...like Ronald Reagan and the Brady Bill(not a stellar
> > example, I know<g>)...or GHW Bush and Judge Thomas or Clinton and
> > Judge
> > Ginsberg, etc....the president ALWAYS get top billing, for better or
> > worse, and especially for worse.

Gene wrote:
> Well, the Prez is the leader of his party and they all kow-tow to him.
> And he does own the bully pulpit. Like God, all good things are
> attributed to his greatness. Unlike God, he also gets credit for a lot
> of the bad stuff. It goes with the territory.

Me pipes up:
Sometimes presidents get laws started and support them through
Congress and sometimes it's mainly Congress. That process can work
either way. However, for appointments to the Supreme Court, the
president makes the appointment, and the Senate then confirms or
denies them. Thus, in that case, the president really is responsible
for who ends up on the Court.

Bev:
> > who knows though, he might just veto tougher smoking
> > legislation...

Me:
I seriously doubt that smoking legislation will come up. I suppose it
could be banned in federal offices and on federal lands. Otherwise, I
don't think federal law would have jurisdiction.

Bev, you wouldn't be happy in Illinois. First, a few towns banned it.
Then bar owners began to bitch and moan that they were going broke
because people were crossing over to bars in other towns or into the
county.  Somewhere in there, the governor banned smoking on all state
property, and finally the legislature banned smoking in public places
(there are a few exceptions such as special smoking clubs and cigar
stores/clubs).

The only change I've noticed is that a few of the restaurants that had
bars are much nicer to eat in, now that the stench is gone.

Gene:
> Well, I am fully in favor of maximal personal freedom. Where it hits a
> bump is when the freedom that A exercises impedes on B's rights. I
> would downgrade any leader who led his people down an unhealthy path.

I'm for MPF too. In fact, I didn't think it was such a horrible thing
to allow public smoking, and I was surprised at how easily it passed
and how little whining there has been since the state-wide ban went
into effect.

Gene:
>  You are manifesting the highly
> intelligent human who subverts their intelligence to their emotions on
> a serious matter.

I keep reading that tobacco addiction is one of the hardest to
overcome. It seems so. I have more than once seen old ladies in
wheelchairs who are on oxygen light up the minute they leave a store.
> >
Bev:
> > And why is it "okay" for President Clinton to smoke cigars, but not
> > really okay for Obama to smoke ciggies?

Me: I didn't know that anyone objecting to his _smoking_ his cigars.

Bev:
> >>> I wonder...And WHY would he not endear himself to the South's
> >>> Tobacco World by allowing photos of him smoking a cigarette?

Me: Probably the same reason Bush didn't want to own up to his drunk
driving arrests: he didn't want to set a bad example for his
daughters.