9:37 Home from bowling. Heard some of the debate on the radio. Nothing was being said that was substantially different from what I've heard before.
9:39 Kerry is looking right into camera. Is it that someone told him to do so, is the moderator just sitting in front of the camera?
9:40 My God, I've never seen Bush's smirk more pronounced.
9:42 Any Canadians out there with opinions on whether government controlled health care results in poor quality?
9:46 Wait...is that what Bush said? The way that Kerry put it? Did Bush actually say that young people should be able to take money out of SS and put it into accounts? I thought he was just talking about putting money into savings.
9:48 I find that a bit hard to believe, that that tax cut alone would have kept SS going until 2075.
9:52 Okay, seriously. Did Bush have, y'know, a minor stroke on the left hand side of his face? I mean, the sneer is starting to distract me.
9:53 This is the first question to Bush that he hasn't used to attack Kerry.
9:53: Whoops. Spoke too soon. Got in a shot under the wire.
9:57 That's an interesting promise, that Kerry will bring the minimum wage up to over $7 an hour. Kerry's also using the opportunity to target women.
9:58 AW, COME ON. Bush veered jobs over into education, and now he's veering minimum wage into education? Jesus.
10:00 Holy crap. Two boldly dodged questions by Bush.
10:02 I mean, I hope American women were paying attention to that. Bush's out and out dodging of the question was not only pathetic, but it really made clear that, hell yeah, he would want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
10:04 What the hell is Bush blinking so much for?
10:07 No, Kerry did NOT talk about a global test in respect to getting permission from other countries to defend himself. Does Bush NEVEr get tired of exaggerating it? Thank God Kerry is meeting that one head on.
10:09 Oh, come on. Bush heard that there wasn't support for the Assault weapons ban (which I doubt) and therefore decided not to bother to push for it? As if he hasn't failed to put the full court press to those things that he really DOES believe in.
10:14 I'm not sure if Bush met with the Black Congressional Caucus or not, but he sure as heck didn't meet with the other organizations Kerry mentioned.
10:17 Jeez, I wish Kerry would find another word to use other than "respect" when it comes to matters of religion.
10:18 Now KERRY swings a question over to education? Oooookay.
10:22 The point isn't that the country was divided in 2000. The point is that the country was united in 2001 and now is split once again, even worse than before.
10:24 what a powder puff question for the last question in the debate.
10:26 Idear? IDEAR? Kerry can say "nuclear," but he can't say "idea?"
10:29 I like the notion that Bush is optimistic. Unfortunately, it doesn't jibe with many of his speeches that hit again and again sentiments of fear and terror.
I thought Bush's closing speech was better, but overall Kerry just flat out performed better. I think Bush really hurt himself when he dodged several questions in a row. And I'll tell you, I was dubious about the whole Bush-listening device thing, but there were moments when it really did look like Bush was listening to someone else talking...Ah well. I dunno.
Posted by Peter David at October 13, 2004 09:04 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingof note: bush said he does not recall his statement that he was not concerned about osama bin laden, and claimed it was one of those "exagerrations."
also of note:
Bush, on CNN from 2002:
"I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban."
Oh my stars, will Bush please stop with the smile? The boy just looks like a petulant child.... some president...
Ra!
Bush's campaign jokes are continuing to fall flat in the debate forum. I'm surprised that he hasn't realized that after 2 previous debates.
"Let me explain this to the elderly..." and "youngsters". I may simply be overanalyzing as it is a job requirement, but does this seem patronizing to anyone else?
Re 9:42: I was awfully curious about that, too. And whether or not America has a health care system envied across the world, too.
My impression of Bush's retirment proposal is that it focuses on individual responsibility. People budget for their own retirement. Works fine if you have a high-paying job and a working knowledge of both budgeting and options. Kind of out of touch, unrealistic and elitist in my mind.
Yep, the smirk comes across as arrogant, whether he intends to be or not.
I know a family that live in Italy, which has a government controlled health care system. They had their first child there and they hated it so much that they came to the States for the birth of their second child. They also come here if they need serious medical attention.
Willing worker card?!?! That just screams abuse, how are we going to prove whether or not people are willing to work when you can get an migrant to work for half the price? That's a joke... grr..
(hmm... which of these guys people let them wear similar ties?)
Ra!
By far the dullest of the debates so far.
If you don't like Bush you will hate his smile. If you like Bush you will like his smile. By now this should be obvious--what is pleasing to the eye of one is anathema to another. Some look at Ted Kennedy and see a man of towering conviction, while I see someone who should be in the final panel of an EC comic, going "Aieeeee!" as the waterlogged corpse of Mary Jo Kopechne drags him into a pool of quicksand.
Hey Bill, got a drink of choice tonight or did Friday night have you changing your ways?
Kerry says he can up the minimum wage to $7? Is he insane?
Min. wage up to seven bucks? That's, um, quite interesting. I'd love to see how he'd plan to do that.
*grumble grumble No Child Left Behind grumble grumble*
Ok, well, actually, I just got so nored I just started rewatching the episode of LOST I'd taped. Holy shnizolla! Nobody saw that one coming! Episode goes right onto the top 20 of all time list. Abrams is a genius.
I love the fact that Bush continues to use the rhetoric and twisted versions of Kerry's previous statements. I love this simply because the one-trick pony allows Kerry to counter by very publicly dismissing and correcting him. :)
hmm... did Bush just say that Reservists are happy to have their terms extended? All the reservists i know feel their doing their duty, but they aren't exactly happy about it... I guess I must hang out with the wierd Reservists...
Woohoo!!! I can have an AK-47!!! (Who's goin to the gunshow with me?!?)
Ra!
10:02 I mean, I hope American women were paying attention to that. Bush's out and out dodging of the question was not only pathetic, but it really made clear that, hell yeah, he would want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
Yeah, but who didn't already know that? He just disavowed any organized attempt to get it repealed.
Kerry says he can up the minimum wage to $7? Is he insane?
No, just blinded by his beliefs.
I missed the first half of LOST. What did I miss, Bill?
On second thought that's a massive invitation for spoilers in an open thread. Forget I asked.
David, this episode of LOST focused on the back story of bizarre, creepy bald guy. Let's just say that we are given a very powerful lesson on the dangers of judging on first impressions.
Bush "feels" people praying for him? I need to take another look at the DSM-IV and other criteria for schizophrenia.
you're an american whether or not you are christian, islam, etc... yea, but we'll still shove the Ten Commandments down your throat, oh yea... and you better believe in God...
well, aleast Bush didn't say he was on a crusade again...
Ra
(hmm... Bush's smirk is really irking me...)
Ye Gods (of your choice)...
Did Bush actually just confirm, in as many words, that this war footing is a *crusade*?????
John M
For once, I'd love for Kerry to say what is one his mind instead of following up with "I respect...". Wouldn't it be awesome, if just once, he turned to Bush with his jaw dropped, and utter, "Are you wacky?!?!?"
John,
yea he did, but thank the gods he didn't actually say Crusade... man...
Ra!
Ya know, as far as the frivalous lawsuits, why on Earth hasn't Kerry specifically brought up his plan to hold lawyers accountable on a "3 strikes and your out" policy? It is easy to understand and Edwards brought it up. Makes sense and is a no-brainer score for their side.
10:24 what a powder puff question for the last question in the debate.
Well, we do have to leave everyone feeling all happy and squishy.
Oops, not sure about rules of the cameras, but Kerry must have won points with that very timely camera shot of his wife that popped up and humanized him during his response about her and his mom.
As they shook hands and exchanged words, I imagined Kerry telling Bush, "I'm going to kick your butt," to which Bush replied, "Bring it on, Munster boy." Kerry does the unthinkable and wins three for three in my view.
And now it's up to time and the voters. Kerry has made a remarkable come back. He must continue to keep bush on the defensive and expose the straw man.
The president's closing speech was a home run. He finally got it right. Bush is much more likeable than Kerry, who really couldn't seal the deal with the question about the women in his life. Bush liked to have welled up while recollecting the day he met Laura, and his self-deprecating humor glossed over the president's homey clumsiness as a debater. Another fine job by Senator Kerry, but that's the problem. It was like watching a Meryl Streep film. She's a fabulous, Oscar-winning actress. You get used to it, used to the skill and ease she has in employing it. I was looking for an electric moment from Kerry that never came. You expect Bush to be a weasel, and al of his weaseling in this debate, I guarantee you, got glossed over by his teary-eyed adoration for his family and his confessions of faith. In fact, the president seemed to have learned from Kerry and went after Kerry aggressively and in a focused, linear way. I think I have to score this a draw, but I'm tempted to tip it to Bush, if not on substance on style. He pasted Kerry in the arena of likeability and he slipped one past Kerry on Kerry's "retreat and defeat" Iraq policy.
Kerry, I like you a lot more than Bush, but your Min-Wage comment made me cry and throw things. I'm just the DAUGHTER of an Economist and I know how STUPID that plan is.
It's pretty well known that a high rate of blinking correlates strongly to lying
Peter you missed the start of the debate where Schieffer asked about gay marriage and if the candidates think if homosexuality is choice:
Totally out of the blue Kerry brings up Cheney's daughter "a lesbian". I couldn't help but think of THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART summarizing Edwards' response to a similar question in the VP debate, that people admire Vice President Cheney's love for his *** GAY DAUGHTER ***.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Peter, Bush's smile looks like a smirk--and his wife, Laura, told him to stop scowling. What's a president gonna do, tick off his opponents or tick off his wife? >=^>
Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Elijah Cummings, 7/16/03: “Mr. President, I need not remind you that the CBC's requests for meetings with you have gone unanswered for more than two-and-one-half years.” http://www.cbcpac.com/news/press4.php
Hey Ken
They need to keep reminding people about Cheney's gay daughter. It's one of the few redeeming qualities I can find in Cheney.
Well in ontario the minimum wage is $7.15 and it will be up to $8.00 in a couple of years, so I don't know how impossible it is.
As for Health care I'm fairly satisfied with it. Although the Tories (re Conservaties) cur the hell out of it when they were in power and it's slowly being repaired unfortunately at a slightly greater cost.
9:42 LOTS of Canadians have opinions on our health care system. Overall it works, but it needs some streamlining and better cost controls. Only a tiny minority of people want to see Canada go over to the US system of private care, perhaps one-thirtieth of the population, and these are the same republican hardliners who wanted to join the US in 1867.
A couple of provinces have minimum wages of $7.50 or higher, and the lowest is $5.50, and economic disaster has not befallen the land. Spyderqueen needs a chill-pill.
I don't know what's more entertaining, the commentary on the debate, or skipping it to watch "Hellboy".
It's depressing that this year, I only care about who loses.
BRING BACK THE CORPSE OF EISENHOWER!
9:42 Any Canadians out there with opinions on whether government controlled health care results in poor quality?
Jeez, talk about a loaded question. I suppose the short answer would be "sort of." We have problems with long wait lists for surgery, as well as difficulties in keeping skilled doctors in the country when you folks down south offer much, much more money.
It's always a huge issue up here, and there are always groups looking to move parts of health care into the private sector. Despite the undeniable problems, I wouldn't trade our system of universal health care for anything, and can only hope that the U.S. starts to move in that direction as well.
As to whether we Canadians find that a state-run medical system results in lower quality:
Currently there is no national consensus on whether the funds we give to our Provincial and Federal govts are being spent wisely in that area- there is tremendous concern about waits for treatment or procedures. Our PM and the Premiers of the provinces and territories just had a big summit meeting to discuss the allocation of funds to health care, specifically how the feds will distribute the monies they collect to the provincial health ministries.
But- and this is a mighty big but- no politician in the entire country would ever get elected running on a platform of repealing state-funded medicine. Even the advocates of a two-tiered system (99.999% of the time rich folks who want to be able to jump the queue without flying down to the states) do not want to repeal basic coverage for all citizens.
What consensus on health care exists up here is on the point that we absolutely, positively do *not* want a US-style system, where treatment for a life-threatening illness or accident can potentially bankrupt you, your family, and your heirs and assigns. Ask any Canadian you want, they'll give you the same answer: our system is far from perfect, there is much room for improvement, but it's a damn sight better than the American one.
My 0.02$, for what it's worth...
"Only a tiny minority of people want to see Canada go over to the US system of private care, perhaps one-thirtieth of the population, and these are the same republican hardliners who wanted to join the US in 1867."
Wow, those must be some pretty old Canadians. If those creaky old bastards are still alive and kicking then I guess your health care system is pretty damn good after all.
Only a tiny minority of people want to see Canada go over to the US system of private care, perhaps one-thirtieth of the population, and these are the same republican hardliners who wanted to join the US in 1867.
And we worry about OUR aging population.
I have to say right up front, I despise Bush and wish somebody would hit him with one of those giant Soupy Sales powder puffs every time he smirked, but as with the second debate, I'd call this one a draw. I think Kerry could have knocked it out of the park, but he lets too many opportunities go. Instead of turning Bush's words back on him, which is a very basic debate trick, he seemed intent on sticking to the game, if you'll excuse the word, plan. And secondly, he lets Bush get away with murder. He let the global test misquote go unanswered for far too long, and now he let Bush float the 'nuisance' misquote yet again. And there were at least three opportunities where Kerry gave a nuanced answer where I can see the Republicans put the scissors in, cutting off the caveat and leaving the useful out of context quote. Regarding the previous posters who said Bush did better in talking about his wife, I think Kerry outflanked him beautifully. He knew that his wife wasn't all warm and fuzzy like Laura Bush, so he played the dying mom card instead. Brilliant.
My predictions for tomorrow? Kerry gets caught out for talking about Bush not meeting with the congressional black caucus (he did). Bush gets caught out for denying the bin Laden quote (MSNBC has already disproved it by showing the original quote tonight). After the spin dies down, they're going to call this one a draw too. And even one win and two draws for Kerry is bad news indeed for Bush.
Is anybody else getting, like, really tired of Rudy Guliani? I think I've counted him spinning on four different networks in the past half hour, two of them at the same time I think. Did you know he was mayor of New York City during 9/11? I think he might have mentioned it in passing at some point. Sorry, my sarcasm chip is overheating.
And did anybody notice for the second debate in a row, it was Bush who broke the rules they'd both signed, by addressing Kerry directly? Having said that, if I was Kerry, I'd be thinking, 'Third debate, I've got nothing to lose!' and break every damn rule there is. What's Bush going to do, refuse do debate him again?
I didn't read the above posts, 'cuz I taped LOST and do *not* want to see any surprises revealed here. I also taped the debate, though I don't expect any surprises from either one. ("I support making prostitution not only legal, but also mandatory.")
However, does anyone see a contradiction between Bush's "culture of life" (opposing abortion) and supporting capital punishment?
Karen: Bush met with the Congressional Black Caucus twice (1/31/01 and 2/25/04). That's twice more than Kerry claimed he did (although admittedly once fewer than the times Cheney met but didn't remember meeting Blinky... I mean Edwards).
" your Min-Wage comment made me cry and throw things. I'm just the DAUGHTER of an Economist and I know how STUPID that plan is"
Absolutely, Spyderqueen. Let's go with the tried and true of paying people as little as we can get away with. That's always done wonders for the economy, hasn't it? Well, OK, maybe not the PERSONAL economies of those involved, but, hey, since when did they count?
PAD,
Interesting commentary, but I think you dodged a couple of key moments. Kerry completely evaded the issue of amnesty for illegal immigrants, spending most of his time talking about the previous topic and then weaseling. Of course Kerry and Bush are not really in disagreement on this issue. They both want to grant amnesty which I think is insane. The other key moment is when Bush unequivocally said that he is against a litmust test on abortion for Supreme Court justices and Kerry said he has a litmus test on that and on other issues.
I suspect that all of the endless numbers that both guys were tossing around will be contradicted by fact checkers tomorrow. The question is who made the better impression on undecided voters and I sure don't know.
Regards,
Dennis
A month or so ago, I was complaining because Kerry had yet to explain specifically what he was going to do, if elected, regarding various key campaign issues. I believe I said "He has no plans."
Well, he must have heard that from other folks as well, because now Kerry claims to have plans for EVERTHING. Unfortunately, one things the plans generally are not are specific. And in addition to developing this army of plans in a month or so, one thing Kerry did not (or could not) do was explain very well how he was going to PAY for them.
As a matter of fact, whoever is advising Kerry about things financial should be probably find a new profession, because many of the financial numbers Kerry was throwing around during this debate were just plain wrong. His biggest gaffe was that the money lost because of Bush's tax cut could have funded Social Security until 2076 -- another 72 years! I just reviewed the budget numbers based on reports by the CBO and other independent organizations, and if Kerry's assertion wasn't so laughably wrong, I would almost be mad.
...and these are the same republican hardliners who wanted to join the US in 1867...
Okay, poorly phrased. Mea culpa.
I just wanted to add that my roommate thinks that bulge on Bush's back is an armoured vest. He has military experience, so I trust his judgement on this. An armoured vest with an ordinary microphone hook-up worn over it - The same kind Kerry would have been wearing - would be pretty bulky, and tend to pull on Bush's jacket when he moved. Someone in his team should have checked out how it would look before he went on camera, but either didn't think about it or didn't spot the problem. So that left Bush having to deal with a wardrobe malfunction. Maybe he should have worn pasties.
Bush "feels" people praying for him? I need to take another look at the DSM-IV and other criteria for schizophrenia.
I will take that question as meant to be somewhat in jest since it is highly bigoted towards us who are Christians. Go talk to people in high pressure situations (such as suffering from a disease, going through a great tragedy, or having to make difficult decisions), and there are people from many faiths who will tell you that prayer makes a difference and that they knew when others were praying for them. You don't have to believe it is true, you may say you have never experienced it, but it is absurd to say I am crazy because I know I have experienced it for myself.
Jim in Iowa
The one thing I wanted Kerry to talk about whenever Bush said "How is he going to pay for that?" is that Bush has no call to talk about fiscal responsibility. Bush keeps saying Kerry will be tax and spend, but Bush is just spending like there's no tomorrow without worrying about paying the tab. At least Kerry talks about being responsible with the deficit. And exactly what plan does Bush have to reduce the deficit he created? Where does he think he'll get the money? More tax cuts? He's promising the same stuff he promised 4 years ago, with the addition of promises to fix the things he's broken. Many of the things he talked about in his campaign against Gore he is recycling for this campaign, but he hasn't lifted a finger to enact most of these promises. Why does anyone believe that this time is any different?
This was by far Bush's best performance, but neither man scored a knockout. As for the diminishing undecideds, who knows? The key is, not who won this debate, but what voters will think is more important, issues like Social Security or Iraq/War On Terror. If it's the former, Kerry wins, unless this debate and the following helps close the gap enough on domestic issues for Bush. If it's the latter, Bush will win, unless some huge event causes people to change their view on Bush's Iraq/War On Terror decisions.
It's really that simple.
Posted by JamesLynch at October 13, 2004 11:35 PM
However, does anyone see a contradiction between Bush's "culture of life" (opposing abortion) and supporting capital punishment?
No. A baby, and innocent of the utmost degree, has no choice or freewill in the matter. Someone that committed a crime that warranted the death penalty, and was assigned such penalty by jury, made a choice and has to live (or die) with the consequences.
I don't support abortion, I think that it is wrong as a course of action, but think that it can be used in matters of mother's health and the very, very low occurance of rape/incest type pregnancies.
This is all, of course, just my opinion on the subject. You are free to have your own, encouraged even, but it doesn't mean I expect you to agree with me, or I with you.
"Absolutely, Spyderqueen. Let's go with the tried and true of paying people as little as we can get away with. That's always done wonders for the economy, hasn't it? Well, OK, maybe not the PERSONAL economies of those involved, but, hey, since when did they count?"
Okay, I work at Wal-Mart, so believe me, I know what its like to deal with low wages. That being said, I DO NOT want the minimum wage raised. Why? Where do you think companies are going to get the extra revenue to pay for it? Are they just going to pay the extra money and not worry about it? No, they're going to raise the prices of their merchandise. And that helps people a lot...right?
I will take that question as meant to be somewhat in jest since it is highly bigoted towards us who are Christians.
No, just another example of how Bush lets religion get in the way of his inability to run this country.
This was by far Bush's best performance, but neither man scored a knockout. As for the diminishing undecideds, who knows? The key is, not who won this debate, but what voters will think is more important, issues like Social Security or Iraq/War On Terror. If it's the former, Kerry wins, unless this debate and the following helps close the gap enough on domestic issues for Bush. If it's the latter, Bush will win, unless some huge event causes people to change their view on Bush's Iraq/War On Terror decisions.
It's really that simple.
What about those of us who think the war on terror is important but are upset with how much Bush has bungled it?
My thoughts about the debate:
I thought John Kerry did an outstanding job. I think he is wrong and misleading on some issues and dodged questions, but some of you would say the same about Bush (or worse!). But what none of you mentioned was Kerry's smirk. Bush's smirk did look more like something was wrong with his face. Kerry's was just arrogant (in my opinion). But it was not so bad with either of them that it moved me much.
I also think Bush did very well. This was by far his best debate. It was close enough I would call it a tie where your prior feelings about the candidates could push you one way or the other.
Hands down, the best answer Bush gave is the one on faith. If you can replay it, I suggest you do so but with the sound turned down. This was the "real" George Bush. He was animated. He was passionate. He was excited. He did not have to search for words like he does on other issues. His faith is real. And it makes a difference.
Kerry's answer was no where near as passionate. I do think he was sincere and that he gave a decent answer. It just lacked the passion Bush had. And that is a major difference between the two candidates.
Kerry repeated his stump speech line from the book of James about faith and works at another point in the debate. I about gagged. Kerry was trying to imply Bush does not act on his faith. The reality is, when it comes to "stated" core beliefs, Bush wins hands down. You may not like Bush's core beliefs about abortion, but his faith does work -- he opposes it. You may not like Bush's core beliefs about gay marriage, but his faith does make a difference -- he opposes it. Kerry claims to have beliefs, but they do not influence his actions. Faith/beliefs without works/actions is dead, and Kerry demonstrates that very thing.
I do believe Kerry is a man of faith. I am not judging the motives of his heart or his standing before God. What I comment on is that his actions do not match his "stated" beliefs. Abortion is the prime example. He says it is wrong, but he said he would oppose overturning Roe V. Wade. His actions demonstrate his true beliefs.
To put it differently, Bush's faith is in something beyond himself. Kerry's faith appears to be in himself and what he and others together can do. That difference was clear tonight.
In regards to Iraq, I do think Bush implied he has an agenda when it comes to freedom. I don't think it is a "crusade" where Bush will look for the next country to overthrow. Rather, I think his agenda is similar to Reagan's, to do what he can to see people gain their freedom. I agree with the belief that ultimately a people have to want to be free, you can't force it on them. But I also believe tyranny and a lack of basic freedom is always a bad thing. Another government does not have to be set up identical to ours. But it is always wrong, and ultimately evil, when basic human rights are refused.
Jim in Iowa
No, just another example of how Bush lets religion get in the way of his inability to run this country.
And you do not see yourself as bigoted? Bush's faith is what guides him, and he had not tried to hide it. You can go back to the 2000 debates. Ignore the rhetoric against right wing Christians and listen to what he says. You will find foundational core beliefs. When people voted for him, they clearly knew where he stood and what he believed. He did not sneak into office by hiding his beliefs from anyone.
In regards to the question, I would suggest some of you are out of step with America in general. Well over 70% of the general population have no problem with spoken prayer being returned to the public school or with prayers being offered at football games. If these issues came up for a vote, they would win by a landslide. Instead, they are outlawed by activist liberal judges.
Do you consider 70% of the population delusional or ignorant or just plain stupid because they believe in prayer? Bush clearly was not pandering tonight. He deeply believed what he was saying about prayer. And what he said will connect well with the overwhelming majority of Americans.
Jim in Iowa
Den,
Well, that's what I mean, Den. If Kerry can close the gap with people like you on the War on Terror, then that negates Bush's biggest advantages. He is still ahead on traditional Democratic issues, so he would win.
Likewise, if Bush's margin in the War on Terror/strong leader/Iraq stays the way it is, and he can at least reduce the gap with the soccer moms and other trditional Democrats, then he wins.
PAD expressed some doubts over Bush throwing Kerry's "global test" comment back in his face. Here's Kerry's quote from the first debate:
No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
PAD, your debate analysis has been pretty fair overall, but I think you've got this one wrong. Kerry is effectively defining the legitimacy of American military action by a global standard of legitimacy (i.e. if you can't take military action for legitimate reasons, then it doesn't pass the global test, and you shouldn't do it.) That, to me, sounds like a global veto.
And unfortunately, the legitimacy bar in Europe seems to be set very high (in a low sort of way). Consider this recent BBC story (skip to the end for the relevant European liberal squeamishness):
US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s.
The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said.
They are seeking evidence to try Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity.
"It is my personal opinion that this is a killing field," Greg Kehoe, an American working with the IST, told reporters in Hatra, south of the city of Mosul.
"Someone used this field on significant occasions over time to take bodies up there, and to take people up there and execute them."
The victims are believed to be Kurds killed in 1987-88, their bodies bulldozed into the graves after being summarily shot dead.
Iraq's Kurds are hoping for justice at last
Mr Kehoe said that work to uncover graves around Iraq, where about 300,000 people are thought to have been killed during Saddam Hussein's regime, was slow as experienced European investigators were not taking part.
The Europeans, he said, were staying away as the evidence might be used eventually to put Saddam Hussein to death.
Do we really want to pass these kinds of global tests? By this measure, we can forget going after guys who kill scores of children and put them in mass graves because an evil dictator might get killed. I know one EU membership requirement is to not have a death penalty, but hello, we're not talking about a democracy with Iraq. Such niceties don't apply. Take a stand. Grow a spine.
Really, if Kerry wasn't serious about this "global test=global veto" nonsense, he would never have brought it up in the first place. You don't go within a mile of that stuff unless you really want a "one happy world" U.S./EUtopia. Kerry screwed up with that comment and Bush is correct to beat him senseless with it.
-Dave O'Connell
jumpthecup.blogspot.com
Canadian Health Care.
5 hour waits in Emergency with my screaming 3 year old.
3 months to get an MRI for my bad knee.
Peter, this is really of the subject, but I just read the Synopsis for your upcoming New Frontier Book, and I'm left with just one question. Did I miss something between "Stone and Anvil", and "After the Fall"??
I have a question: How many bills does the average Senator sponsor? Even giving Kerry full credit that he is not exaggerating, saying he sponsored and/or wrote 55 bills in 20 years seems rather pathetic. It is better than the 5 the Republicans claim, but that was one area where Kerry was really grasping for a lifeline.
If Kerry is elected, I have seen nothing of the true leadership he claims he has. Bush accomplished quite a bit in his 4 years, including the 2 years when Republicans did not control the Senate. I still fear his judicial appointments, but I doubt his ability to bring the Republicans over for his full agenda. Kerry lacks the charisma of Bill Clinton. It would be four years and out.
I think a lot of Kerry's "bounce" is somewhat inflated by the media coverage of the debates. It would not surprise me if Bush won by a decent margin come November 2 (assuming there are no big last minute surprises).
One more comment: I thought tonight's moderator did a great job, better than the two before him. He seemed to better follow up both sides of the issues with both candidates. I agree the last question was an easy one, but I think it was a good one. It made both candidates human. I think Bush's love for his wife was more evident, but Kerry's response was also sincere. I don't doubt Kerry loves his wife, but Bush was clearly more passionate about it.
Looking back at all 3 debates together, it is clear that Kerry won in the way he needed to: He redefined himself as more human and moderate. The fact that he needed to says a lot, but the fact he pulled if off says even more about both candidates.
Jim in Iowa
adam schwartz: of note: bush said he does not recall his statement that he was not concerned about osama bin laden, and claimed it was one of those "exagerrations."
also of note: Bush, on CNN from 2002:
"I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
Luigi Novi: What he said was that he never said he wasn’t “worried” about him, which is the word Kerry used. While technically true, it’s really nothing more than hairsplitting, since they mean the same thing.
Christina: I know a family that live in Italy, which has a government controlled health care system. They had their first child there and they hated it so much that they came to the States for the birth of their second child. They also come here if they need serious medical attention.
Luigi Novi: When I visited Italy this past April, the only thing I got from conversations with my cousin’s friends from work when we all went out one night was that they didn’t like Silvio Berlusconi, but I’ve never heard anyone mention problems with health care, and the reason my parents and other family members emigrated here was to start new lives, not just for births. That’s very interesting, Christina. The last time I went to Italy six years ago, I asked about politics there, and my godparents and cousin had some knowledge of it, but not that much of an interest in it, but I think I’ll email my cousin and ask her about it, as she volunteers for The Red Cross.
Bill Mulligan: Some look at Ted Kennedy and see a man of towering conviction, while I see someone who should be in the final panel of an EC comic, going "Aieeeee!" as the waterlogged corpse of Mary Jo Kopechne drags him into a pool of quicksand.
Luigi Novi: LOL! Good one, Bill!
Fred Chamberlain: Bush "feels" people praying for him? I need to take another look at the DSM-IV and other criteria for schizophrenia.
Luigi Novi: I need to take another look at the criteria for bigotry.
JamesLynch: However, does anyone see a contradiction between Bush's "culture of life" (opposing abortion) and supporting capital punishment?
Luigi Novi: Well, I’m pro-choice and pro-death penalty (ideally, at least, when everyone can get the same good defense, and innocent executions are nonexistent—until then I’d accept a moratorium), and no, I don’t see a contradiction, even if pro-choicers and anti-death penalty advocates try to use this argumentative tactic. I don’t share pro-lifers/pro-deathers’ position, but I understand that they simply feel that fetuses are innocent, and convicted murderers are not. I explain my position on these two issues without using this fallacy. That’s just me. :-)
Craig J. Ries: No, just another example of how Bush lets religion get in the way of his inability to run this country.
Luigi Novi: While I do believe he may be guilty of this, how does the above quote constitute a legitimate example of it? Saying that he feels people praying for him means he’s letting religion “get in the way”? How do you figure this?
Jim in Iowa: Kerry claims to have beliefs, but they do not influence his actions.
Luigi Novi: Sure they do. He simply doesn’t try to force other people to live by them. Big difference.
Jim in Iowa: Well over 70% of the general population have no problem with spoken prayer being returned to the public school or with prayers being offered at football games.
Luigi Novi: Then well over 70% of the general population should be overjoyed to know that spoken prayer in public schools and prayers at school football games are perfectly legal.
Having school officials conduct them is not.
This is a distinction that pro-organized prayer advocates constantly deliberately ignore, a testament to their intellectual dishonesty.
Jim in Iowa: If these issues came up for a vote, they would win by a landslide.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, that’s called tyranny of the majority. Most enlightened people knowledgeable enough about how the American system of law works, particularly vis a vis the Separation of Church and State, understand this, and correctly know that this is why we don’t have such issues come up for a popular vote, which would be un-American.
Jim in Iowa: Instead, they are outlawed by activist liberal judges.
Luigi Novi: Who obviously know what they’re talking about. Good for them.
Jim in Iowa: Do you consider 70% of the population delusional or ignorant or just plain stupid because they believe in prayer?
Luigi Novi: No, I consider those who want to force school officials in non-Christian schools to conduct them (as if school children are somehow too incompetent or helpless to do so on their own initiative—in homeroom, between classes, at lunch, at study hall, during gym if they’re on the bench, or any other time outside of school hours) to be theistically bigoted, and anti-American with regards to Separation of Church and State.
Canadian health care: I think overall we think it's great. I think it's great. Yes, not perfect, but I did a comparison with a friend of mine from San Diego and for what I get for about $120 CDN a month he has to pay $220 US. That being said, if I earned $16,000 or less, I wouldn't have to pay anything to get basic coverage.
Minimum wage: well, here in British Columbia it's $8.00 an hour and last I checked our economy was doing fine.
"activist" judges: funny how I'm sure that when judges in the US (or Canada for that matter) uphold archconservative values, they don't get deemed to be "activists." I mean, the whole notion of "activist" being a dirty word is a nasty creation of the mainstream media, (over)run as it is by conservative corporations. Judges who issue decisions which are labelled "liberal" are no more "activists" than those who pass judgments labelled "conservative." It's up to judges to interpret the law... just because some people don't like those interpretations doesn't mean the judiciary is overstepping its bounds. You want to talk "activist" judges? Who effectively decided the last US election... and which wing, right or left, of which court was it that did?
Well over 70% of the general population have no problem with spoken prayer being returned to the public school or with prayers being offered at football games. If these issues came up for a vote, they would win by a landslide. Instead, they are outlawed by activist liberal judges.
Which makes me very glad that there's that First Amendment to the Constitution forbidding government-sponsored prayer and other religious actions. As someone once put it, as long as there are exams, there will be prayer in schools. But it has to come from individuals, not the governmental system. And that's not a "activist liberal judges" thing. That's a stated very clearly part of the Constitution thing. And strict, literal, meaning of the Constitution is usually considered a "conservative judge" thing.
And, btw, as it happens, I personally came very close to being ordered to say a prayer at my (public) high school graduation. Worse, it wouldn't even have been a group prayer, but me, solo, on stage (yes, this was illegal as all get out, but I also didn't have the resources to do a legal challenge), due to my class rank. I managed to get out of it, but it wasn't easy. How would you feel if you were ordered at a school ceremony to, say, say a prayer to Allah? Or to a Hindu god? Or any god other than your particular one?
This sort of desire is very common in theocracies. If you're in one, you better hope your particular god lines up with the official one.
His faith is real. And it makes a difference.
And that frightens me a lot. Consider this; you like that Bush has a faith that you share. OK, now, imagine that Bush has just as strong a faith in something you don't share. Overly strong "faith" (in the general sense, not specific to Bush's religion) amounts to zealotism. I prefer someone who'll at least consider if facts get in the way of their faith. And Bush is exhibiting, to me, an overreliance on general faith. His whole take on Iraq at the moment amounts to "Have faith in me and my advisors, and it'll work out. I have faith in my people."
It's all anyone can do to send you to the following link, updated every Wednesday:
PAD wrote:
"And I'll tell you, I was dubious about the whole Bush-listening device thing, but there were moments when it really did look like Bush was listening to someone else talking...Ah well. I dunno."
That 'thing' showing on the back of Bush is called a spine. Something Kerry is lacking. ;)
I thought this was the most even of the three debates - and Bush's best.
Lost was really on? It wasn't pre-empted by the debate? Is this a west coast/east coast thing?
Canadian health care
Hasn't the complaint about it been that you don't pay in money but in time, that beyond certain basic health services you have a long wait?
Global test
In speeches or interviews since Kerry used the phrase, has he said a) what happens if a national leader fails such a test b) who does the judging of such a test or standard c) why he voted against Iraq War 1 aka Desert Storm, which presumably passed such a test d) why he voted for the Iraq War 2 which presumably he feels failed such a test and e) why he said just last August he would have still voted to authorize the Bush to go to war in hingsight know all the failure and hardships that would ensue?
Factcheck.org
Hasn't the website shown that not only do both Bush and Kerry cite distorted or misleading "facts" but do so repeatedly after they have been ... factchecked?
-- Ken from Chicago
The White House has said that the President was not wearing any protective gear at the first debate.
And PAD, idear is a fine ole Massasuchusetts tradition. It is like our secret handshake to recognize other people from the state.
I have no problem understanding what Kerry means by Global Test.
He means that when and if the US were to go into a preemptive action that we would have all the evidence to support that decision, we would have exhausted all other avenues and we would be beyond reproach when it came to the facts of the matter. Unlike what we have had with the mess in Iraq.
His global test isn't about getting international permission its about being able to go before the international community as well as the citizens of the US and not get caught stretching the truth or manipulating facts.
Re: Canadian healthcare
As a Canadian who has lived in the U.S. five out of the last ten years, I have to say that I vastly prefer our medical system.
I've never been in line for anything major in the U.S., but for everything up to and including broken bones, the wait times have been roughly equivalent.
Furthermore, I found the quality of the service in the U.S. to be much lower, and much more oriented on what they could sell you -- e.g. drugs, expensive physiotherapy, etc.
For things like mental healthcare, U.S. doctors are no better than drug pushers. I was amazed at the amount of people I know in the U.S. who are on a steady diet of antidepressants, as compared to Canada, drugs that are often prescribed after no more than a single meeting. It's positively freakish.
In my experience, Canadians who complain about our healthcare system do so from a place of ignorance. They believe the media rhetoric that the U.S. system is so much better.
It isn't.
"The White House has said that the President was not wearing any protective gear at the first debate."
I'm pretty sure they lied. If either Kerry or Bush is walking around without protective gear they should be immediately disqualified on the basis of reckless stupidity.
"I'm pretty sure they lied. If either Kerry or Bush is walking around without protective gear they should be immediately disqualified on the basis of reckless stupidity"
I agree, in this day and age almost every public figure should wear a vest and even more so as far as the President is concerned.
Do you think that maybe they are denying the body armor theory because they feel that it would diminish Bush's "macho cowboy" image?
Canadian Health care in a nut shell:
Long waits, absolutely no debt.
Personal experience:
2 Years ago when my wife and I had our son, she was booked in the hospital for 3.5 day weekend to have a C-section. She was supposed to have a semi-private (re: shared) room, but because of her allergy to latex she/we were bumped up to a completely private room at no cost.
How much does 3.5 days, plus a surgical procedure cost is an American hospital? Doesn't it seem wrong to have to worry about that?
There was no cost to us and we never saw a bill or were told of the costs. Even if we had both been unemployed, we would have had the same experience and would not have had to worry about the cost.
Somethings should not be about profit in my opinion.
Fred Chamberlain: Bush "feels" people praying for him? I need to take another look at the DSM-IV and other criteria for schizophrenia.
Luigi Novi: I need to take another look at the criteria for bigotry.
While you may want to do this, I'll point out, since Jim brought it up as well, that it was said tonue-in-cheek.
No bigotry here. See my responses to "Hey, What'd I Miss" thread if you have any real interest.
Oops, sent before finished....
I have no issue with any man's beliefs unless they negatively affect others. Bush's statement seemed out of place and alarming to me as a positiver reinforcer and affirmation of his choices. I wonder if he feels the millions of people who pray in opposition to the administration's actions.
I watched part of the debate last night- fist and last time... I can't stand Bush'
s voice or that smirk. By 10 pm, I was ready to throw a brick at the TV. BTW, on the litmus test - Bush claims that abortion isn't one thing he'd claim he use to appoint a judge and says that Kerry would use it as a litmus test. Kerry, however did not say tha the would appoint judges only that supported abortion rights - just that he would not appoint a judge who thought that his or her right to make someon else do something according to his/her personal beliefs.
All that being said, I like Kerry's speaking manner better - he speaks without a noticable accent, pronounces words correctly and uses proper grammar - that should be a litmus test for president (and why is that phrase one that the president beat to death? Does anyone use litmus paper anymore?)
To put it differently, Bush's faith is in something beyond himself. Kerry's faith appears to be in himself and what he and others together can do. That difference was clear tonight.
And that's part of the reason I dislike Bush - all his faith is in something else. So when he fails, he has something/somebody else to blame.
And as others have said, it disturbs me greatly when he wants to run this country based on his faith, not in himself, but on the belief in a higher being that I don't necessary believe in.
Yes, the difference is clear, and it reaffirms my reasons to vote for Kerry.
[B]"Well over 70% of the general population have no problem with spoken prayer being returned to the public school or with prayers being offered at football games"[/B]
This whole issue of legalized prayer in school have always baffled me.
Over 20 years ago I attended a [B]public[/B] school. After morning announcements we would have
"A Moment of Silent Medatation".
Simple enough.
If you wanted to pray, in whatever religion, GREAT. If not, FINE. So what's the big deal? Why should there be
special spoken prayer? Isn't religion, the faith in your god PRIVATE??? Isn't a belief a PERSONAL thing?
Organized spoken prayer in the school is a NON issue.
It's another one of those non issues that's used to steer us away from pressing problems in our school that need to be dealt with.
"Jim in Iowa: Well over 70% of the general population have no problem with spoken prayer being returned to the public school or with prayers being offered at football games.
Luigi Novi: Then well over 70% of the general population should be overjoyed to know that spoken prayer in public schools and prayers at school football games are perfectly legal."
Actually, spoken prayers ate school football games are illegal. If a player, on his own, decided to pick up a mike and say "excuse me, I'd like to say a quick prayer before the game", the school could get sued. How do I know? It's happened. Here. In OKLAHOMA of all places.
I mean God forbid someone get offended. Are we an entire country of 3 year olds? I would not be offended by a Muslim or Catholic or Jewish prayer before a game. Especially one motivated by students, not the school.
Atheism is becoming a religion unto itself to many people, and the courts have began to enforce it. Fireman can't hang crosses over their beds, Policement can't celebrate Christmas at their work. People are no longer as free to express their religion as they used to be. It's as bad as any other freedom of speech being trampled on. And it's amazing. People and groups get up in arms to protect a comic book store in Oklahoma who sells child Snuff Comics and leaves them laying around where kids can get them, yet don't say a word when children who gather at the flagpole before school for a prayer get told they have to leave school grounds.
"I just wanted to add that my roommate thinks that bulge on Bush's back is an armoured vest. He has military experience, so I trust his judgement on this."
I think its part of the control collar Chaney is useing to keep Bush in line. Every time he's about to say something that would throw the election, Chaney gives him a shock. Those wern't smirks during the debate, they were grimiaces
Here's what I got out of the debate on Bush's "domestic agenda."
Moderator: Mr President, what do you think about raising the minimum wage?
Bush: Well, my No Child Left Behind plan is a jobs program when you think about it.
Mod: What do you say the 45 million uninsured Americans?
Bush: Well, my No Child Left Behind plan is a health care program when you think about it.
Mod: What do you think about affirmative action?
Bush: My No Child Left Behind plan is a social justice program when you think about it.
Mod: What about workers who are being outsourced?
Bush: No Child Left Behind.
Mod: Do you like candy?
Bush: No Child Left Behind.
Mod: Your closing statement, please.
Bush: When I met Laura at a barbecue in Midland, TX, I remember saying to her that if I could just get Congress to pass my No Child Left Behind plan, we wouldn't have any domestic problems at all.
"Do you think that maybe they are denying the body armor theory because they feel that it would diminish Bush's "macho cowboy" image?'
Perhaps, though it would also be an invitation for any would-be assassin to take only headshots.
"There was no cost to us and we never saw a bill or were told of the costs. Even if we had both been unemployed, we would have had the same experience and would not have had to worry about the cost.
Somethings should not be about profit in my opinion."
Nice thought but where will we get advances in medicine or for that matter, future doctors? If drug companies are told they will not be allowed to make profits they will go into something more lucrative--advertising breakfast cereal or video games, whatever.
My ex-wife is a doctor and while she makes a good living compared to most, she is hardly rolling in dough. In fact, considering the amount of education, stress and time it took to get to where she is, her income is way too small.
"he speaks without a noticable accent, pronounces words correctly and uses proper grammar - that should be a litmus test for president"
One could come up with an impressive list of former presidents who would fall short of that lofty standard.
I think both the best and worst moments of the debate came from Kerry. When he thanked Bush for his leadership on 9/11 and Bush silently mouthed a "thank you", that was great. very classy. Then he goes and bizarely brings up Mary Cheney, apparently the only gay person that he and John Edwards knows. What a tool.
on a serious note:
"Canadian health care
Hasn't the complaint about it been that you don't pay in money but in time, that beyond certain basic health services you have a long wait?"
I have a 4 and a half month old son. The pediatrician we tired to use for his regual check ups had our first check up a week late, and could only schedule the 4 month check up t 6 months, and the 6 mo check up at close to 10 months of age. We ended up just useing our regular doctor because her schedule is only about a 2 week wait. However her average waiting room wait is an hour to an hour and a half after your scheduled time. After all that we also pay more. hmmmm yea the canadian helth care system is soooooo worng. Right. No wait with the birth of my son, I'll end up paying over 3000.00 in cash this year that was not cover by my insurance because I .... uh went to the doctor.... my wife had the baby in a hospital, rather than the more insurance friendly economical back seat of a taxi.... huh thats funny isn't it.
Special question from yer daughter:
If Kerry is sooooooooo liberal, like, the most liberal dude in the Senate as my favorite Good Ole Boy keeps telling me, how can he be such a flip flopper? If he were waffling or canoodling or whatever you want to call it, wouldn't his track record be all over the place and make it, therefore, impossible to pin him as a liberal? Huh? I don't get it.
RE: Prayer in school
A couple of you read into my post something I never said. I personally have no agenda to restore prayer in school or at football games. I don't think it is the crisis either side thinks it is.
My point was if 70% of Americans are in favor of prayer in school, they are not going to think the President is scary or weird for saying he "feels" it when people pray for him.
Jim in Iowa
My only thought about prayer at football games is that every time I hear about the it, I picture God going over his "to do" list:
1) Bring about peace in the Middle East.
2) Cure Timmy Johnson's cancer.
3) End world hunger.
4) Make sure the Midland, TX Pitbulls win the state championship.
Actually, spoken prayers ate school football games are illegal. If a player, on his own, decided to pick up a mike and say "excuse me, I'd like to say a quick prayer before the game", the school could get sued. How do I know? It's happened. Here. In OKLAHOMA of all places.
I can see both sides of this issue. I would be uncomfortable if a Buddhist or Muslim got up and said a prayer. But I would not feel threatened. I would not feel the government was sponsoring a religion. It is sad to me that many of the liberals who preach "tolerance" are the most intolerant of any religious expression. There is no excuse for someone to be sued simply because a student wanted to offer a prayer at a school football game. Funny how those who don't like Christianity have no problem imposing their morality on others.
Jim in Iowa
4) Make sure the Midland, TX Pitbulls win the state championship.
Well, the Bible does say that if even a sparrow falls to the ground, God knows and cares. So since at least one play is sure to be pounded pretty hard into the turf, and a person is of at least as much value as a sparrow to God, then I would say he is paying attention to the game.
Most football game prayers do not consist of, "God, help us kick the, umm, rear ends of our opponents." They are generally asking for safety and fair play and good sportsmanship, etc.
Now the prayers of the parents and coaches on the sidelines during the game . . .
Jim in Iowa
Obviously, the previous post should have said:
So since at least one player
Sort of like your tolerance for those who repeatedly explain and present proof that the bible is fiction while you insist it's purely trutful and historic?
Am I alone in thinking Bush's smirk was kinda unnessasary and a bit creepy? Now, I dont want an emotionless Vulcan being President, but damn, your a President, try to be a bit more serious in presenting things. The constant "s**t eating grin" got on my nerves after a bit, maybe because im not sure he understands when he says certain things with a smile (like saying he's protecting the borders, or anything about education) he doesn't seem very modest.
Kerry really dissapointed me at times though, because he let alot of things pass to easy. I dont understand why he doesn't get more agressive on cetain topics, but maybe he's got a cooler head than Bush does when he's directly challenged.
Jerry wrote:
**Here. In OKLAHOMA of all places.**
Really? Where and when? I'm not being facetious. I'm in Oklahoma, and I want to know, so I can look it up.
Travis
I know why Bush was blinking so much...
He felt bad that the Red Sox weren't in Fenway Park to attempt to steal signs so he was trying to give them pitch location!
:)
Mike
Most football game prayers do not consist of, "God, help us kick the, umm, rear ends of our opponents." They are generally asking for safety and fair play and good sportsmanship, etc.
If you want to pray for safety and good sportsmanship, that's fine, but I have seen prayers before football games that were about "God, help us win this game." I've also seen players thank the Lord for making a spectacular catch. It bothers me because it implies that God plays favorites in something as trivial in the cosmic scheme of things as a football game. If God favors the Midland Pitbulls, does that mean that East Midland Sharks are in league with the devil?
Granted, I happen to believe that is the case with the Dallas Cowboys and the NY Yankees, but we can save that discussion for another thread.
"Really? Where and when? I'm not being facetious. I'm in Oklahoma, and I want to know, so I can look it up. "
It happened with the Edmond High School football games in the late 90's. Not long after the whole city seal debacle.
Granted, I happen to believe that is the case with the Dallas Cowboys and the NY Yankees, but we can save that discussion for another thread.
With the Cowboys building a new stadium (they hope) in Arlington, we will see if they leave the hole in the stadium for God to watch. :-) Go Cowboys!
Jim in Iowa (formerly known as Jim in Dallas)
Sort of like your tolerance for those who repeatedly explain and present proof that the bible is fiction while you insist it's purely trutful and historic?
Sorry, I did not know trying to defend my position on an issue was being intollerant.
Jim in Iowa
Did anyone else notice that Bush was frothing at the mouth for the first half of the debate? I found it quite amusing, especially when he was getting worked up and smacking the podium.
It bothers me because it implies that God plays favorites in something as trivial in the cosmic scheme of things as a football game.
No, it implies that some people believe that God plays favorites in something as trivial in the cosmic scheme of things as a football game. Prayer prayed does not equal prayer answered.
Jeff
**It happened with the Edmond High School football games in the late 90's. Not long after the whole city seal debacle.**
Right. Forgot about it... like I try to forget Edmond exists, even though I technically live there.
Debacle is a word that really explains the city seal. If, just if, the city had said "This is part of our heritage, and this is part of our history. Why shouldn't we have this cross on our seal?" I may not have liked it, but at least I'd understand it.
But making the statement: "A Cross Represents All Faiths," is well... dumb. dumber than dumb.
And the lawsuit was not in Oklahoma, it was just enforced in Oklahoma at that time and was brought up because Ernie Istook tried to pass an ammendment called the "Religious Freedom Amendment"... (The actual lawsuit was based out of Rhode Island)... it just was brought to light here at that time.
Most people were up in arms about it around here. What it was talking about was the pre-game prayer at football games. If it's broadcast across the stadium, done at a school sponsored event, then does it cross the line of separation of state?
Anyway, my two cents... sorry I went on too long.
Travis
Idear? IDEAR? Kerry can say "nuclear," but he can't say "idea?"
Yes, he did say "idear." However, as I remember it, it seemed to be in the context of a quote. I could not figure out if he was trying to say it like the person he was quoting was saying it. It didn't work if that was what he was trying.
It was not as obvious as some of Bush's mispronounciations, but it did stand out.
Jim in Iowa
**It bothers me because it implies that God plays favorites in something as trivial in the cosmic scheme of things as a football game.
No, it implies that some people believe that God plays favorites in something as trivial in the cosmic scheme of things as a football game. Prayer prayed does not equal prayer answered.
****
Silly humans, everyone knows God favors only sides in NCAA Basketball teams... And he wears Orange and Black. (OkState)... all other sports, he's not that interested in.
Travis
oh, and reference to the first post:
In 1992, Oklahomans were told that the U.S. Supreme Court banned prayers at graduation services, arising from a prayer offered at a Rhode Island Middle School.
As fall football games rolled around, state Superintendent Sandy Garrett said the court decision meant no non-denominational invocations, no voluntary moments of silence, no anything that could be confused with intermixing a school event with a religious act.
In 1994, Rep. Ernest Istook introduced a proposed amendment, constitutionally protecting free exercise of prayer in schools and other public institutions. However, the resolution stalled in the House.
Four years later, Istook is attempting again this week to bring a Religious Freedom Amendment before the House. The congressman concedes that it takes numerous tries before any Amendment to the Constitution is ratified
1998 Edmond Sun.
----
Travis
I did think Bush got a little too deep into the religion question, it might have swayed some more undecided to Kerry's favor. Especially concidering the whole Stem Cell/Abortion/Church and State Seperation accusations that have been brought against Bush since he first came into office. Personally, I dont have issues with individuals having religious beliefs, but I have an issue when our leaders base their decisions on imput from higher powers. Consultations with God should not be in any Presidents daily schedule.
No, it implies that some people believe that God plays favorites in something as trivial in the cosmic scheme of things as a football game.
Now you're just playing semantics. That is what I was meaning. People who pray for victory in football games are implying that (in their minds) that God plays favorites in football games.
So are there any presidential candidates that don't distort the truth? It appears the gentlemen who debated are pretty good distorters.
With the Cowboys building a new stadium (they hope) in Arlington, we will see if they leave the hole in the stadium for God to watch. :-) Go Cowboys!
I fully expect that when the old stadium is demolished, demons will pour out the hole.
I hate and despise the Cowboys.
Go Eagles!
Getting back to the debate, my nomination for the most idiotic statement of last night was Bush's cop-out on the letting the assault weapon ban expire by blaming it on Tom Delay telling him there weren't enough votes to renew it. This gave Kerry a perfect opening to argue about how he would have fought for it and how it is supported by most law enforcement agencies. He even got to tell a story about going hunting with a sheriff and a drug bust.
So Kerry was able to portray himself as someone who could take charge and fight for what he believed in, a supporter of law enforcement, and a hunter while Bush looked like an ineffective leader who couldn't get a popular law renewed despite his party controlling both houses of Congress.
If Bush had said, "I believe the assault weapons ban was a bad law and here is why," I could have respected his stand on conviction, but to puss out and hide behind Tom Delay's skirt was just pathetic.
"Funny how those who don't like Christianity have no problem imposing their morality on others."
Jim in Iowa, your statement IMO would have more impact if it read:
"Funny how those who don't like ________(fill in any religious or non religious belief) have no problem imposing their morality on others."
Bush's smirk was loathsome throughout the debate. Almost bad enough to make me ignore the fact that John Kerry said, when speaking about immigration concerns, "It is against the law in this country to hire people illegally."
No kidding. You could look it up.
"I fully expect that when the old stadium is demolished, demons will pour out the hole."
I pry for all our sakes that Buffy the vampire sayer is in the dallas metro area that day!
"Almost bad enough to make me ignore the fact that John Kerry said, when speaking about immigration concerns, "It is against the law in this country to hire people illegally."
Well technically that is true. lol
There is a difference between praying for yourself, in your own way, and announcing your prayer to a stadium full of people whether they want to hear it or not.
The same applies to kids reading a prayer over a loudspeaker in a school or wanting everybody to hold hands and sing "Koombaya" before class.
It's the same respect people want when you're on a public bus, and people are listening to headphones - not everybody wants to hear what you're listening to.
Keep it to yourself.
Consultations with God should not be in any Presidents daily schedule.
Actually, it should be in every President's schedule and thankfully, has been in most!
Shana--Bush would argue that Kerry has been flipflopping between extremel liberal and moderate liberal. So he can still tag him as an evil lilberal AND as someone who changes his mind.
Me, I'm still frustrated that once again, Kerry passed the opportunity to slam Bush, who boasted of creating the Homeland Security Department, that it was a concept that languished in the Bush White House for nine months simply because it was an idea from the departing Clinton administration. Bush elevated his own bias above the good of the nation and then has the stones to take credit for it belatedly while accusing KERRY of changing his mind on issues?
PAD
"Consultations with God should not be in any Presidents daily schedule.
Actually, it should be in every President's schedule and thankfully, has been in most!"
Yeah, 'cause it's great when world leaders engage in delusional practices to help "lead" their nations...
They're supposed to be the leaders, not following the non-existant invisible man in the sky...
Although it'd be hilarious if Allah appeared at the Press Conference before George Bush and said "Ha, you infidel, you picked the wrong god!" and turned him into a pillar of salt, and then turned on the sprinkler system...
Personally, I dont have issues with individuals having religious beliefs, but I have an issue when our leaders base their decisions on imput from higher powers. Consultations with God should not be in any Presidents daily schedule.
Do you realize how out of touch that statement is with both the majority of the public and with American history? If God exists (and no, you don't have to believe that he does), why would it be such a dangerous thing to "consult" with him (or whatever pronoun you want to use)? Why is it so dangerous to believe there is something greater than ourselves? The Founding Fathers clearly believed there was and stated this in the Declaration of Independence.
It is oxymoronic to say it is ok to have religious beliefs, they just should not matter (at least not if you are a leader). That is really what the comment above means. The fact that Bush prays and looks to God for guidance does not mean he will do something rash or extreme (nor that he won't). The fact that someone is "reasoned" and "logical" does not mean someone will not be a tyrant. Go reread the history of WW2 Germany and of Communist Russia. Hitler was not a Christian (most historians believe he was heavily into the occult), and Stalin was also not a Christian. Both used "human logic" and reasoning (not a consultation with a "higher power") to perpretate some of the greatest atrocities of the last century.
This fear of Christians who pray and who look to God ignores the fact that all of the major wars in the last century were for secular, not religious reasons. Strong Christians were a significant portion of those who established this country with its freedom of religion.
Jim in Iowa
Yeah, 'cause it's great when world leaders engage in delusional practices to help "lead" their nations...
They're supposed to be the leaders, not following the non-existant invisible man in the sky...
See, y'know, I respect everyone's right to have beliefs. And I respect a lot of people's beliefs. The fact that I am not a Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, Wiccan, Athiest, Pagan or anything like that, does not hinder me from allowing people to believe what they believe. But because I do believe in civility, I don't believe in belittiling a person's faith.
Faith is something that the majority of people in America have. Whether I agree with them or not, over 70% of American's believe themselves to be religious and/or spiritual.
So if a leader uses prayer and his faith to help him lead the country, I have no issue with it at all.
I do have issues with the way Bush has handled it, but I do have issues with the concept of wearing your religion on your sleeve. But that's neither here nor there... my point is this: Statements like the above are exactly like the statements made that "You're Going to Hell/Sheol/Be Reincarnated as a cockroach if you don't believe the way I do."
Faith is faith. It's believing in things you have no proof of. If you believe there is no god, that's faith. Because you have no proof there isn't a god. If you believe there is one, same deal.
So let's not get into religious flames. No one wins.
My Opinion As Always.
Travis
Thank God I'm not religious! Otherwise, I'd have a tough time chosing either candidate!
:)
Oh, and firm Kerry backer here.
Travis:
>So let's not get into religious flames. No one wins.
amen ;)
There is a difference between praying for yourself, in your own way, and announcing your prayer to a stadium full of people whether they want to hear it or not.
In other words, there is freedom of speech, just not religious speech.
As I said above, I understand how public prayer makes some uncomfortable. So does saying the pledge of allegiance or singing the National Anthem or flying the flag. I am against an imposition of religion where someone else is forced to worship (as in made to say a prayer, attend a church service, be baptized, or engage in other clearly religious practices), but I am also against my right to worship being surpressed because someone does not like that I do so publicly (such as praying at a graduation).
Personally, I do not live or die over prayer in schools or at football games. I do have a problem with the growing restrictions on my rights to express myself as a Christian.
Did you know that until 1954, churches were allowed to talk about political candidates, and somehow, our democracy survived? Now, if a church were to say that they are pro-life and that Kerry is not, they would risk their tax exempt status. When John Hancock, one of the founding fathers was asked for a list of who he felt were instrumental in establishing this great nation, his list included a large number of ministers. It is a fact that 24 out of 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were seminary graduates. Some of the strongest proponents of freedom for slaves and for religious freedom were pastors during revolutionary times. President James Garfield was a minister who had preached at revival meetings!
Congress has opened with prayer for over 200 years and we have somehow survived. I suspect we will continue to survive as long as there is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
Jim in Iowa
>Congress has opened with prayer for over 200 years and we have somehow survived. I suspect we will continue to survive as long as there is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
>Jim in Iowa
I have no problems with being surrounded by people practicing whatever type of spirituality they'd like. I agree with much of what you say as well as the above statement. I also am aware that morality is largely guided by religious background and belief. Again, I have no concern for this. What does concern me is when it is blatantly and publicly utilized as a justification or support for legal or international actions. Not only does it not represent me, whcih really is not my main problem here, but it alienates people from one another. Although placating the world around us shouldn't be the issue, being aware that Christianity and even Americans as a minorty in a larger world should be at least a consideration. When a president or any leader either doesn't show an awareness of this and an understanding of the the effects or reactions it potentially may ellicit from the global community, I have serious concerns.
Currently, I have very serious concerns.
Fred
Jim in Iowa -
but I am also against my right to worship being surpressed because someone does not like that I do so publicly
Again, I have to shake my head in wonder.
No one can EVER supress your right to worship. If you're sitting on a bus, walking through the park or sitting on your couch at home, you can be worshiping your god/religion.
If your faith is strong, you don't NEED to publicly worship. What's the point, God can only hear you if you're in a church?
He can't hear you when you pray silently to yourself?
This has always been my question to anyone of faith.
And they can never answer it.
No one can EVER supress your right to worship. If you're sitting on a bus, walking through the park or sitting on your couch at home, you can be worshiping your god/religion.
I agree with the core idea of your point. I am talking about public expressions of that worship. Just go to a very large number of countries around the world (such as China) where you can be thrown into prison simply for having 12 friends come to your house for a private, quiet worship service. I don't take my religious freedom for granted.
One more example: It is absurd for the government to say a church cannot endorse a candidate. It can be a good thing when a religion is engaged with the culture and working to make it better. Clearly there will different opinions on what that looks like, but I guarantee there will be churches on both sides. We do not have a monolithic religion here that can dominate the culture as some countries (such as England) have.
Jim in Iowa
Posted by: Bill Mulligan
"Nice thought but where will we get advances in medicine or for that matter, future doctors? If drug companies are told they will not be allowed to make profits they will go into something more lucrative--advertising breakfast cereal or video games, whatever."
Actually the idea that -healthcare must be run based on profit meaning whoever can pay more will receive better health care- is necessary to fund medical research and Drug-company research, is a myth.
In Canada we have multi-billion dollar drug companies, an example off the top of my head is BMO. They make profits, they conduct research, etc. but the bottom line is anyone in this country whether working or not has health coverage.
Another poster mentioned having to pay $30 000 out his own pocket to have a baby, had that been the case I would not have had a child because we could not have afforded a bill like that.
Everyone hates taxes I know, but aren't they supposed to be used to pay for /provide things the individual person could never afford? Shouldn't health care fall into that category?
Isn't that why wealthy Republicans hate taxes , because they don't need help to be able to pay for the expensive things in life such as health care and education?
If your faith is strong, you don't NEED to publicly worship. What's the point, God can only hear you if you're in a church?
He can't hear you when you pray silently to yourself?
I have a simple question: Which is better? To sit and watch the World Series at home on TV, or to be there at a game in the stadium? For most people, there is something special and exciting when you can share an experience.
God will hear me anywhere, but that is not the point. This country was also founded on freedom of speech. Why is my expression of religious speech different than your freedom of speech (within common sense parameters -- I don't have the right to break into your private house and use a bull horn to say a prayer while you are trying to sleep in bed!)?
Jim in Iowa
**This country was also founded on freedom of speech. Why is my expression of religious speech different than your freedom of speech (within common sense parameters -- I don't have the right to break into your private house and use a bull horn to say a prayer while you are trying to sleep in bed!)?**
It's not Jim. It's not my cuppa, tho. I don't like it, but as PAD has expressed before, I'll fight like hell to let you keep it.
Travis
It's not Jim. It's not my cuppa, tho. I don't like it, but as PAD has expressed before, I'll fight like hell to let you keep it.
And I the same for you.
Jim in Iowa
Marc initially said:
"There was no cost to us and we never saw a bill or were told of the costs. Even if we had both been unemployed, we would have had the same experience and would not have had to worry about the cost.
Somethings should not be about profit in my opinion."
Then Bill Mulligan said:
Nice thought but where will we get advances in medicine or for that matter, future doctors? If drug companies are told they will not be allowed to make profits they will go into something more lucrative--advertising breakfast cereal or video games, whatever.
So I'M saying:
The same place they come from now- researchers at public and private institutions. You're mistaken if you think all medical research is conducted by the private sector. Furthermore, I think, at least from the content of your post, that you may be confusing state-funded medicine (which Canada does have) with State-funded prescription drug benefits, which Canada does *not* have, except for senior citizens and other high-risk groups below a certain income level.
What Canada *does* have is looser (well, looser than the USA's) regulations on making generic (no-name) copies of "brand-name" drugs. The drug companies are fighting this, as you can imagine, but the regs aren't stopping them from posting record-breaking profits year after year.
"Although it'd be hilarious if Allah appeared at the Press Conference before George Bush and said "Ha, you infidel, you picked the wrong god!" and turned him into a pillar of salt, and then turned on the sprinkler system..."
Actually it's my understanding that Allah and the God of Abraham (ie. Jesus' father) are supposed to be one and the same. So perhaps Allah would be more likely to do the old potato chip seasoning routine on some atheists. Which would still be hilarious, though probably not to the same people.
To marc and A Canuck Redux,
The post I was responding to seemed to imply--and this may have been a misreading on my part--that healthcare (which I took to include drug companies and the work they do) should be nonprofit. My thought was that this would cripple the drug industry, which has benefited us all so greatly (Life expectancy of 85+ hasn't happened because of our healthier diets, that's for sure).
The fact that drug companies in Canada are making money hand over fist means that the anti-profit theory has not been applied to them. Thus, I am unsurprised that they are continuing to better our lives.
I just don't think that it is an Ayn Rand fantasy to suggest that if Western Drug companies are suddenly expected to give up massive profits in the pursuit of drugs that could benefit millions, they may just go into other, more profitable endeavors. yes, government research will take up some slack but the best minds will usually end up at the places where they are best rewarded. Capitalism works, even if it results in the fact that some will grow rich off of new products and treatments (which bothers me not a whit--Bill Gates can have another billion dollars for all I care. Doesn't diminish my life even a tad--but look at how much pleasure the computer revolution has given me!)
I know this is slightly off the debate topic, but since Kerry & Edwards have regularly stated that the Republicans are going to try to surpress minority and democrat vote, it is appropriate.
The DNC memo asking for a pre-emptive strike has been leaked. For those of you who have not heard, the DNC manual calls for allegations of voter intimidation *BEFORE* it happens. Guess innocent until proven guilty does not count in politics. ;-)
There are plenty of examples where both sides engaged in illegal tactics over the years. This is not an issue where Democrats have a better track record than Republicans. But it is troubling for there to be what is in essence a preemptive strike with the assumption Republicans will do something. The very concept is an insult to the many workers in both parties who do not engage in such tactics.
It is important to note that there has not been a single verified example of voter intimidation in Florida in 2000. Lots of annectodal (sp?)accounts, but when it was looked into, there was no evidence that would hold up.
What would the headlines be if there was an official Republican handbookthat asserted that Democrats were going to steal the election, and that there should be preemptive action now?
Drudge did not make this up. The DNC has posted the info in context, and it does say what Drudge claims:
http://www.democrats.org/news/200410140008.html
Jim in Iowa
Actually, I'm a Libertarian. Oh, and a Buddhist. And I can't say I really pay much attention to sports...what with the whole desire (to win) and suffering thing. Live and let live I always say.
Peace
The minimum wage here in Washington is already something like $7.11, and it's higher than that in San Francisco, due to a "living wage" ordinance. I was surprised that it was nationally still so low.
GOD:
>Actually, I'm a Libertarian. Oh, and a Buddhist. And I can't say I really pay much attention to sports...what with the whole desire (to win) and suffering thing. Live and let live I always say.
IMPOSTER!!! .... or have you forgotten your words in the Old Testament?
Heh. Speaking of voter fraud affecting democrats, apparently in Nevada, some bozos have been registering voters...and throwing away the ones who are registering as Democrats.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4107720
At least the GOP there apparently had the good grace to bounce those fools on their heads as fast they could....
The DNC memo asking for a pre-emptive strike has been leaked. For those of you who have not heard, the DNC manual calls for allegations of voter intimidation *BEFORE* it happens. Guess innocent until proven guilty does not count in politics. ;-)
Uh, Jim....apparently this was NOT before it happened, as reports in Nevada and Arizona have been trickling in for the last month.
Uh, Jim....apparently this was NOT before it happened, as reports in Nevada and Arizona have been trickling in for the last month.
The exact quote is as follows: "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike.'"
This does not refer to Nevada. It is much more generic, talking about whatever polling the place the person is working at. In other words, it says to cry "wolf" just because you feel like it. It basically say, "Cry 'foul' first and then look to see if someone actually did something wrong, since we all know Republicans are evil and they are going to anyways."
I have no problem with valid challenges. There are many reports about fradulent Democratic voter registrations as well. I personally think most of them are not deliberate attempts of fraud by the DNC, but the inevitable result when you pay people per registration you ask them to collect. The temptation to turn in a fake one or register someone 50 times (as one news report documents happening to a democratic voter who could not say no to the pleading workers who gave him sob stories about how their families need the money) would tempt some people regardless of their party affiliations.
Jim in Iowa
from the dnc website, context:
http://www.democrats.org/news/200410140008.html
part quoted on drudge:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).
• Issue a press release
i. Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state
ii. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting
• Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points
• Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics
• Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full text:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. WHAT TO LOOK FOR
In general, the goal of minority voter intimidation programs is either to provide a basis for challenging the right of people to vote just before election day or when they show up at the polls, and/or to create doubt, confusion and fear among voters about their right to vote or the location at which they can vote.
Prior to Election Day
Activities that may take place in the weeks or days leading up to election day can include:
1. Mass mailing targeted to minority communities aimed at using letters returned as undeliverable as a basis for challenging voters (on or prior to election day) based on change of residence
2. Mailings, signs, and/or phone calls targeted or concentrated in minority communities
• Providing "information" about the requirements for voting, for example, that persons not current on child support payments will not be eligible to vote, or that persons who have recently moved will not be eligible
• Providing "information" about what questions will be asked or documentation requested of voters at the polls in order to vote, e.g., that proof of citizenship will be required, or that a drivers license or lease will be required to prove residence
• Giving warnings about election offenses, i.e., that voting when ineligible to do so, or voting at the wrong place, or providing false information to election officials, etc. is a crime
• Suggesting that polling places have been changed
3. Any variation of the above in Spanish, targeted to, or appearing in, Latino communities
4. Complaints filed by Republican Party or candidates with election authorities (or police or other authorities) about volunteer registrars registering minority voters illegally
5. Attempts to encourage voters in minority communities to throw away mail-in ballots
6. Attempts to coerce voters in minority communities to turn over endorsed absentee ballots On Election Day
Activities that take place on election day itself may include:
1. Signs, posters, phone calls, and/or sound trucks giving "information" or warnings about voter requirements or eligibility and/or warning that voting when ineligible to do so is an offense, etc.
2. Concentration of numbers of Republican poll watchers or challengers in minority precincts
3. Republican poll watchers challenging every voter in minority precincts on some pretext
4. GOP poll watchers, local law enforcement officers, or persons with official looking badges or insignia stationed at polling places taking pictures, asking for names, or engaging in other types of intimidating conduct.
5. Other persons deliberately placed at polling places to harass or hassle voters
6. Efforts to create longer lines in the polls, targeted in minority communities, through means such as limiting the number of registration books; deliberately sending unregistered voters into certain polling places to create confusion and delay and/or create a scene, and thereby slow down voting at those polling places
7. Changing polling locations close to election day
8. Slower responses to voting machine breakdowns in minority precincts
II. HOW TO ORGANIZE TO PREVENT AND COMBAT VOTER INTIMIDATION
The best way to combat minority voter intimidation tactics is to prevent them from occurring in the first place and prepare in advance to deal with them should they take place on election day.
1. If there are any signs of present or expected intimidation activity, in advance of election day, launch a press program that might include the following elements:
• Prepare and distribute to the press (or have available at a press conference, see below) materials giving the background and history of GOP minority voter intimidation, with emphasis on past activity in your state or district.
• Devise separate press strategies for mainstream and specialty press:
i. Mainstream press: Consider a press conference
— Featuring a prominent mainstream spokesperson (priest, civic leader, business leader)
— Including a group of established community leaders behind that spokesperson, but with only one person giving a statement
— Emphasizing a message of outrage, but designed to appeal to the broader community: "We thought this community was better than that", "We thought those days were behind us", "Nothing is more despicable than trying to deprive any American of the precious right to vote, the foundation of our democracy for which so many have sacrificed."
— Impugning the source of divisiveness – the GOP, the opposing candidate, whoever can credibly be said to be behind it
— Include call to action
ii. Specialty press
— Use minority intimidation as an organizing tool: in a press conference and/or press materials, community leadership should call on the community to rise up against the efforts to disenfranchise them by turning out in record numbers and challenging any effort at intimidation
— Link this fight to the historical fights to enfranchise minorities, going back to the civil rights struggle.
2. If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).
• Issue a press release
i. Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state
ii. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting
• Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points
• Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics
• Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls
3. Train field staff, precinct workers, and your own poll watchers thoroughly in the rules they need to know for election day.
4. Plan and completely prepare for possible legal action well in advance of election day
5. Have Secretary of State record public service announcements about election day – when polls are open, who is eligible, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us note: section 2 does not bring up accusing Republicans of voter intimidation if none has taken place.
It does bring up that the fact that it has happened previously, and is entirely possible again.
there is no call for false accusations and unsubstantiated claims. Drudge presents it as though it did.
In other words, there is freedom of speech, just not religious speech.
I could just as easily use the example that I can't use the same public address system at a football game to talk about the upcoming KKK rally.
Or should we allow anybody who wants to use hate speech as well whenever they want?
There is freedom of speech until you infringe upon the free speech of somebody else.
Did you know that until 1954, churches were allowed to talk about political candidates, and somehow, our democracy survived?
Yes, and up until about the same point of time, we didn't have the words "under god" in the Pledge of Allegience either. We didn't destroy ourselves in those first 150 years...
The text that follows "launch a pre-emptive strike" in that full document clearly states that the content of the pre-emptive strike should be to issue a press release documenting past offenses, quotes denouncing offenses, watch for offenses, educate people as to what consitutes offenses, be prepared to respond to offenses and educate people of their rights.
Would you object to a memo suggesting that if no woman is currently being raped people should concentrate their efforts on denouncing rape, watching out for rape, educating people as to what consitutes rape, being prepared to prosecute rapists and educating people of their rights to not be raped?
Ogf course DOn, those godless heathens the democrats are too ignorant and evil and must be shown the one true way of the religious republicans...
Jim and others - I certainly hope you're not really under the impression that a church isn't free to be as involved in the political process as they like, because they are. Reverend Joe Smith can stand at the pulpit and rail against candidate X and for candidate Y all day long.
Or they can take donations which are tax deductable for the donor.
What they can't do it both. And if you think that's unfair, well, take it up with MoveOn.org. "Contributions to MoveOn.org are not tax deductible because they will be used to influence legislation." or the Christian Coalition. "Christian Coalition of America is organized and operates as a 501(c)(4) organization, gifts to which are not deductible for Federal income tax purposes."
And in reality, they can be involved in the political process. They just have to be very very careful about how they collect and use money to do it. You can read about the particulars at http://www.exempttaxlaw.com/CM/Articles/Articles54.asp if you like but the bottom line is they have to organize a separate arm to do it and can't spend the collection plate money.
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s