It worries me to see someone running for congress who is so fundamentally uninformed or perhaps a better term would be misinformed on some of our most important issues. I don't live in her district, but if I did I'd hope for a candidate who was a bit more clear on the difference between talking points and reality.

That said, she seems like a nice lady and has excellent points in many areas, but there are some issues noted below where her answers and even the questions aren't really adequate.

And we need to pay teachers well.

This suggests that teachers are not paid well. If she actually volunteers in the schools she should be aware that in Arizona teachers are paid at a rate which breaks down to the equivalent on average of about $30 an hour, which is comparable to the highest paid white collar salaried technical jobs in that marketplace.

I think that when you have a President that says that anybody who criticizes him or disagrees with him is guilty of treason,

This would have been a much better interview if at this point you had asked her to cite a single source or quote where the President said anything like this. I understand the desire to draw out the interviewee, but when they openly lie it would be nice to challenge them on it.

M: What must we do about the Iraq disaster?

Now there's a biased and leading question. Interestingly her response was far more reasoned than I'd have expected.

Private insurance has to get out because their administrative costs are often in excess of 20% whereas Medicare's is only 2%.

Perhaps she and other candidates need to read this excellent study which demonstrates that the real costs of medicare are much higher and the real costs of private insurance much lower than these TV-soundbyte figures.

M: Would you provide private accounts as part of a compromise on Social Security?

F: Absolutely not. Under no circumstance.

Could you not have followed this up to figure out why she thinks it's such a great idea to take money from the public for a bankrupt system which cannot survive the next decade and passes on an untennable burden to younger citizens while providing less than a 2% return on the money which goes into the system?

F: I believe in a progressive income tax. As you earn, so you pay. I think it's a crime to give all this money back to people who don't need it. I think that anybody who works 40 hours a week should be able to live a decent respectable life

I guess no one informed her that the largest recipients of tax breaks under Bush have been the working middle class.

M: So you are in favor of raising the minimum wage?

F: To a living wage. Yes.

Wow, what a missed opportunity. I wonder what she thinks a living wage is, since the current minimum wage isn't actually paid to anyone and even illegals are earning $10 an hour for manual labor.

F: Progressive income tax. If you change the system so that people who make more, pay more, and people who make less, pay less

In what way would this be different from the current system where those who make more pay much more and those who make less pay nothing at all?

Just some things to think about if you get to ask any followup questions.

Dave

Francine says:

"I believe that we need to get government out of the bedroom and keep sex in the bedroom and protect people's right to privacy. And I believe that abortion is between a woman, her conscience, and her doctor. And I don't see how creating more families threatens families. I have a real problem figuring that one out."

Figure this one out:

These issues will be determined by the Courts and not by those elected to the Congress.

What these issues do is help Republicans rally their troops.

The Republicans love to see Democrats demagogue what is beyond their ability to change and actually helps to defeat Democrats.

It is likely that Kerry lost in 2004 because homosexual marriage was made legal in Kerry's home state of Massachusetts. This brought out millions of Republicans across the country who otherwise may not have voted.

Promoting these issues is a death wish for Democrats.

At least she's against people having sex in public.

Dave

That won't get the Dems elected.

The appeal of these Pappy O'Daniel type candidates is the idea that they're apolitical and uncorrupted. From this interview, I would guess that she's informed and articulate enough to convince people on the campaign trail that she's no crackpot.

I'm not at all familiar with the Arizona political situation, but I wouldn't think she has much of a chance unless the politicians running against her are hopelessly corrupt.

This lady believes that the government shouldn't "give back all that money to people who don't need it."


That's all I need to know about her to know I want nothing ot do with her.