I wasn’t able to catch the first half of the debate but I listened to the last half in my car as I was driving home. Listening to a sit-down debate changes the dynamics so I’m curious to hear what people thought. By the way, can we just skip the speculations about who “won?” A candidate either does an adequate job defending their position or they fail to present their case. Anyone who is waiting for a 90 minute display of sophistry to decide which side has the stronger position doesn’t deserve to vote in the first place.
1. I realize now why Kerry picked Edwards to fill the VP slot. Next to the young Senator from North Carolina, Kerry looks positively Presidential.
2. The Lloyd Bentsen Award goes to Cheney for this line: "Now, in my capacity as Vice President I am the President of the Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.” (Unfortunately, its not exactly true. As Kos points out, the two were at a prayer breakfast together in February 2001. Still, why hasn't Cheney seen him in the 3 1/2 years since then?)
3. Edwards claimed the “connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is tenuous at best, and in fact, Secretary of Defense said yesterday that he knows of no hard evidence of the connection.” Maybe if he hadn’t missed almost 70% of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee he would have known that he was making a false claim. (See: Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, 7/7/04, p. 346)
4. At one point I must have been hallucinating because I could have sworn I heard a Democratic Senator complain that the states were having to pay for an unfunded Federal mandate.
5. Assume for a moment that you know nothing about economics (in other words, pretend you’re a Democrat running for office) and that you have only the ability to add and subtract and make rough estimates. Edwards claims that he would raise taxes on everyone who makes over $200,000, give everyone else a tax cut, and pay half the deficit ($250 trillion) with the difference. Now what is the ratio of people who make less than 200K in relation to those who make more than that? Probably 2 to 1, right? So there are two people who get a tax cut for every person whose taxes are raised. Wouldn't every dollar that came in just go to pay for the middle class tax cut? If so, where does the extra $250 trillion come from? (And if you say that cutting the middle classes taxes raises the amount of revenue to the treasury then you can no longer be a Democrat.)
6. Don't Democratic voters get tired of having their intelligence insulted?
7. Was Edwards kidding when he proposed that a solution to high prescription drug prices was to allow them to be imported from Canada? Doesn't he realize that the drugs are only cheaper in Canada because they have price controls? Obviously, if we allow prescriptions to be imported from another country then our pharmaceutical companies have to send more to that country at the price control rate. What happens when the artificial demand exceeds the supply? Will the Kerry Administration force them to keep shipping the drugs to Canada so that we can have cheap imports? If so, then why not just skip the middle-man and implement price controls ourselves?*
8. How many prescription drugs could be bought with $600,000 of dodged Medicare taxes?
9. RE: #6. I guess the answer is “Obviously not.”
10. Imagine that you didn't know who was the President and who was the VP and that all you had to go on was the last two debates. Wouldn't you assume that Cheney was the President? I realize now why the Democrats used to joke that Cheney was really in charge. He's got that curmudgeonly Elder Statesman role down pat.
*Dr. Bob, a physician from Washington State, has more on why importing drugs from Canada is a terrible idea.
Update: Hugh Hewitt has a great scorecard for this debate.
Update 2: Nick Troester, who has always been an Edwards fan, adds: "I know one thing for sure now: John Edwards and John Kerry have a plan for America--a clear plan--and they're going to tell us about it because we deserve to know.
Update 3: This entry by Andrew Sullivan is simply baffling:
If last Thursday night's debate was an assisted suicide for president Bush, this debate - just concluded - was a car wreck. And Cheney was road-kill. There were times when it was so overwhelming a debate victory for Edwards that I had to look away.
Set aside for the moment all the silly talk about Andy being a "conservative." Is there really any reason to be impressed with his analysis on anything? I know he is a sharp writer but why does he come across as such a dull thinker? Am I missing something?
Joe,
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
"By the way, can we just skip the speculations about who “won?” A candidate either does an adequate job defending their position or they fail to present their case. Anyone who is waiting for a 90 minute display of sophistry to decide which side has the stronger position doesn’t deserve to vote in the first place."
This is the reason I drifted away from politics, etc. and on to other things. I think this is one of the most succinct statements of the frustration many people feel on the right and left when they see opinion poll politics drift back and forth like a schizophrenic tide. It WOULD be nice to see the issues presented and quit worrying about who had more debaters points or a better hair day.
Cheney answered part of 5. A large proportion of those making greater the $200k are S-Corporation owners, small businesses which are privately owned can be taxed as the owners personal income. They don't have access to the loopholes of the truly rich *and* don't have a big voting bloc like the middle class.
Oh, I work for one, so I caught Cheney's mention of that.
Edwards/Kerry are pushing (today) that the Global War on Terror = Global War on (just) al-Qaeda. If you buy into that, then their comments make sense (or at least more sense). If not, they don't.
Joe,
Your sense on point #5 is correct, and the numbers would not support Edwards' proposal, but not for the reasons you state. With a sufficiently progressive tax rate and with enough concentration of wealth, Edwards' proposal would work, even with the demographics you indicate. Your numbers are based on people, but what matters is where the money is. Having said that, there is not enough wealth in the hands of the +$200,000 per year folks to make the numbers work anyway.
God Bless,
Mark
Mark S.,
With a sufficiently progressive tax rate and with enough concentration of wealth, Edwards' proposal would work, even with the demographics you indicate.
Oh yeah, I agree. But I've been getting the impression that Kerry/Edwards would simply raise the taxes back to the pre-Bush tax cut levels. Based on those figures it just wouldn't add up.
I was also trying to think like a Democrat and rely solely on static analysis. For some reason they always assume that "rich" people will not adjust their behavior (i.e., take capital gains or stock options instead of income) to account for changes in economic realities (e.g., higher taxes).
Mark O writes
"A large proportion of those making greater the $200k are S-Corporation owners, small businesses which are privately owned can be taxed as the owners personal income."
Really? I know quite a few people who make over $200K annually but very few are S-corp owners. Where do you and Cheney get your data? What is a "large proportion" exactly?
Larry,
Where do you and Cheney get your data?
From the IRS.
What is a "large proportion" exactly?
While its difficult to determine which form people with high incomes used to file their taxes, we do know that 57% of those who filed as a corporations were S-Corps. (In 2004, 3,486,400 were S-Corps were filed out of 6,079,100 total corporation filings.)
Darn, I'm not on a windows machine so I can't open the spreadsheet Joe linked to. I seem to remember reading, though, that eliminating the Bush tax cut for those making over $200,000 would bring about $90 billion. I've asked several of my democratic friends where Kerry would come up with the $300 billion or so in cuts to balance the budget after taking back the tax cut from the $200k+ filers. I only get blank stares.
I think Cheney "won" in the sense that he did better than what a lot of people expected. But I think it was even enough to where it's going to split down party lines with both sides spinning their version for all it's worth (MSNBC had a poll up showing Edwards ~65% Cheney 35 %, I don't buy that at all). After the last debate there were some liberals who seemed to confuse Dick Cheney with George Bush. But Cheney is not a choker.
Cheney is a former CEO, a former SoD, and a former Congressman. That would place him among the most persuasive men in the world. He can look you straight in the eye and lie through his teeth-not necessarily a bad trait in diplomacy by the way.
He's also no slouch intellectually. Cheney is not the weakest link in this seasons GOP ticket and I think the democrats underestimated him. I thought he might do a tad bit better and really level Edwards, but he did pretty well I thought.
Having been in the same room on a couple occasions and having acknowledged the other's presence in a speech does not constitute having met.
Andrew Sullivan has gone off the deep end at this point. I stopped paying attention to him months ago when he let one issue shape his view on everything else, including what used to be his one issue.
Nick Troester's comment is interesting in that he's saying exactly what Edwards wants him to be saying, but we still haven't seen that plan that he says they're not hiding. So he's bought it hook, line, and sinker.
Jeremy,
Having been in the same room on a couple occasions and having acknowledged the other's presence in a speech does not constitute having met.
I agree and believe that is what Cheney meant. Unfortunately, if he tries to point that out it will be claimed that he “lied” and is trying to put a “spin” on it.
Andrew Sullivan has gone off the deep end at this point. I stopped paying attention to him months ago when he let one issue shape his view on everything else, including what used to be his one issue.
I think many conservatives were so ready to claim Sullivan as one of their own (“Look, we have gay guys too!”) that they failed to see that he really never had anything interesting to say.
Nick Troester's comment is interesting in that he's saying exactly what Edwards wants him to be saying, but we still haven't seen that plan that he says they're not hiding. So he's bought it hook, line, and sinker.
I think Nick was being facetious. Once again we find the Kerry campaign telling us they have a plan without every bother to tell us what it is.
I'm glad Cheney did well, I really am.
But as a Christian, I'm finding it hard to be all that enthusiastic about it.
First, it would have been a nice bonus if his best line of the debate had actually been true.
Secondly, when the Democrat candidate does a better job of defending the traditional definition of marriage than the Republican does, you know there's a problem on the Republican side.
John Edwards said marriage was "between a man and a woman," but that the President was "trying to divide America" by passing a Constitutional amendment saying exactly what Edwards had just affirmed. And rather than calling him on it, Cheney sat there and declined his rebuttal.
Heaven help Christian conservatives if something happens to Bush.
I'm as opposed to SSM as the next Christian-con, but it's short-sighted to think that's the only dog in this fight.
Not to be too hard on Andrew Sullivan but maybe Rom 1:21b-22 is starting to happen.
To use the wonderful line of a commentor on LaShawn Barber's site, it appeared to me "that boy from down south got beat like a rented mule."
It was hard for me to watch at times. I remember at least two occasions that Edwards was made speechless by Chaney's agressive remarks. I swear I saw his jaw drop once as he went momentarily glassy-eyed.
Anyone who could see Edwards as president of anything above the Rotary Club needs serious help, ALIMHO.
DS-
Don't be stupid. If it's "rank bigotry" to assert that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, then the "rank bigot" last night was John Edwards, representing John Kerry. Both candidates have affirmed this defintion of marriage, and Edwards is the only one who did so last night. If defining marriage as being between a man and a woman (as the marriage protection amendment and Kerry/Edwards do) is "discrimination," then Kerry/Edwards are "discriminators."
So are they bigots, or are they just disingenuous?
The fact is, everywhere the people have a chance to vote on the issue of homosexual "marriage" (before activist judges impose their own individual views by fiat), they sprint to the polls to express their disdain for it.
To say the Republicans should "downplay" that issue is laughable. Obviously Kerry and Edwards can read an opinion poll--and suddenly they've found a new need to disingenuously stress the traditional definiton of marriage themselves.
Joe writes
"2. "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.” (Unfortunately, its not exactly true. As Kos points out, the two were at a prayer breakfast together in February 2001. Still, why hasn't Cheney seen him in the 3 1/2 years since then?)"
It's becoming clear that Cheney met Edwards at least three times, including backstage on Russert's show.
What a bizarre lie. And on the same topic, Big Dick lies about a statement in Edwards "hometown" newspaper which didn't exist.
Joe writes
"While its difficult to determine which form people with high incomes used to file their taxes, we do know that 57% of those who filed as a corporations were S-Corps. (In 2004, 3,486,400 were S-Corps were filed out of 6,079,100 total corporation filings.)"
If it's so "difficult to determine," I wonder how Mark O. was able to state without qualification that "a large proportion of those making greater the $200k are S-Corporation owners."
About 3.5 million S-corps forms were filed. Presumably the number of people that own S-corps is lower because some people own two or more S-corps.
How many people in the United States earned $200K or more last year?
John in my opinion the GOP is far, far, more guilty of stirring the pot of Gay Bigotry than the Democrats. Mnay Republicans have gone on record as supporting an ammendment that will legally deny Gay Americans the same rights hetero Americans take for granted. Stripped of religious prejudice, the arguments are absurd. And they're disturbingly similar to the same arguments racists used against biracial marriage and which Hitler used to defend his hatred of Jews.
I've seen many folks from the religous right opine on the issue, and they range from people like me-who don't understand why anyone would give a hoot-to people who state they would like to see gays rounded up and executed; Amen. Or sent to a re-education camp (But ... I'm a CHEERLEADER!)
So purely on the Gay Rights issue alone, I'll go with the dems anyday. That's my opinion.
I don't want to get the thread off track here. I was complimenting the VP on his acceptance of his daughter's orientation. I admire Dick Cheney's courage on this.
If Cheney had truly never met Edwards, that would have been because Cheney only goes to the Capitol to lunch with the Republican caucus on Tuesdays.
You people are sheep.
No WMDs. End of story.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report.ap/index.html
So who's going to provide the freeper spin on this?
Re: #5 I may be wrong, but didn't we start with a surplus 4 years ago and now have an enormous deficit. What happened to the "Contract with America" balanced budget plank? We've simply replaced "tax and spend" with "don't tax and spend more". Can we sue 'em for breach of "Contract"?
The Isolated encounters Cheney and Edwards have had only underscores how little Edwards (and Kerry) have spent in the chamber doing actual work. The fact that Kedwards can only point to his swearing-in and a couple of extra-curricular events is pathetic. It underscores Edwards lack of stature beautifully. Kinda like a jilted girl who complains, "why haven't you called?"
wmd anyone?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40777
And Larry, w.r.t. the S-corp data. I'm sorry I didn't give references to back it up. I'll look for it tonight when I get a chance. I read it somewhere last week, but I don't recall right now where I did. It stuck, because as I noted, I'm an S-Corp employee and Kerry's plan will indirectly effect me, in that profits of this company are pretty close to my paycheck.
And if you know, "lots of people earning 200k+", well, you run in a far richer crowd than I. No value judgement intended there either way, just an observation.
All:
On the gay marriage thing, I've said this elsewhere but will repeat it here: the Kerry/Edwards position on gay marriage is bad, but the Bush position is far worse. And frankly, I understand the political necessity of the K/E position, even if I don't like it. Read between the lines and they're saying "Let's have gay marriage, let's just not call it 'marriage.'"
There are unfortunately enough anti-gay bigots on both sides of the aisle to swing the election if either ticket ever openly and unambiguously came out in favor of gay marriage.
All that said, I really don't see what the big deal is. If Adam marries Steve instead of Eve, this does nothing to diminish my marriage to my wife, and does far less to besmirch marriage in general than, say, Elizabeth Taylor or Billy-Bob Thornton or Britney Spears have done.
mikey:
The "Contract on America" is long since dead, and thankfully so. The balanced budget plank was probably the only one I liked.
DS Says; (regarding SSM)
"The GOP would be well advised to at least downplay that rank piece of bigotry in their platform, if not discard it entirely. It's butt ugly to a lot of people and probably directly hurts someone you know."
I wonder if Bush is already backtracking on SSM. There was no mention of SSM in the speech he gave in Wilkes Barre today. In fact he mentioned just about every other issue except SSM. And it was a long speech.
Or maybe he just trots it out when speaking to Christian conservatives. Hmmm..., he couldn't possibly be manipulating the issue to his benefit could he?
And during the VP debate, I really felt sorry for Cheney. It's a cruel situation he is in. And you notice that on every other issue or point that Edwards raised, he fought back like a determined pit-bull. But on SSM he folded his hand and was passive. It must be difficult for him to work with people on a daily basis who are so prejudiced and bigoted toward his own daughter. I was glad to see Mary Cheney and her spouse welcomed up on the stage with him afterward, unlike at the convention.
Here's the transcript of the Bush speech.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134660,00.html
I find it humerous that the Gay lobby has screamed so loud for so long that everyone just accepts it. God has destroyed cities for the sins that the left so oppenly embraces. If I'm a right wing bigot because I stand up for God's laws, then so be it.
"God has destroyed cities for the sins that the left so openly embraces."
I think God's accepted that he created gay people so He might as well get used to them. He's spending most of His time these days trying to drown Florida and Texas for voting Republican.
"John in my opinion the GOP is far, far, more guilty of stirring the pot of Gay Bigotry than the Democrats."
It depends on how you look at it-is it the FMA that stirs the pot, or people suing churches to ordain homosexuals?
"Many Republicans have gone on record as supporting an amendment that will legally deny Gay Americans the same rights hetero Americans take for granted. Stripped of religious prejudice, the arguments are absurd. And they're disturbingly similar to the same arguments racists used against biracial marriage and which Hitler used to defend his hatred of Jews."
Blah blah. That argument is lame, and over-used. It's easy to find some similarities between someone's arguments and someone else's-a lot of people say that the abortion lobby is secretly pro-eugenics due to a lot of Planned Parenthood's baggage. Does it prove anything? Not really.
Also, I've seen that chart, and its kind of stupid. 'It's never been done before!' Um, that wasn't true for inter-racial couples, and it is true for homosexuals. 'They'll be infertile!' Um, once again, not true for inter-racial couples, true for homosexuals.
Frankly, I need a much better argument for enacting historic changes to social institutions than 'it's mean to say differently, and what will it hurt?' Too many bad things have been snuck by in the last 40 years to let that argument have much effect on me.
The sad part of it all is that I was a convert to Christianity in my college years, at which point I had lesbian and homosexual friends that I never really felt the urge to divest-if the gay lobby didn't insist on using bizarrely offensive and insulting arguments, targeting children, attacking the church, and trying to get laws passed in the guise of judicial decisions, I'd be a lot more in favor of them.
I mean, people complain about the FMA. Do you have any idea what kind of social support you would need to pass it? If the people want FMA, they should have it. If they want gay marriage, then they should have it too, but let's see some popular support first-it really isn't there now.
That's what's so stupid about the constant, mounting pressure strategy-people like me that didn't give a crap four years ago are starting to think, more and more, that the 'gay marriage' thing is just a spearhead with a lot more behind it, and that its proponents don't give a rat's ass who disagrees with them. Worse, they dismiss their opponents as 'bigots', ratcheting up the rhetoric and thus making the whole issue a lot hotter than it needs to be.
Also, who are you to tell the GOP what they should have in their platform? It's there because the people they represent support it, not because they desperately seek the approval of sneering left-leaning bloggers everywhere. They don't care about that, and they shouldn't.
"I've seen many folks from the religious right opine on the issue, and they range from people like me-who don't understand why anyone would give a hoot-to people who state they would like to see gays rounded up and executed; Amen. Or sent to a re-education camp (But ... I'm a CHEERLEADER!)"
Yeah, and the longer church people get demonized over the whole thing, the more and more hostile they will become, and so the more of them will want to do vicious, unscriptural things. Hell, if the proponents did things slowly, winning people over more and more with their quiet dignity, etc, instead of their willingness to try to force the issue in anyway possible, without bothering with that little inconvenience of popular support, they'd probably have their marriage in a generation or three. Instead, they're just hardening the opposition. It's stupid.
Oh, and you do know that movie's a comedy, right?
I find it humerous that the Gay lobby has screamed so loud for so long that everyone just accepts it. God has destroyed cities for the sins that the left so oppenly embraces. If I'm a right wing bigot because I stand up for God's laws, then so be it.
That's one thing you and Al Aaeada are in complete agreement sean.
But Civil Unions are fine. You see if we allow Gays the same advantages married folks enjoy, but only refer to it as Civil Unions, God is so dang stupid he won't see the gay folks and he won't destroy any cities ....
David Scott writes
"people like me that didn't give a crap four years ago are starting to think, more and more, that the 'gay marriage' thing is just a spearhead with a lot more behind it"
Yeah, "people like you" are really really paranoid, David. That is obvious.
Pray tell, what is the "lot more" that's behind giving gay people who get married the identical governmental benefits that heterosexual married people are granted????
DS and Larry,
I suppose we can assume that both of you support polygamy, right? Because, you know, if you didn't we might conclude that you were bigots.
That one jumped out at me as well - for more details on just how bad an idea that really is, take a gander at my blog post on this:
Drugs from Canada
Thanks for a nice post on the debates.
Well now that you bring it up, Polygamy is fine with me Joe; as long as it's between consenting adults and no one is being 'sold' into it as happens allegedly in some Fundamentalist Nations as well as in Mormon Societies. Outside of that I have no moral objections to it.
I don't know how to handle it legally though, if it were allowed to be construed as some kind of collective 'Marriage' of the group. It would take an awful lot of novel legal work to deal with 'divorce', 'propert ownership' and 'custody' issues. Perhaps some of the hard liner Mormons could help you there. They may have some kind of system for that kind of stuff.
However we require no such legal work to allow marriage between two consenting adults to take place because that body of law and policy already exists.
As a matter of morality, polygamy doesn't bother me as long as it's between consenting adults. And the fact is, many adults engage in long term sexual and domestic relations with multiple persons, all of whom are aware of the set-up. No big deal. Should people be allowed to engage in such relationships? Of course.
BUT now we come to what rights should be granted to each of the people in a polygamist relationship. Should each of multiple husbands in a polygamist relationship get equal marriage rights? I have no idea. I haven't spent much time thinking about it. In any event, issues aren't nearly as straightforward as they are with gay marriages, in which case the only difference is that in one case the two parties are opposite sex and in the other, the two parties are the same sex.
Furthermore, the percentage of gay people who choose to enter into long term relationships with straight people is, as far as I know, the same as the percentage of straight people who choose to enter into long term relationships. That is, the number of gay and straight people who desire to be part of a polygamist relationship is really really small and there is no evidence that I'm aware of that suggest some people are "born polygamists" or "born monogamists".
That's the crux of the biscuit: discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, Joe, which is an inherent trait (yes, that controversy is as dead as the debate over whether the earth is 10,000 years old). Right now in the United States, governments (State goverments and the Feds) give special privileges to married people and their children only if they are heterosexual. It's totally bogus and at the end of the day, regardless of what we call the committed relationships of gay people, they're going to get the same marriage rights governments grant to heterosexuals. There is no LOGICAL reason to withhold those rights from married gay couples and their children.
If you can come up with one logical reason why a child of a gay couple should be denied recognition by the government of the legitimacy of her family, please share it with us all.
Just wait and see. It won't be long until the Supreme's get a hold of a case with some outrageous facts with respect to discrimination which makes the issue ripe for deciding. I was right about WMDs and I'll be proven right about this issue as well.
DS and Larry,
I appreciate the responses. Not that I think anyone doubted it before, but at least we have the two of you on record showing just how far out of the mainstream you are.
I do, however, give you credit for being consistent. Wrong, but consistent.
Larry,
Here is where I got that and I again I admit that I didn't check all the figures.
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2004/10/kerrys_tax_plan.html
Bottom line, is that there are some 470,000 S-Corporation which would be affected by the tax increase. I poked around on taxpolicycenter.org and found that there were about 4 million people filing indicating an excess of $200k. So on the face of it my claim of a "greater" proportion is off, however, I will weasel out if in some regard by noting that the employees of the S-Corps are also affected by the tax increase (aka me). S-Corps have less than 50 employees but, one would have to get an average number per S-Corp. The S-Corp I work for has about 18. If the average was 10 or greater the number affected by the tax increase would be greater from the S-Corps than the "wealthy individuals". However it falls out, Kerry is still increasing the taxation on a sector of the middle class which he is claiming to protect.
~DS~,
About a year ago, when this SSM stuff hit the fan, I was joking with friends that since the SSM arguments all work equally well for incest and polygamy it will never fly in the hallowed halls our government. This is because it provides the ideal loophole to avoid the inheritance tax (just marry all your beneficiaries). It won't fly with the suits because they are *always* loath to abandon a tax.
"However it falls out, Kerry is still increasing the taxation on a sector of the middle class which he is claiming to protect."
Well, this seems pretty attenuated to me but I appreciate the clarification. I'll have to try that taxpolicycenter.org site in the future. I spent about fifteen minutes on the web searching for the info re the number of people earning over $200K and came up empty-handed! The IRS page was not much help, to say the least ...
I doubt most Americans, if pressed, could come up with a cogent moral reason to condemn polygamy, other than "because it's wrong" or "because God says so."
Mark what I wish we could figure out it is how to allow smaller companies to take advantage of the same group rates on health insurance large firms enjoy. I work for an S & P 500 firm. My health insurance for pretty good coverage for my wife and I is about 300 bucks a month including what the firm pays.
My wife is an accounting IT Manager for an S-Corp, and her rate for herself alone would be greater than that. I don't know how to go about accomplishing this and I realize the issue is complex. But it seems to me that would alleviate a lot of the concerns over health care, as well as providing a benefit to owners of such businesses and their employees.
Joe writes
"Not that I think anyone doubted it before, but at least we have the two of you on record showing just how far out of the mainstream you are."
Heh, well, when it comes to issues relating to sex, the "mainstream" in America is exceptionally hysterical and hypocritical. I'm proud to be distinguished from that nipple-hating holier-than-thou crowd of uptight neo-Puritans, especially when they dare to assume politician form.
But you might want to think about reasoned answers, rooted in hard evidence, to the conundrum I presented above because I'm quite certain that is the way it's going to get handed to the Supremes.
"If you can come up with one logical reason why a child of a gay couple should be denied recognition by the government of the legitimacy of her family, please share it with us all."
I didn't know there was such a thing. Is Elton John pregnant? I thought he was just turning into a porker, no pun intended.
Larry my poor understanding is that it's more complicated than being hard wired with polygamy Vs monogamy. Humans are sexually dimorphic-there are morphological differences between males and females outside of primary sexual characteristics. In nature, primates who are the most sexually dimorphic tend to be polygamous and vice-versa.
This sets of the battle of the sexes. The females can be assured that child carries her genetics material, the male can only think that's the case. It is adaptive for women, who can only bear so many young per unit time and who must invest a great deal of physiological resources into each child, to have a monogamous relationship with a successful provider and protector. it is in the adaptive interests of males however to impregnate as many females as possible. This is even reflected in most human cultures in which multiple wives are common but rarely are multiple husbands found, or in which there is an existing cultural double standard on promiscuity of young males Vs young females.
Humans are about midway in terms of sexual dimporhism on the primate scale between Gorillas, who are full blown alpha-male harem scocieties, to Hylobates (Gibbons) which are serial monogamists. The general consensus is that we retain some dimorphic characteristics from our ealrier ancestors which were closer to chimps/gorillas than to Hylobates reflecting perhaps an earlier state of alpha-male or alpha male group dominated in our 'Afarensis holo-type' hominid ancestors.
For not the first time, I have no idea what the hell DS is talking about.
Joe:
If all the people involved in a polygamous relationship are sane, consenting adults, I don't see why it's the state's business to tell them they can't do it, or why the state shouldn't recognize it, if it's going to be in the business of recognizing marital relationships at all.Joe:
Oh, and I notice you don't bother to address why DS and LL are "wrong" about polygamy. You merely imperially assert that they are.
If I'm not mistaken, LL even directly challenged you to come up with a logical (and I assume he means purely secular) reason why gay marriage should be forbidden, and you ignored the challenge. Yes, I know in the past you've cited all sorts of less-than-flattering statistics about homosexuals and promiscuity, but even then you never addressed whether or not that promiscuity is due even in part to the fact that they aren't allowed to engage in government-sanctioned long-term monogamous relationships.
"Joe says:
"I suppose we can assume that both of you support polygamy, right? Because, you know, if you didn't we might conclude that you were bigots."
I wrote something long and insulting over this bit of tripe, but since it's off-topic, I'll post it instead on my site. www.gyrphmon.com
Feel free to stop by and see what a vented spleen looks like.
For not the first time, I have no idea what the hell DS is talking about.
I'm sorry for wording that poorly Kevin. It's an offtopic subject, so I don't want to elaborate here. It has to do with human and primate evolution.
Oh.
So why was it, that when I read it, I felt kinda horny?
Joe,
Forget Larry and DS's admitted support of voluntary polygamous marriages. What's much more significant is that Larry is the first person on the Left to finally admit that Florida voted Republican in 2000!
I'd say that's progress. There may be hope that they'll engage with reality yet.
"VP Debate: Preconceptions Count"
In the debate on Tuesday night between Senator John Edwards and Vice President Dick Cheney, the way the candidates are perceived was a major factor in how the debate victor was determined. The perception of the public did not really get factored in to how the debate would be received and therefore rated; the fact that most of the country does not like or trust Dick Cheney and views him as a political war profiteer and a peddler of fear hurts any assertion he makes. John Edwards has come across as a down to Earth, optimistic, and very likeable person. Dick Cheney on the other hand has an approval rating in the 30 percentile. Even if Dick took Edwards to school last night (which he may have on foreign policy but domestically Edwards dominated), the majority of the American public does not trust the man and is sick of his exploitations of 9/11 and his exploitations of fear in our citizens.
When it comes down to it, Cheney did win the foreign policy debate with Edwards on the surface. Cheney gets a "B+" on the superficial level of one-liners, but a "D-" on truth and accuracy. It will be very tough to convince the voting public that we shared 50% of the casualties over in Iraq when the Pentagon numbers show the proportion at around 88.5%. Cheney wants to include the Iraqi people that we killed with our "smart bombs" and those that stood in line outside Iraqi security head quarters. I'd like to see Cheney get away with that assumption in a room full of American soldiers and the family members that have lost a loved one in Iraq. As for Edwards, he gets a "C" overall on the foreign side. Some refinement is still needed, and the Kerry/Edwards team needs to emphasize the learning aspect of so called flip-flopping and if you stick to failure, you are only left with failure.
The domestic debate was clearly won by John Edwards. Edwards can connect with the everyday American that has struggled during these administration's failed policies at home and abroad. All Cheney can do is read skewed numbers and impersonal stats that don't take in account that most Americans are making less now, and life is more difficult. Cheney came across as completely disconnected; he can read as many indicators, percentages and economic statistics, but if someone has just been kicked off unemployment, has been struggling to earn a livable wage, and is in financial desperation, Cheney's arguments come across as cold-hearted.
The Bush / Cheney ticket as a whole is completely disconnected from this reality. And when Cheney threw in the cheap shot about never meeting Edwards before, and then right after the debate the news outlets were posting the shot of Cheney and Edwards sitting next to one another at a February 2001 prayer breakfast where Cheney personally thanked Senator Edwards, Cheney came across as either completely dishonest or the man had a senior moment.
Edwards gets an "A-" domestically due to his ability to connect with the average American and his ability to show empathy, compassion, and an evident plan to solve the health care, education, and economic problems that face our country. Cheney gets a "D+" merely because the man appeared halfway human in terms with his fatherly statements about his daughter. That was the only positive moment for Cheney on the domestic front, and an issue most Republicans are uncomfortable with.
Overall I believe this was not John Edward's prime venue, but he held his own and proved that he can go toe to toe with a heavy-weight and not get knocked out. On the other hand, Edwards left the event with some verbal bruises, but managed to stay on his feet and land a few solid, clean shots on Cheney. The debate was a real fist fight, brutal, and with no clear winner. Cheney came off much more competent then Bush did last week and therefore reinforced the puppet-master theory many of us already had. The debate only added fuel to this heated campaign battle, and the debate on Friday gained an even brighter slot in this election's spotlight.
Tony, well, not quite.
Cheney could have remembered meeting Edwards, maybe not. I have met Larry Bird and told him congratulations on winning the championship against the Lakers. I've met Ted Turner just to be able to say that I did. Both men would be forgiven for not being able to remember me, or the moment.
And if the statistics weren't good, why would Cheney use them? Sure, there are some unemployed. Always are. 5.4% currently, lower than in 1996 when Bill Clinton ran for re-election. And, the Democrats are simply wrong when they say that the standard of living for Americans is FALLING. Ridiculous. Democrats also are wrong about the jobs--the Labor Department does not include the self-employed among their statistics so, technically, I suppose that when I left my job to come here, I became unemployed too.
I feel Cheney won the debate all along, and I'm not alone. Most polls, CBS excluded, had Cheney winning by a wide margin. But we deserved a better performance from the top of the ticket than we got, from either side.
I just don't see how anyone could have watched that entire debate and come away thinking Edwards 'won' despite what some of the polls say. I'm talking purely about the debate itself. Not the post debate spin or any corrections Cheney is getting hit with in the media.
I've seen some ratios like
Edwards 70%
Cheney 35 %
that can only be explained by the idea that maybe a bunch of teenage gals were watching, with the sound turned off, and thought Edwards was 'dreamy'.
Well, I watched the entire debate twice. Once surfing through all the channels: NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CSPAN [the best way to watch the debates], CNN, and FoxNews (not CBS), and once on PBS when they replayed it afterwards. After carefully considering as many factors that I could, I honestly believe Cheney came across stronger on foreign policy and Edwards won on domestic issues. But now we are finding out how dishonest Cheney was. On top of this, after doing some research into the Senate's Acting Presidents on Tuesdays for the last four years:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html
Cheney has only been acting president TWICE: on November 12, 2002 and January 7, 2003. (Talk about AWOL)
In fact, Senator Edwards has been acting president of the Senate just as many times: on October 16, 2001 and March 5, 2002.
Senator Stevens has been the Acting President of the Senator the most at 42 times since January 30, 2001.
Cheney should not even bring up attendance records if his is not impressive at all. The man has been down in the bunker too long!
DS, I'm concerned about the methodology of any poll that says 70% to 35%, regardless of who won. Did that one come from Yogi Berra?
Kevin it might have been CNN or maybe MSNBC I saw that on ... those numbers have to be padded somehow. I mean I realize there is no way to objectively measure who won in the formal sense ... Maybe I'm just that out of whack, but the commentators on most of the stations I've watched seem to feel the same way.
AOL had a more reasonable poll result in my view a last night or so. It was pretty tight but showed Cheney with a large enough lead that it wasn't a statistical tie. That seems more reasonable to me.
That wasn't my point. 70% and 35% is 105%.
To paraphrase one of my favorite Berra-isms:
70% thought Cheney won, 35% thought Edwards won, and the remaining 26% weren't sure.
The polls have been showing victory for both. The debate was a draw. I can't wait for Friday's debate. This is the debate Bush did not want to do; we'll see if he is ill prepared again and only able to regurgitate redundant one-liners and stumble all over himself.
Look, Edwards had both the intent and the means to have met dick cheney. He may not be able to prove that they have run into each other in the past few years, but, the repubs cannot prove that they did not see each other. If you believe WMDS must still be in Iraq or that Saddam's intent to obtain WMD's is significant, then you have to side w/ Edwards on this one.
Look, Cheney lied. He met Edwards before. The issue is not how often they have been in the same room together. Cheney said that he had NEVER MET Edwards before the debate. That was a LIE. Your guy LIED. YOur other guy is a moron. God save us from the followers of the stupid and the evil.
Well said Sarah,
Any good Christian should have a tough time voting for an administration that lies so often, sends our countrymen to death so easily, and looks out for the wealthy and greedy before the poor and needy. Would Jesus bomb Iraq? Would Jesus Lie to his countrymen so often? Would Jesus cut programs for the poor and offer no bid contracts to Halliburton... It is scary and yet telling that so many Evangelicals are demons in the Bush satanic plan.
Not quite sure that Jesus is a big fan of Saddam Hussein, though. Unlike you.
C'mon now. The WH is expert at playing this kind of game. I don't really see it as the fault of someone who is religous for believing the President when he tells them they're in danger. YOu're supposed to be able to trust the President on matters so dire.
They fooled me with the Iraq deal for months and I'm an atheist.
MyBoss is a bit extreme, but Kevin W did not address his/her point:
The Bush administration has the WRONG priorities.
OK, I'll address MyBoss's point:
I don't know what Jesus would have done. I'm an evangelical, but don't think I'm a demon or that Bush has a Satanic plan. How do you his plan is Satanic? And what do you do about the old saw, "a house divided against itself cannot stand", when saying that evangelicals and demons are one and the same?
LOL ... A Satanic Plan MyBoss? Someone's been watching too much Damien III.