ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

swdowning said 07/05, 12:55 AM
I think that the first lady probably plays a greater role in the general election than does the choice of V.P. She is an ambassador, and she can use her relationship with the president to draw attention to projects that might otherwise tend to slip under the radar. Whether it's drug abuse or education or the formation of the United Nations, the first lady can become a very active and relevant player in advancing the cause. As such, their influence and efficacy are difficult to "over rate" and "over emphasize."

Which prompts the question: Who, in your opinion, are over-rating and over-emphasizing first ladies? You don't specify this, and there's a relevant distinction among the opinions of the press, the public, the pundits, our presidents, and our first ladies on this subject. I think you need to inform us of who is guilty of this over-rating.

While we're at it, can you tell us what the current budget is for the Office of the First Lady, and how it compares with previous budgets? What, exactly, is this good-will ambassador costing us?

The huge sacrifices of a F.L. are largely in the past by the time hubby is elected, and Hillary has broken no ground by not looking pretty.

swdowning said 07/07, 03:36 AM
You've listed a couple of the projects in which our current and previous first ladies were involved, but you haven't addressed my points:

1. Who, specifically, is over-rating and over-emphasizing the role of our first ladies?

2. What are we currently spending, and what have we spent in the past to allow our first ladies to attract attention to their causes?

Here, I think we should distinguish between things like HRC's health care operations and, say, Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" program, because HRC's health care plan was intended to effect policy and federal spending, while NR's anti-drug program relied on local and charitable support; it never presumed to change federal policy or funding.

Your argument, it seems to me, is that we derive no benefit from a FL championing a just cause that sufficiently compensates for the cost to the taxpayer. But you haven't told us what the costs have been, so how can we evaluate your claim?

Absent that, I think it's possibly a very good idea to support a FL in her effort to attract private support to a cause that would otherwise draw from the public coffers.

But to meaningfully continue this debate, you must answer my questions.

swdowning said 07/10, 04:52 AM
If providing facts strengthens your argument, then provide them. I've asked you for the data, but still you don't seem able to come up with what FLs cost us.

You say that "we" and "the media" over emphasize the role of the FL, and that public opinion confirms this. Please give us examples, and cite the opinion polls you refer to.

Most recently, first ladies have drawn attention to mental health, anti-drug programs, women's rights, volunteerism, and literacy. These are good causes, but are they excessively expensive? Maybe so, but since you've made the charge that they are too expensive, the onus is yours to support that point. You have yet to provide us with any data to support your allegation.

I say that you have not sufficiently made your case.