When Bush appointed Lois Lerner in 2006, did he know she was a liar?
Actually, I believe the life-long Republican Lois Lerner (as she stated in closed-door testimony that Elijah Cummings revealed after twice-indicted felon and arsonist Darryl Issa refused to acknowledge) was appointed in 2005 to be an INVESTIGATOR of all applications for tax exemption to make sure none of these applicants are POLITICALLY ACTIVE. The job to which she was appointed REQUIRES investigation, but maybe she will be found to have put on a big "show" of investigating Karl Rove's POLITICAL group (that got the tax exemption despite being rightwing political), Tim Phillips and Ralph Reed's POLITICAL group Americans for Prosperity (got the exemption), and Dick Armey's very active POLITICAL group Freedom Works (also got the exemption). I wonder if the "lost" e-mails are going to show that Lois Lerner made a façade show of "investigating" political PACs that they approved on the Republican side of the political spectrum, but then she DENIED coverage for LEGITIMATE applicants on the Democratic side.
How did Arnold Schwarzenegger become governor of a state that usually votes democrat?
It is actually not unusual for states that firmly vote Democratic in presidential elections to elect Republican governors. Remember, after all, that Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts before he was a presidential candidate.Blue states will not, under most any circumstances, vote for a socially conservative Republican. However, blue states still have a mix of city districts and more suburban, wealthier areas—the latter actually tend to be more fiscally conservative. As a result, if you position yourself as a smart, economically responsible Republican candidate, you can absolutely win an election even in deeply blue states.It’s worth noting that the caliber of such elections can be very, very different than the national elections. I remember I was driving to Massachusetts a few years ago, and I caught the tail end of a gubernatorial debate over NPR. Because I tuned in late, I didn’t catch which candidate belonged to which party—and to be honest, I would have had quite a hard time telling you which one was which. Frankly, both of them seemed quite reasonable.Basically, state and national elections are completely different beasts, with different politics at play. For more on this, I recommend the following analysis: Washington University Political Review | WUPR
Do i have to use reptile brand name lamps and bulbs? or can i get from home depot?
As far as basic construction, they are the same. For the most part, an incandescent bulb is an incandescent bulb. The main difference is in the types. If you need a 100 watt spotlight, that will be hard to find at home depot. If you need a 100 watt floodlight, they are commonly available. And, they give off very close to the same amount of heat as a floodlight from a reptile brand. I have tested many. The ones from the hardware store also last longer usually. I prefer GE Reveal floodlight bulbs for daytime basking lights. If you are using a regular incandescent (not a spot or flood), there really is no difference. No matter what exo terra/zoo med says it's coated with. If you are in need of UVB bulbs, there really is no way to cheap out on that. It needs to say it produces UVB, and have a rating for how much it provides. The lamps are a different story. The main difference in the lamps is, the shoplight type of lamps usually have a plastic fixture, and the better quality reptile lamps usually have a ceramic fixture, which is much more heat resistant. I do have some of the home depot $11 dome lamps, but I won't use anything more than a 100 watt in them. Most say they are rated for 150 watts, but they weren't intended to be on 12-14 hours a day every day. If you are going to use a high wattage bulb (over 100 watts), I would strongly recommend a lamp with a ceramic or porcelain fixture, whether it is from a reptile company or a higher quality shop light, not a cheap lamp with a plastic fixture.
How did Arnold Schwarzenegger become elected governor of California in 2003? How did his election campaign differ from a career politician’s?
Asked to answer, I'll provide some of the general framework and background and leave the finer detail to someone more familiar with Politics of California.For starters it's mildly unusual for a Hollywood actor to be a Republican, and yet it was apparent from the Democrats that these actors had some political clout. Most actors either sincerely or to appeal to "real people" represent themselves as more leftward leaning, many speaking passionately and loudly on humanitarian causes.In the 2004 Republican National Convention, Arnold Schwarzenegger (actor, politician) explained how he came to be a Republican: shortly after he arrived in the US in 1968 he heard a friend translate the Nixon-Humphrey presidential debates. He liked Nixon's free market rhetoric having felt that "socialism" (or what he took as socialism) had failed in Austria (his father served in the Nazi army so he may have been exposed to some unusual ideas about government and economy).Then he fell into a bad crowd and got involved into Recreational Drugs. In 1985 he appeared in an anti-drug music video sponsored by the Ronald Reagan administration (of "Just Say No" fame). He was later known to be paling around with extremists like George H.W. Bush (who called him "Conan the Republican") in the 1988 Presidential election.From 1990 to 1993 he served as chairman of the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. Governor Pete Wilson of California later appointed him to Chairman of the California Governor's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. Between 1993 and 1994, he was an American Red Cross ambassador, doing some public service announcement, which softened up his image and his ideas, making him more palatable to California voters.In 2003, enroute to a filming of The Tonight Show, he was intent on announcing that he was not going to run for governor, but then he thought it would be a fun gag to announce he was. At least, that's the story he tells. It was a recall election so people were apparently in the mood for a change, looking for someone (anyone) they felt could end gridlock in the state government. So with the old governor recalled he took the field of other possible alternatives and proved himself to not be absolutely awful (the bar in politics is pretty low) once in office.Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arn...Topics linking thanks to Erik Fair
Did President Obama cover up the terrorist attack in Benghazi and, if so, why?
House panel: No administration wrongdoing in Benghazi attack Carolyn Lochhead Published 3:53 pm, Friday, August 1, 2014 (08-01) 11:42 PDT WASHINGTON -- The House Intelligence Committee, led by Republicans, has concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, said Rep. Mike Thompson of St. Helena, the second-ranking Democrat on the committee. The panel voted Thursday to declassify the report, the result of two years of investigation by the committee. U.S. intelligence agencies will have to approve making the report public. Thompson said the report "confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given." That conflicts with accusations of administration wrongdoing voiced by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista (San Diego County), whose House Government Oversight and Reform Committee has held hearings on the Benghazi attack.Stevens, who grew up in Piedmont, and the other Americans died when Libyans attacked the consulate on Sept. 11, 2012. Among the Intelligence Committee's findings, according to Thompson:-- Intelligence agencies were "warned about an increased threat environment, but did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before it happened."-- "A mixed group of individuals, including those associated with al Qaeda, (Moammar) Khadafy loyalists and other Libyan militias, participated in the attack."-- "There was no 'stand-down order' given to American personnel attempting to offer assistance that evening, no illegal activity or illegal arms transfers occurring by U.S. personnel in Benghazi, and no American was left behind."-- The administration's process for developing "talking points" was "flawed, but the talking points reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis."Those talking points included assertions that those who attacked the compound were angered by an obscure anti-Muhammad video posted to YouTube in the U.S. There is disagreement to this day about whether that was the case.Carolyn Lochhead is the San Francisco Chronicle's Washington correspondent. E-mail: clochhead@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @carolynlochhead
Do you think Solyndra, Abound, Evergreen Solar, or Solar Trust for America would have gotten federal dollars..?
Do you think Solyndra, Abound, Evergreen Solar, or Solar Trust for America would have gotten federal dollars without lavish donations to Obama's re-election campaign??? Now that these companies are nearly all bankrupt, will Obama have more flexibility in a second term to embezzel more money after re-election?