PeterDavid.net

It's typical of the incumbent to want to limit debates - for the reason Bartlett's advisor's state: limit exposure and limit "equal" treatment.

My favorite West Wing parallel is from Josh when Leo asked him to go see Governor Barlett speak:

The Democrats aren't going to nominate another liberal, academic, former Governor from New England. I mean, we're dumb, but we're not that dumb.

[B]REAL WORLD: Bush constantly refers to Kerry as "my opponent" rather than by name. Either he doesn't care if it makes him look dotty, doesn't want to give Kerry additional publicity, or he really can't remember Kerry's name.[/B]

I'm sure he has a vague idea what Kerry's name is, but his advisors are likely terrified he'll manage to mispronounce it six ways from Sunday.

West Wing: Everyone thinks Bartlett screwed up by saying his opponent is stupid (my words, his were more eloquent) when they thought the camera and sound had been shut off, but weren't. Bartlett knew it all the time and it was a deliberate ploy to get the idea out there.
Real World: A few months ago Kerry was "overheard" talking to his confidantes saying something to the effect of "These guys are such crooks ..." I've never seen it referred to except during the next news cycle and then it died. I thought it was also deliberate. "The West Wing Gambit", if you will.

Here's one of those "funny you should mention that" moments. I did notice Bush referring to Kerry as "my opponent", and it was because of that West Wing episode. On the other hand, let's face it - Kerry is no Bartlett. Then again, who is? How truly sad is it that the best and most inspiring politicians of our age are all fictional characters?

Adam,
You repeat the words of my wife, my work colleagues, and everyone that I've heard comment about the show.
How true! How wise!
Tom

Man, I was thinking about the "debate" parallel just yesterday!

If only Kerry could produce really good Aaron Sorkin dialog, I'd _pray_ that they drop down to one debate!

Peter,
Re: Number of Debates
President Clinton in his 1996 re-election campaign used the same tactics and ended up only doing two debates. The incumbent has every right to do what they think is best. Unless you are going to condemn Clinton for doing the same thing (which I seriously doubt you will), find something else to hate Bush about.

During the last election, I remember Bush was reluctant to debate. Clinton may have wanted only two debates, but there is a huge difference between "can and won't" and "can't and won't". Im not making any claims about his intelligence, but I'd like to see it come through in more candid scenarios than in pre-scripted speeches. Most of Bush's non-scripted media events are busts.

"Real World: A few months ago Kerry was "overheard" talking to his confidantes saying something to the effect of "These guys are such crooks ..." I've never seen it referred to except during the next news cycle and then it died. I thought it was also deliberate. "The West Wing Gambit", if you will."

Yeah, now that you mention it, I recall having the same thought. That Kerry accidentally-on-purpose said that.

"Unless you are going to condemn Clinton for doing the same thing (which I seriously doubt you will), find something else to hate Bush about."

You may want to brush that chip off your shoulder. Either that or haul out actual words I wrote that indicate condemnation or hatred.

I don't hate Bush. I hate his advisors.

PAD

I find a better parallel to "Wag the Dog"

Actually, I can't wait till the debates. I know people's memories get fuzzy, but Bush handled himself just fine 4 years ago. Were they home runs? Nope. But he was up against a man who had 8 years in the White House to prepare for the debate, was riding an incredible economy, and was the VP of a VERY popular president, and he more than held his own.

I think Kerry is a bit more articulate, and intelligent, but Bush speaks to people a little better, and engages the audience more. It will be interesting to see how they play together.

And valid or not, many people believe Kerry to be inconsistant in his viewpoints, and a flip flopper. Bush just has to end every statement with "And what's your stance today?", and will gain headway with the viewers...

Jerry

>Most of Bush's non-scripted media events
>are busts.

Though an exaggeration, there is no doubt that Bush in "media" events is not the master like Clinton or perhaps Reagan. But in personal encounters that are away from the media spotlight, there is a large number of testimonials from a wide range of people of Bush's ability to connect. Coming from Texas, I have 2 friends who have known Bush and talked to him in numerous settings.

Another example is one reported by a parents at a military graduation (I forget now which one). Clinton would spend perhaps 15 minutes with the top 10 graduates and leave. Bush spent an hour talking to as many as he could. Does that make Bush good and Clinton evil? Of course not. But when you listen to the people who spent time with him, you realize Bush is no puppet. He is not a master orator, but neither is he the stupid idiot some choose to suggest.

Which leads me to PAD's comments: Interesting thoughts, but ultimately a non issue for most people. I attended Bush's rally here in Cedar Rapids a week ago. He alternated between saying "Kerry" and "my opponent" (yes, he did say, "my opponent" more). He spoke clearly and articulated things well. (Of course, it was the day after his convention speach, so he had practiced it the night before! His stump speach was probably 75% of what he said at the convention.)

Personally, I think Bush will hold his own at the debate. And if the democratic side continues to implode with false documents, I think Bush won't have any problem if he just comes out even in a debate.

Jim in Iowa

Peter,
Sorry about accusing you of hating Bush. I'm just use to the "anyone but Bush" crowd being anti-intellectual and blind with hatred. I actually love thoughtful debate, but seldom find a dem who is open minded enough to allow some of their closely held suppositions to be challenged. I actually think the Vice Presidential debate is the one to watch. After watching Lieberman and Cheyney debate I kept thinking we should just make those two president and vice presidient and ditch Gore and Bush. Unfortunately, I feel the democrats have drifted so far to the left that reasonable persons like Lieberman belong more in the Republican party now. The Democrats now actively embrace the black helicopter crowd endorsing conspiracy theories and spew some of the most vicious dripping-with-venom hate speech I wouldn't want kids to hear. You may or may not be in the "Lieberman" wing of the party, but if your are, that is slowly becoming a lonely place to be.

Case in point:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6195988

At the very least, Bartlett would come up with a better slogan than "W stands for Wrong."

The Kerry campaign--brought to you by the number 2.

The Democrats now actively embrace the black helicopter crowd endorsing conspiracy theories and spew some of the most vicious dripping-with-venom hate speech I wouldn't want kids to hear.

You say this, yet the Repubs certainly aren't any better.

Not when Cheney is saying "Vote for the other guy, and we'll get attacked."

Besides, Cheney has a potty mouth anyways. ;)

Craig Reis said:
"Not when Cheney is saying "Vote for the other guy, and we'll get attacked."

Like hell he did. For some shocking...SHOCKING reason in a non-biased media that would provide forged documents damning Bush and claim Republicans booed when told Clinton was in the hospital, for some shocking reason, most media only quoted the portion of the speech that suited them. The full quote is as follows (and I've seen it punctuated different ways):

“We’re now at that point where we’re making that kind of decision for the next 30 or 40 years, and it’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we’ll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we’re not really at war.”

He wasn't saying that if Kerry gets elected we'll get attacked, he said that if we choose the wrong guy, and we get attacked, then the difference between Kerry and Bush is that Bush will react as if it were a war, while Kerry would go back to the pre 9-11 thinking of "criminal act." The media, for the most part, ended the quote at "devastating from the standpoint of the United States," IN THE MIDDLE OF A CLAUSE. Just to get their point across. Like I said, shocked. SHOCKED.

http://patterico.com/archives/002686.php

Adam Neace,
"How truly sad is it that the best and most inspiring politcians odf our age are all fictional characters?"

No. How truly sad is it that most of us don't pay attention and just assume that "all politicians are crooks". Many politicians, from ward leader to township supervisor to the President are worthy of some level of admiration.
If you can't find a politician you admire, you simply aren't looking.
Ironic that Hollywood makes billions of dollars framing issues in black-and-white terms. Yet when Bush (or anyone else) shows that same "dramatic" resolve, they're viewed as a cowboy, and when issues like educaton and the environment are not settled overnight, they start hoping for a fictional character to come to life.

I'm sorry, Charles, I read the full quote, and the media that you so loathe for its alleged biases got it exactly right, while you, seeping bias from every pore, got it exactly wrong.

Cheney's phrasing could not have been more precise. He put forward a specific "if/then" phrase. "Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we’ll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we’re not really at war.” He says it right there. Vote for Kerry and "the danger is we'll get hit again." A vote for Kerry will practically ensure another attack, and this time it will be even worse because Kerry will--I don't know. Fail to attack some country that didn't attack us.

It's classic Bush/Cheney language of fear. IN a sixty-five word run-on sentence, fully one-eighth of the words he uses are chosen to frighten or alarm. "Danger." "Attack." "Terrorists." "Hit" (twice) "Devastating." "Criminal." "War." IF you vote this way, THEN the DANGER is we'll be HIT (ATTACKED) AGAIN and it will be even worse." Cheney said exactly what he wanted to say, put forward the message that he put out. He got people alarmed and then pointed the finger at Kerry and said, in effect, "And if you elect this guy, it'll be even worse, and it'll be on your head, because you made the wrong choice."

You're pulling the old "media bias" card and trying to reinvent and reinterpret what he said to give him the benefit of the doubt. Cheney, who pulled one word out of a lengthy statement by Kerry and claimed that Kerry wanted to fight a more "sensitive" war, doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. He gets scrutinized for what he said. And what he did NOT say is the conditional interpretation that you're so generously providing him. If he wanted to say, "If you make the wrong choice in November, then in the event we are attacked again, Kerry won't have the right mindset," that would be one thing. We wouldn't even be having this discussion.

But he didn't say that. Instead he linked Kerry and another assault in the public's mind, and even now is claiming he didn't intend to do that, just as he and Bush managed to link 9/11 and Saddam to such a degree that 71% of Americans thought Saddam masterminded the attack on the Twin Towers and subsequently claimed, "We are shocked, SHOCKED, that the American public thinks that." He and Bush bank on the notion that the vast majority of Americans are simply too stupid to know they're being manipulated, and as long as intelligent people such as yourself are willing to give them a free pass whenever they're called on it because you're convinced the media is biased, you're playing right into their hands.

And need I point out that the "pre-9/11 mindset" that Cheney mentions is the one that was possessed by the Bush/Cheney administration as they ignored the call to create a Department of Homeland Security or couldn't be bothered to focus on bin Laden.

PAD

Peter, are you saying Illinois' own senatorial candidate, and rising political "rock star", Barack Obama (whom, after he gave the Democratic Convention keynote speech, as possibly the first African American president, one with the oratorial skills of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, without the personal "baggage" they brought to the table, but I digress ...)

... is STUPID?

Just because after having agreed to six debates against Jack "I wanted to go to an 'avante gard' club with my then-wife, Jeri" Ryan before Ryan bowed out, but now that former presidential candidate and ambassador, Alan "Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter is a self hedonist and Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for Obama" Keyes has moved here from Maryland, he's changed it to only three?

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. The Illinois Republican party didn't chose the primary candidate who was second, Jim Oberweis (who is a millionaire owner and founder of Oberweis Dairy, a popular statewide chain of ice cream stores and who entered the race with major name recognition and appeal due to that) because during the primaries he ran some tough anti-illegal immigration ads that drove up his negatives even among Republicans and had reportedly ruffled the feathers of the Administration's goal of easing up on South American immigration. Months later, the local party chose Keyes who made the comments about Dick Cheney's daughter the DAY Cheney was suppose to speak at the Republican convention. Oh the irony.

"Peter, are you saying Illinois' own senatorial candidate, and rising political "rock star", Barack Obama.... is STUPID?"

I dunno. Am I? Did Obama say he believed that Saddam was behind 9/11? 'Cause I never brought up matters of stupidity when mentioning the debates.

PAD

"How truly sad is it that the best and most inspiring politicians of our age are all fictional characters?"

Why should that be sad or surprising? Fictional; characters always look better than everyone else because they have writers who get to spend many hours refining their witticisms, while the rest of us have to come up with something off the cuff.

Believe me, if I had PAD or Joss Whedon following me around with pens and post it notes and the ability to freeze time I'd be a regular fountain of Great Comebacks. As is, I'm usually forced to fall back on such classics as "No, YOU suck!"

re Cheney:

The sentance is one that can be interpreted different ways. However, if the intent was asx clear as PAD belives it is strange that the media saw fit to shorten it in a way that removes any and all ambiguity.

Given recent media misrepresentation of quotes by Bush and other republicans and the resulting embarassment they caused (at least to those who value the idea of an honest press) I would hope by now that people have learned there's no profit in chopping off words. If the point can't be made with the full quote maybe it's not really the point you think it is.

Jerome,
The difference between Hollywood and Bush is that they are supposed to entertain and bring stories to life. A leader of our country should look at the whole picture, including the shades of grey, to make an informed decision. Black and white thinking does not allow the most info, therefore the best decisions cannot be made. Your argument does nothing to defend Bush. The stories he tells have resulted in a needless war in Iraq and the deaths of American servicemen. There is nothing ironic about using "black and white" to make poor decisions that affect so many. Hollywood has not sent one serviceman to his or her death.

Now that you're back from DragonCon, are you ever going to answer my question from about a week or two back?

Here, I'll repeat my entire post:

First I asked: "Had the Republicans attempted to shut down Moore's crockumentary, which shows a "reckless disregard for the truth" (as many websites have documented), you would've been OK with it?"

Then Peter David said: You mean the way that Jeb Bush pressured Disney into dumping the film lest they suddenly find various tax advantages stripped from them in Florida? Or could you be referring to the way the GOP went after the Reagan biopic and drove it off network TV? Like that? You do realize those films found an audience in spite of GOP interference, not because of lack of it.

That doesn't answer my question at all. I even worded my questions very carefully as to not attempt to put any words in your mouth.

First, the Reagan biopic did had a "reckless disregard for truth." It had the Reagans saying lines that they never did say in an effort to paint them in a negative light. Even then, the Republicans in the government did nothing to shut that movie down. CBS folded under pressure of boycotting from customers and adversiters and put it on a pay-only channel instead.

Second, got any proof for the claim that Jeb Bush tried to get Disney to dump F9/11 by threatening legal problems? I'd like to see a link on that. Preferably from somebody NOT Michael Moore.

And finally ... if I were to accept your version, which I don't, here we have two so-called examples of Republicans actively trying to prevent movies they disagree with from being aired. Both movies, without question, show a "reckless disregard for the truth" which you seem to feel is not protected by the First Amendment, as reflected by your earlier comments regarding you being OK with the Democrats trying to prevent TV stations from airing SBV's political ads by threatening legal action (and this we know to be true, we have the memo on record) and attempting to prevent "Unfit for Command" from being published.

Are you then perfectly OK with the Republicans attempting to shut down the Reagan biopic and Moore's F9/11? Do you think it is not a First Amendment issue at all?

And if you want me to leave your blog, just say it. Say "Starving Writer, please leave my blog and never come back" and I will do so. Or ban me. It is your weblog to do as you see fit.

There has been a reckless disregard for truth, but the direction it's coming from is the White House. You may not agree with Moore or the Reagan documentary, but the lies coming from this administration are far more dangerous to us than whatever untruths you think may be coming from a biographical entertainment and a factbased opinion of a movie. We went to war on false info, which has been documented by persons from within this administration. Although they tried to discredit the people who worked for them and were praised until they wrote critical books, that campaign was not wholly successful. Our economy is in shambles and our deficit is outragous. There are many fewer jobs than when they took office. They've cut funds for many necessary programs and given tax breaks we can't afford. They haven't even mentioned healthcare until the convention, except a medicare prescription bill which will cost more money for drugs than before. While all we hear bout is 9/11. ALL THE TIME. Everything, according to this administration is a result of and the fault of 9/11. Which happened on THEIR WATCH. There are more terrorists in the world today than when they took office. They diverted our attention from the real villain to go after a tyrant who was not a real threat to us. We have neither the resources or the man-power to police the world. They have alienated most of the world in their arrogance to go to war with the wrong enemy. And don't talk to me about the coalition of the willing. Some of those countries were coerced by threats of withholding aid and most of them have no armies. Half of them sent support in the form of a letter saying so, because they have nothing else. Why do I keep harping on these subjects? I am hoping someone will be able to explain why, in the face of all the evidence, they still support this administration. Why do you believe utterly in a group which has misled us again and again, but think anyone who tells the documented truth has an "agenda"? The only agenda I can see is that people want a president who works for the country instead of special interests, right wing religious fundamentalists, and who has divided the country like no one else in my lifetime.

The more I read Cheney's speech, the more obvious it is that one can interpret it sevarl ways. Which means that his defenders can't really complain when folks like PAD take the opportunity to use it against him. (Of course it also means that folks like PAD shouldn't act too upset when others interpret it differently but that may be expecting too much.).

Even a Cheney foe like Julian Sanchez over at Reason had to admit:

"Much as it pains me to defend Dick Cheney, it seems to me as though his alleged "scare tactics" vis a vis the threat of terror if we make the "wrong choice" on Election Day rest on a straightforward misreading of his statement. Here's what most of the articles I've seen are quoting:

Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.

Here's the full relevant statement from the transcript:

Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

Most of the reports either omit the rest of the quotation entirely, or append it elsewhere, as though they weren't part of one long, multi-clause sentence. As I read this, he's not saying the danger is that if we elect Kerry, then the danger is that we'll be attacked. He's saying that if we elect Kerry and we're attacked, then the danger is that we'll treat it as a criminal act rather than an act of war. And in context, it's actually pretty transparent that this is what Cheney intended. So transparent once you look at the full transcript, in fact, that I wonder whether some of the misreading isn't deliberate, either as a partisan tactic or an attempt to generate a news story."

So it's not as though one must be either stupid or just willing to be manipulated.

Personally, I think that's why so many of us end up on the conservative side--it doesn't require or encourage us to think of the opposition as necessarily fools or villains.

Starving Writer, I have not responded to you because you are not worth the time to respond to, to ask to leave, or to ban. I believe nothing you say. Not your claims. Not your e-mail apologies. Nothing. And this is why, from Compuserv, as you said you tried to paint me as a bigot to the National Association for the Deaf:

Subject: Re: PAD a bigot? It's all in the books!
Date: 2/2/01 4:16 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Starving Writer
Message-id:

Padguy:>>Does it bother you at all that you lied through your teeth?

No. I couldn't care less about you. So I don't care that I lied to you or about you.

>>And most of all...does it bother you that you very likely have totally, utterly, completely destroyed any credibility you might have had, or will ever have on this board?

No. I don't know anybody here personally, you all are anonymous names behind computer screens. No, I don't care what people here on this board think of me. I'm not here to win friends or fans, I'm here to debate things. Everybody here can hate me, I don't care.

I lost "credibility" in your eyes the minute I showed myself to not be a mindless lemming, automatically lapping up all your liberal beliefs without questioning them. In your eyes, people who disagree with you don't have any credibility. So as far as that's concerned, no, I don't care.

I'll come here for as long as it amuses me to do so. And as long as you sprout off idiotic liberal ideals, it'll amuse me to come here.

And as long as you continue to react like this, I'll be amused.

"Personally, I think that's why so many of us end up on the conservative side--it doesn't require or encourage us to think of the opposition as necessarily fools or villains."

In that case, you're welcome to have Starving Writer on your side, who talks about how much he's amused as I "sprout off idiot liberal ideals." Which is like spouting off except, y'know...wrong.

PAD

Saying that the Conservative side is less likely to encourage self indulgent assumptions about the other side doesn't mean that we don't have lots and lots of creeps. No side can make that boast.

I've never liked the "debate by collector cards" approach. "I SEE your Arnold Shwartzenegger and raise you an Alec Baldwin and 2 Jen Anistons".

But you're right--those quotes from Starving Writer DO sound like what you read on the extreme liberal sites.

On the "liberal bias in the media" thought...

Is there ANYONE who doesn't think that if it were BUSH who was quoted in the 911 commission report as having said "You know, it would scare the shit out of al-Qaeda if suddenly a bunch of black ninjas rappelled out of helicopters into the middle of their camp." there would have been a couple of weeks of stories? Anyone? Beuller?

In that case, you're welcome to have Starving Writer on your side, who talks about how much he's amused as I "sprout off idiot liberal ideals." Which is like spouting off except, y'know...wrong.

Just out of curiosity, PAD, are there like any liberal ideas you disagree with?

The Clinton administration did diddly-squat. I mean, how many terrorist attacks were there? We cut and run from Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down). We refused to take bin Laden when he was offered to us three times by the Sudanese. I mean, what more evidence do we need?

They didn't take terrorism seriously. Only toward the end of Clinton's second term did they start talking about it. You can go back and you can find, for example, Clinton probably more hawkish on Saddam than Bush has been, or at least equally so...which I find still interesting that the Democrats want to ignore this and pretend that it never happened, but in doing that, in ignoring it and pretending that Clinton never did that, they're admitting that they never took terrorism, Saddam, or any of these other world threats seriously.

John Kerry assured us at his convention that "every attack would be met with a swift and appropriate response." The question is: "What are we going to do prevent those attacks?" and that's where they won't do anything.

Kerry wants you to forget about the war on terror. They want you to think it doesn't exist. They want you to think it's not serious. They want you to think Bush has caused it by his provocative "swagger." They are unwilling to accept the reality and the reason is because they know they're unprepared to deal with it in a powerful or projection-of-power sense. So what Cheney said, to me, may be hardball and it may have smacked you upside the head, but it's right.

Except... this administration won't even fully fun homeland security. How is that helping? And besides boasting about 9/11, just exactly what have they done to make us safer? Specifics, please.

Not fun, fund

Except... this administration won't even fully fun homeland security. How is that helping? And besides boasting about 9/11, just exactly what have they done to make us safer? Specifics, please.

Well, they've arrested known terroists and are actively looking for others.

They've put pressure on certain countries and groups to disrupt financial support to terrorist groups.

They're actively engaging them in Iraq.

They've pressure countries like Germany, Pakistan and others to actively search for and arrest known terrorists.

They've liberated Afghanistan, which was a terrorist haven.

They've stepped up security at airports, seaports and other potential terrorist targets.

They've instituted the Patriot Act, which while controversial, does give them broader powers to domestically seek out terrorists and stop them.

Have all of these things made you SAFE? Probably not.

Have they made you SAF(ER)? Sure.

- Feb 26 1993: USA, NYC, World Trade Center

- November 1995: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, U.S. military headquarters

- March 1995: Karachi, Pakistan, U.S. Consulate

- June 1996: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Khobar Towers

- November 1997: Karachi, Pakistan

- June 1998: Lebanon, U.S. Embassy

- August 1998: Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, U.S. embassies

- October 2000: The Destroyer USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden

I think this Administration has taken steps to assure that we will not have another list like this ten years from now.

EClark: Well, they've arrested known terroists and are actively looking for others.

Me: While creating the means to recruit many more with the war. Terrorism is not a fight that will be one by the military. It is a job for Intelligiance and Law Enforcement.

EC: They've put pressure on certain countries and groups to disrupt financial support to terrorist groups.

Me: Which is nothing new. Many presidents ahave used this effectively.

EC: They're actively engaging them in Iraq.

Me: There were no terroists in Iraq, based on reliable intelligence, before the war. They are there now because of this administration.

EC: They've pressure countries like Germany, Pakistan and others to actively search for and arrest known terrorists.

Me: As Europe has been the target of terrorism for a very long time and most of the countries have traditionally been allies, I didn't realize we had to pressure Germany. Pakistan is probably still harboring terrorists.

EC: They've liberated Afghanistan, which was a terrorist haven.

Me: Then promptly forgot about it for Iraq.

EC: They've stepped up security at airports, seaports and other potential terrorist targets.

Me: Since we don't check baggage unless it's carry on, airport security is a joke. Ninety percent of the containers coming into our ports are not checked.

EC: They've instituted the Patriot Act, which while controversial, does give them broader powers to domestically seek out terrorists and stop them.

Me: Broader powers? Or unconstitional ones?

EC: Have all of these things made you SAFE? Probably not.

Have they made you SAF(ER)? Sure.

Me: They have made us less safe by practically recruiting terrorists for us. They haven't fully funded most of what they propose. They also don't listen to advice that would protect us if it cost more. To control baggage on planes we could screen them with x-rays and put them in bomb proof containers to assure the plane can stay in the air if something is missed. Think we can"t? Israel has been doing it for years. The airlines don't want to spend the money, so we aren't putting this into law. I'm not convinced, yet. Any more specifics?

By the way, there are now unconfirmed reports that North Korea has tested an above ground nuke.

Boy, do I feel safer.

Guess they can't ignore North Korea for much longer. Oh, and real nukes top fantasy WMD's any day.

North Korea known for terrorism? North Korea known to house, finance, or support terrorism? No? Then perhaps they resemble the USSR of the 80s. Don't think China is thrilled with them either. North Korea, while they should be watched, is not as big of a threat as say Iran and their developments of nukes.

Me: They have made us less safe by practically recruiting terrorists for us.

By your rationale then Karen , no matter what we do or would have done, it would have just made the terrorists more determined to kill us. So by even attempting to stop them, we've only made them angrier.

Tell me, do you lock your doors and windows at night or are you resigned to the fact that if a thief or rapist really wanted to get into your apartment they will, so you just leave the doors open for them so you won't piss them off?

With that kind of attitude, short of killing yourself before the terrorists do, I can't think of anything that would make you feel safe.

Me: Broader powers? Or unconstitional ones?

Really? And which ones would those be?

Having Peter David (hereby called the pot) claiming that I (the kettle) have bias dripping from every pore is amusing in the extreme, especially since all he knows about me is a handful of posts on his board. But that's ok.

And while I mentioned media bias as an aside, you wanted to make a bigger deal out of it, so I would love to hear your interpretations of the AP article and the CBS documents I mentioned.

We could have stayed in Afghanistan and tried to complete the job. Instead we went to Iraq. Containment was working, just as it worked on the USSR. You remember them? Reagan used containment. He didn't declare war. Bush also cut funds on the program that was taking care of all the minimally guarded nuclear, chemical and biological material that is still in Russia. Terrorist can fairly easily get their hands on these things if they try. Yes, I lock my doors. I also don't tell the police to go round up a neighbor I happen not to like if something happens. I let them do their job and bring in the real criminal.

You must know the broad powers of the Patriot act are usurping many of our liberties. These have been well recounted. From being detained without representation to having the government intrude on our library memberships. If I were looking for info on terrorism I would get it off the internet like all the others.

Karen said:
"By the way, there are now unconfirmed reports that North Korea has tested an above ground nuke.

Boy, do I feel safer.

Guess they can't ignore North Korea for much longer. Oh, and real nukes top fantasy WMD's any day."

And if the latest round of uncomfirmed reports indicate that there was no nuclear test, we can expect an apology for the sarcasm?

The CBS documents had fonts from typewriters in use in the 70's. They are legit. More smoke and mirrors to distract us from the poor economy. Did you know that the recession started in March after Bush had been in office for over 2 months? The economy had been going strong, even though he likes to claim we were already in a recession. The Bureau of Economic Research cites the actual beginning. And Clinton in 8 years he created 22 million jobs. Bush has lost 2.8 million. This administration has failed us in so many ways. I still don't understand the support for it.

Since it is common knowledge that North Korea is developing nukes, if these reports prove false, then it's only a matter of time. I'll tell you what Charles, we can put the sarcasm on delay and you can pull it out when we get confirmed reports.

"Yesterday, another retired Air National Guard officer came forward to attack the network's credibility. Retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, who was cited by a senior CBS official on Thursday as the network's "trump card" in verifying the documents, said in an interview that he was "misled" by CBS and believes the documents to be forgeries."

At the same time, Bush's critics have been unable to come up with definitive evidence showing that he failed to meet his minimum obligations to the guard after being suspended from flying for failing to take the physical.
By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 12, 2004; Page A08

Karen, my advice would not be to put too much faith in these letters. The best--BEST--that can be said about them is that they might have been possibly produced by using the absolute best and most expensive typewriters of the early seventies. However, even THAT is not yet certain and several noted experts have said that it is far more likely that they are forged.

It is also true that one can make a virtual exact copy of the letters on a modern computer.

CBS, meanwhile, has only produced a single expert, who is an expert not in type but in handwriting. He is also on record as having said that you cannot validate a copy of a signature. CBS is also on record as having said that they do not have the originals, so he must have validated a copy of the signature.

The officer that Dan Rather said had validated the letters says that CBS pulled a fast one on him--claiming that they had handwritten letters from the supposed writer. He never saw the letters and having now seen them, believes them to be frauds.

I won't be stunned into catatonia if they turn out to be real but if I were betting money I think it's pretty unlikely. If this lousy evidence were against Kerry I doubt you'd give it much credence and you'd be right.

CBS should release the docs for analysis and, if they turn out to be fakes, reveal the identity of the person who attempted to defraud the public. If they don't there will be those who may suspect (perhaps quite unfairly) that said person was a Kerry operative and it might hurt a campaign that can ill afford it.

What amazes me is how fast the blogosphere was able to provide more and better analysis than the supposed professionals at CBS. Old media is a dinosaur. Time to evolve or die.

Actually Bill, I am don't really care too much about Bush's service, or lack thereof. The whole thing is simply distracting us from more important issues. We know he got into the National Guard at a time when wealthy families pulled strings to keep their kids out of Vietnam. We know he failed to show up for a flight physical. He got an honorable discharge. (That would not happen today. I was active duty and I served in the Reserves.) The rules were different then. I would much rather discuss the economy, the environment, education, jobs, the war, healthcare, etc. These are the issues we need to understand to make an informed decision at the polls. I'm tired of all the distractions.

He got an honorable discharge. (That would not happen today. I was active duty and I served in the Reserves.)

That is bunk, he would have. The failure to show up for a physical would not have caused a dishonorable discharge.

I was active duty and reserves also, and I have 2 separate six month lapses in service due to moving. It happens still today. I was honorably discharged.

Any flack about his service is just a waste of time.

He was ordered to take a fight physical and disobeyed that order. He would have had a less than honorable discharge.

No, he would have been asked to make it up by his superior.

No big deal!

"Just out of curiosity, PAD, are there like any liberal ideas you disagree with?"

I have taken issue with liberal ideas and the conduct of the Democratic party on any number of occasions on this blog. As opposed to Conservatives who, by all appearances, move in perfect lockstep and never display the slightest doubt or concern.

I think some of the most aggressive censors are liberals. I know of ostensibly liberal colleges where the liberal students creative byzantine codes of conduct designed to make everyone "sensitive" to each others feelings, when in fact they're little more than elaborate endeavors to control speech and thought. I think most of the concepts that led to political correctness came from liberal thinking.

And if there is one great failure in the liberal philosophy, it is the cowardly away that we roll over for Conservatives, allowing them to control all discourse. Why are conservatives "pro-life" while we're "pro-choice?" Why aren't they referred to as "anti-choice" instead, instead of implying that liberals don't give a damn about life? Why are conservatives allowed to set the most extreme interpretations of any situation and ascribe the worst end to us? "What, you don't think we should have attacked Iraq? So you're in favor of Saddam Hussein killing people!" And liberals just accept that it's our lot to be constantly on the defensive. Only recently is that starting to change.

When Kerry loses--and he will lose, because I said months ago that unless he clearly distinguishes himself on Iraq from Bush, voters will keep Bush, and he's failed to do so and that's what's gonna kill him--I think liberals should spend the next four years reclaiming the word "liberal." Shake it loose of all the crap, the lies, the distortions, the BS that conservatives have attached to it so that liberals don't have to be ashamed of being liberal. Reclaim it the same way that gays reclaimed "queer." Remind Americans that if conservative thinking had always controlled this country, there wouldn't BE this country.

PAD

I have never seen or heard a liberal refer to "pro-life" but rather they use the phrase "anti-abortion". I can't think of many times when liberals ever refer to conservatives as "pro-" anything, they like to shoehorn us as the "anti-" group, the group against everything. Conservatives are the ones that are usually unfairly labeled.

But, most likely, both of us are speaking from biased viewpoints.

Your party supports the killing of an unborn life and you don't like the idea of being labed killers?

Perhaps a mass murderer should be labled a mass choice-maker.

As far as the typewriter goes, I have a Brother typewriter from the early 80s...I guess anything I type on it now must be from then?

"I have taken issue with liberal ideas and the conduct of the Democratic party on any number of occasions on this blog. As opposed to Conservatives who, by all appearances, move in perfect lockstep and never display the slightest doubt or concern."

Funny, I remember Tim asking me if there was anything I disagreed with Bush on and my giving a whole list. In fact there is are many conservatives who are so fed up with Bush's fiscal irresponsibility that they will just sit this election out (maybe not enough of them to make a difference for Kerry though).

Still, you say "by all appearances" which may well be true. If you studiously avoid listening to voices from the other side (except those who fit the stereotype desired) you can pretty much make any prejudice appear valid.

"Why are conservatives "pro-life" while we're "pro-choice?" Why aren't they referred to as "anti-choice" instead, instead of implying that liberals don't give a damn about life?"

Probably because then the pro-lifers would be justified in referring to pro-choicers as "anti-life". Even less would get discussed.

"Why are conservatives allowed to set the most extreme interpretations of any situation and ascribe the worst end to us? "What, you don't think we should have attacked Iraq? So you're in favor of Saddam Hussein killing people!" And liberals just accept that it's our lot to be constantly on the defensive. Only recently is that starting to change."

Yeah, the gentle liberals, led like the Eloi into the caves of the conservative Morlocks. Boo freaking hoo. Go to a college campus and watch how a conservative speaker is treated (and I give you credit for recognizing how oppressive a place some campuses can be.). There are dicks a plenty on BOTH sides to go around. If liberals respond to the Ann Coultures of the world by becoming ever more shrill and partisan they may well FEEL better but they will be unlikely to sway many others to their side.

"Remind Americans that if conservative thinking had always controlled this country, there wouldn't BE this country."

Depends on one's definition of conservative and liberal, doesn't it? Looking at the actions and beliefs of most of our great leaders of the past, one could argue whether they would be considered liberal or conservative today. (One could also argue, rather persuasively, that none of them could get elected dogcatcher today) (Which reminds me--do people anywhere actually elect dogcatchers?)

At any rate, arguing the above point might be an interesting exercise but most voters are probably more concerned with who is right for today and tomorrow, not yesterday.

I have taken issue with liberal ideas and the conduct of the Democratic party on any number of occasions on this blog. As opposed to Conservatives who, by all appearances, move in perfect lockstep and never display the slightest doubt or concern.

I think you're wrong there. I have routinely criticized President Bush for running up the bills. The Medicare "reform" was anything but, and certainly wasn't a necessary overage due to war/economic downturn.

And if there is one great failure in the liberal philosophy, it is the cowardly away that we roll over for Conservatives, allowing them to control all discourse. Why are conservatives "pro-life" while we're "pro-choice?" Why aren't they referred to as "anti-choice" instead, instead of implying that liberals don't give a damn about life? Why are conservatives allowed to set the most extreme interpretations of any situation and ascribe the worst end to us? "What, you don't think we should have attacked Iraq? So you're in favor of Saddam Hussein killing people!" And liberals just accept that it's our lot to be constantly on the defensive. Only recently is that starting to change.

I think you're wrong here, too, since liberals use the same type of demagoguery. Vote against the Clean Air Act due to concerns about cost to business and consumers and "You must want dirty air and water!" There are justifiable concerns about both sides. Vote for legal/medical liability limits to keep from driving up health care costs and "You are keeping individuals from making Big Medical pay!"

As far as labels go, the whole "Pro-Choice", "Pro-Life", "Anti-Abortion", "Pro-Death" is laughable to me. Liberals say they are pro-choice - until you talk about choice in schools. Conservatives are pro-life - until you talk about the death penalty. I go with Pro-Choice and Pro-Life simply because that's what the groups call themselves.

Bottom line: both liberal and conservative try to marginalize the other - when on most issues there's good reason for concern on both sides.

I think this Administration has taken steps to assure that we will not have another list like this ten years from now.

Sure, and what's the list since 9/11?

And don't forget to include everything that's happened in Iraq.

Except... this administration won't even fully fun homeland security. How is that helping? And besides boasting about 9/11, just exactly what have they done to make us safer? Specifics, please.

Please see this opinion piece by Dick Morris in the New York Post. I remember the alert last year, but this is the first I've heard about the follow-up message.

In March of last year, federal intelligence officials reported to the NYPD that they had noticed significant "chatter" by al Qaeda terrorists about the Brooklyn Bridge. (Apparently, the name doesn't easily translate into Arabic.)

Under the terms of the Patriot Act, which the left criticizes, federal intelligence operatives were obliged to share their findings with the NYPD - precisely the kind of information sharing so little in evidence before 9/11. As a result, the department, under Ray Kelly's able leadership, flooded the bridge with police.

Federal intelligence officials then intercepted a communication to al Qaeda from an operative in New York that the operation against the landmark bridge was impossible because "the weather is too hot."

So there's a specific instance of the Patriot Act stopping a terrorist attack. There's also more in the article about who they captured and the detailed plans. This is an interesting piece. I haven't seen details of this incident anywhere else.

So there's a specific instance of the Patriot Act stopping a terrorist attack.

Wrong. Chatter != terrorist attack.

Part of the excuse that we missed being able to prevent 9/11 was because of all the chatter.

Sorry, we just blew that one period.

But there is chatter all of the time. Just because they hear something, throw some police out there, and nothing happens doesn't mean an attack was prevented.
That's the kind of garbage the Bush Administration would have you believe.

As opposed to Conservatives who, by all appearances, move in perfect lockstep and never display the slightest doubt or concern.

Right, unlike liberals who are now blindling following Kerry because he isn't Bush. Kerry wasn't even on the Radar until Dean's implosion.

And if there is one great failure in the liberal philosophy, it is the cowardly away that we roll over for Conservatives,

I have liberal family members, had liberal teachers and professors, and now have a liberal boss at work. None of them were cowardly and were quite pleased to go out of their way to assert that they were a liberal. Wether it is some Hollywood actor or our teachers and co-workers, conservatives are bombarded by liberals. You wonder why people like Rush Limbaugh are so popular? Its because they are an alternative to that bombardment. Some guy sits at home, turns on his radio, and there is someone who finally thinks the way he does.

Why are conservatives "pro-life" while we're "pro-choice?" Why aren't they referred to as "anti-choice" instead, instead of implying that liberals don't give a damn about life?

We aren't anti-choice. In fact we support choice in health care and social security. We support choice with school vouchers. We support choice in giving smaller governments more say.

We, on the other hand, do not support the termination of an unborn life. We wonder how you are allowed to be called "pro-choice" when what you do is give women the legal oppertunity to take the life of their children.

Why are conservatives allowed to set the most extreme interpretations of any situation and ascribe the worst end to us?

My whole life I've heard how Republicans are racists and don't deserve the black vote, how they will take away my kid's school lunch program, and how I won't have social security because of them. How Republicans will ruin the little guy and only support the rich. Decmocrats have been trying to scare the American public into voting their way for years.

When Kerry loses--and he will lose, because I said months ago that unless he clearly distinguishes himself on Iraq from Bush,

No, Kerry will lose because he has done nothing to tell us about what he will do when he becomes president. Oh, sure we get some vague ideas from him, but where are the details?

How about him not talking about his 20 years in the senate? We go from John Kerry to war hero to John Kerry the presidential nominee? He will be in for a shock come the debates.

I think liberals should spend the next four years reclaiming the word "liberal." Shake it loose of all the crap, the lies, the distortions, the BS that conservatives have attached to it so that liberals don't have to be ashamed of being liberal.

I could say the same for conservatives and their recent push to be more moderate.

Remind Americans that if conservative thinking had always controlled this country, there wouldn't BE this country.

Yes, PAD, I'd like to see you sit down with the founding fathers and compare notes. Explain to them how liberal means gun control, abortion, big federal government, higher taxes to pay for social programs, smaller national defense. Explain how many liberals today are in favor of legaliztion of drugs, homosexuals being married, and a loss of our nation's autonomy to the world.

But there is chatter all of the time. Just because they hear something, throw some police out there, and nothing happens doesn't mean an attack was prevented.
That's the kind of garbage the Bush Administration would have you believe.

Okay, so the plans they obtained that detailed how the plot was to be carried out was what? A soup recipe?

If you don't see hearing chatter, questioning a suspect and finding plans as stopping a terrorist act then what would you say qualifies? Stopping them when they are already in a truck with explosives?

So there's a specific instance of the Patriot Act stopping a terrorist attack. There's also more in the article about who they captured and the detailed plans. This is an interesting piece. I haven't seen details of this incident anywhere else.

Your post said everything. This was an opinion piece, hasn't been seen anywhere else, and is from the New York Post.

So, forgive me if I can't trust it's validity.

Your post said everything. This was an opinion piece, hasn't been seen anywhere else, and is from the New York Post.

So, forgive me if I can't trust it's validity.

Okay you don't trust the source, but that's different than saying that it's "garbage" that a terrorist attack was stopped because of chatter and police officers.

Besides, I said that I had't seen it elsewhere - that doesn't mean other sources aren't available. I take it, then, that if information about this was corroborated, that your view would be different? I'll be the first one to say that I'm interested in hearing more about this - and that it may change my view of the incident. On the surface, though, it seems like a pretty good victory.

Whoops, ended the bold quote too soon.

Here's a story from last year about it from CNN:
Ohio trucker joined al Qaeda jihad

The details are essentially the same: he was making plans to bring down the bridge, was brought in for questioning and spilled the details. It doesn't detail anything about the network chatter and how the police response may or may not have helped.

"Yes, PAD, I'd like to see you sit down with the founding fathers and compare notes. Explain to them how liberal means gun control, abortion, big federal government, higher taxes to pay for social programs, smaller national defense. Explain how many liberals today are in favor of legaliztion of drugs, homosexuals being married, and a loss of our nation's autonomy to the world."

Yes, as opposed to you sitting down and explaining how conservative means easier access to assault weapons, back alley coathanger mutiliations of a woman's innards, advocating a hands-off Federal government except when it comes to winning an election, and the ability to annihilate people ten times over instead of five or waging unprovoked wars at the expense of having money to pay for vital social programs. Explain how conservatives don't believe dying men and women should be allowed to smoke medically supervised pot because it relieves their agony, wants to introduce amendments that will curtail freedoms and rights instead of broaden them, believe the government should tell people who they can marry, and believe that the rest of the world can go screw themselves because we're America, we'll ignore agreements ranging from environmentally oriented treaties to the Geneva convention, and if you don't like it, we'll kill you.

Should make for a stimulating chat.

PAD

And their response would be:

conservative means easier access to assault weapons,

Guns helped us win our Revolution. Maybe you read about that somewhere.

back alley coathanger mutiliations of a woman's innards,

What? People have gotten so ignorant that they would kill babies and mutilate themselves while doing it. Teach them to take responsibility for their actions and quit killing babies.

advocating a hands-off Federal government except when it comes to winning an election,

Tell the truth without bias, this only comes out of not like conservatives, not based on any fact.

and the ability to annihilate people ten times over instead of five or waging unprovoked wars at the expense of having money to pay for vital social programs.

Really, your budget now allows for taking money from the social programs to fund warfare??? Oh, and defending the ideals of the country that we created is not important???

Explain how conservatives don't believe dying men and women should be allowed to smoke medically supervised pot because it relieves their agony,

We like to smoke, the savages gave us great tobacco!

wants to introduce amendments that will curtail freedoms and rights instead of broaden them, believe the government should tell people who they can marry,

So they have learned to use our amendment process correctly.

and believe that the rest of the world can go screw themselves because we're America, we'll ignore agreements ranging from environmentally oriented treaties to the Geneva convention, and if you don't like it, we'll kill you.

Wow, so crackpots that don't understand what is truly going on with our government still exist today?

Now, that is how I see their comebacks.

I personally think that two of your issues are non-issues, and the rest are either straw-man arguments or flat-out distortions.

PAD, you seriously think that the founding fathers would support legalized abortions? Back alley abortions didn't spring up in 60's you know. They had them back then, however, they understood that it wasn't the government's place to legalize the taking of an innocent life. Hard to declare Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness when you can't even be granted life.

Perhaps the founding fathers should have made a provision in the second amendment that said that the American people only had a right to arms as long as the government thought they were safe for the American people?

Unprovoked wars? Like the Revolutionary War? Knowing that they'd be better off with without British control they declared their Independence and war on England. We recently declared our right to defend our nation from terrorism, asked the world for help, they failed us so we went to war.

"amendments that will curtail freedoms and rights instead of broaden them"

Yes, I'm sure gay marriage is a liberal idea they would have supported.

"believe that the rest of the world can go screw themselves because we're America,"

That sums up their isolationist theories pretty nicely actually.

Slightly off topic, but still political, so I thought I'd bring it up.

It sounds like, on the November ballot here in Colorado, will be to vote on whether to split the electoral vote among the candidates based on %-ages.

An article I read on the issue had the following:

Jim Riley, a political science professor at Regis University, said the current electoral college system works and he criticized the proposal.

"The argument from supporters is that their vote doesn't count. Of course their votes count. They just happen to be on the losing side," he said.

Riley also said allowing third-party candidates to get delegates would further dilute the state's influence by prompting a flood of Ralph Naders or Ross Perots eager to try for a footnote in history.

"That would fragment the party system," Riley said.

Well, let's face it, if only for the last line alone, I will vote in favor of this.

The party system NEEDS fragmented.

The party system NEEDS fragmented.

I agree.

I would vote for that if I lived there. It seems so much more impartial.

Craig,

On that we can agree. I understand the major concern is that it will dilute Colorado to 1 electoral vote (since the state is even right now). I like the Electoral College - it serves a purpose to keep the urban areas from totally dominating the country and it serves a purpose in a case like 2000 to isolate problems. It does need tweaking, though. Getting rid of the "winner-take-all" rule would be the simplest way of preserving the intent of the Connecticut Compromise but still making a needed change.

I think you underestimate the Founding Fathers, Ken. Certainly their answers wouldn't be as inane as those.

PAD

"PAD, you seriously think that the founding fathers would support legalized abortions? Back alley abortions didn't spring up in 60's you know. They had them back then, however, they understood that it wasn't the government's place to legalize the taking of an innocent life."

Really. See, that's interesting; I hadn't read anything about the Founding Fathers' opinions on that, especially since the concept of safe, clean, medically-controlled abortions didn't exist. So since you're basically making up positions for the Founding Fathers, I can just as easily point out that those Founding Fathers who pumped out bastard children might very well have wanted the opportunity to have their mistresses or--what's the word--slaves, avail themselves of such technology if it existed. And I further suspect they wouldn't have wanted the government they founded telling them they couldn't do it. Privacy issues, don't'cha know.

"Perhaps the founding fathers should have made a provision in the second amendment that said that the American people only had a right to arms as long as the government thought they were safe for the American people?"

They pretty much did. It was the part about the necessity of maintaining a militia. See, I tend to think that making assault weapons--weapons of mess destruction, if you will--available to non-militia participants ranging from angry students to clever terrorists wouldn't have been a big plus with the Founders.

"Unprovoked wars? Like the Revolutionary War? Knowing that they'd be better off with without British control they declared their Independence and war on England. We recently declared our right to defend our nation from terrorism, asked the world for help, they failed us so we went to war."

Wow. What a load of crap.

"amendments that will curtail freedoms and rights instead of broaden them"

"Yes, I'm sure gay marriage is a liberal idea they would have supported."

Putting aside that I'd be interested to see you provide evidence that they were opposed to it, I like to give the Founders credit in positing that they didn't necessarily have to agree with an idea to support it. Plus I'm sure you're ready to argue that the Founders wouldn't have minded curtailment of the First Amendment with the proposed anti-Flag burning amendment that Bush supports. Yup, that's our Republican government: Never hesitating to tell people how to run their lives or what they can and can't do. Good thing they're big believers in a hands-off government, huh.

"believe that the rest of the world can go screw themselves because we're America,"

"That sums up their isolationist theories pretty nicely actually."

Right, right. And we fought the revolutionary war all by ourselves and never sent ambassadors to Europe. Uh huh.

PAD

I don't want to focus this too much on abortion, but have recently held some rather heated discussions with a good friend of mine who has the misfortune of being close to ultra-conservative...

I'd recommend anyone who holds the idea that aborition is just about killing babies or back-alley mutilations should do some researhc of their own before spouting off a party line of "abortion bad." The analogy I used (and which was lost) was two people sitting next to a campfire. One discusses it in terms of color, temperature, sound, potential beneficial uses, and dangers associated with uncontrolled fire. The second person stares long and hard into the flames and says "fire bad." Care to guess who's supposed to represent the conservative view of "pro-life."

Also, if you're going to discuss the issue, at least go read some excerpts from Roe v. Wade to see what the highest judicial body in our country has to say about the issue. If anyone's got an insight into what the FF possibly thought about abortion, it's to be found there. It might surprise you. Sure, pro-choice advocates have heralded as a "victory," but the actual ruling and the language found there is closer to the pro-life side.

And Ken: I'm trying really hard to read sarcasm into your supposed FF responses to today's issues. Especially the crack about "savages." Again, if that's your opinion, go do some research and learn about the societies of those "savages," AKA the indigent peoples who were happily and successfully inhabiting this land before European invaders, errr, settlers, appeared.

And finally (if anyone's still reading...Beuller?) about N. Korea having/not having a nuke. Does it really matter? If they DID just detonate a termonuclear weapon, we're in more danger of attack through WMDs than we've ever been since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Anf if NOT...who fricken cares? They just blew up a MOUNTAIN, with a blast radius of 2 MILES, if reports are to be believed. WHO CARES what kind of explosive they just detonated, it demonstrates that they have the capability of annhilating any city we have.

Either way, I'm not resting as well as I was a few days ago....

I understand the major concern is that it will dilute Colorado to 1 electoral vote (since the state is even right now).

Yes, in the article, it was also mentioned that one Republican in the state is having a fit saying it's just liberals trying to steal electoral votes.

Last I checked, we hadn't had the election yet, but the thought still counts for something I suppose... Is it an argument against splitting the votes borne out of fear? stupidity? I dunno.

If this had been done 4 years ago, it would've been atleast 3, if not 4, votes going to Gore, which would have made it 266 to 270 or 268 to 269.

Nice and ugly mess. :)

Kingbobb,

If the North Koreans used conventional explosives to do something like that, it would have taken a LOT of explosives. On the order of 1000 tons or more. How in the world would they get something like that to where it needed to go in order to hurt the U.S. A nuke could fit into a crate instead of a warehouse.

However, the North Koreans are definitely working on making a nuke. If that massive explosion was not a nuke, then they were probably blowing a huge stack of conventionals so they'll have some comparison when they set off an actual nuke. That's scary because it suggests to me that they think they're close. Either that or someone accidentally blew up a hage stockpile of stuff...

They pretty much did. It was the part about the necessity of maintaining a militia. See, I tend to think that making assault weapons--weapons of mess destruction, if you will--available to non-militia participants ranging from angry students to clever terrorists wouldn't have been a big plus with the Founders.

PAD is officially engaging in wishful thinking here. If the Founding Fathers had meant to be so specific about who should and should not be allowed guns they would have spelled it out. The simple fact that the very people who formed the militias in the first place WERE considered terrorists and such by the Crown at that time leads us to believe the opposite of what PAD thinks.

There was NO standing militia at the time of the Revolutionary War. It was the abilitiy to raise one SHOULD the need arise that led to the inclusion of the Second Amendment.

And it's the Second Amendment that protects the First Amendment.

"amendments that will curtail freedoms and rights instead of broaden them"

You have READ the Constituiton haven't you, PAD?

It's FULL of articles and amendments that limit freedoms and rights.

I'll name a few:
Slaves being three-fifths of a person,
women not being allowed to vote,
no one under twenty-five being able to be a representative,
No one under thirty-five being able to be President,
Only natural born citizens being allowed to be President.

Only two of these have changed and it wasn't the Founding Fathers that changed them.

"amendments that will curtail freedoms and rights instead of broaden them"

You have READ the Constituiton haven't you, PAD?

It's FULL of articles and amendments that limit freedoms and rights."

Look, I know you have this borderline-pathological need to disagree with everything I say, but you're setting new levels of obtuseness with this.

I said specifically that Conservatives are eagerly advocating constitutional amendments that curtail freedoms, which is the opposite of the norm for amendments. You come back and quote the whole of the Constitution, which is great, but doesn't remotely relate to what I said. Amendments are created to FIX the constitution and, more often than not, to expand rights that the constitution did not make explicit or attend to. The only amendment I can think of off hand that explicitly curtails the rights of the citizenry as a whole is the eighteenth, and that was repealed. But Bush and company advocate, for the first time in...what, eighty years?...amendments that talk about what citizens CAN'T do rather than what they CAN do. And conservatives can try and double-dutch around that all they want, but the bottom line is that anyone who supports that notion while claiming the GOP wants smaller government is just oozing hypocrisy.

PAD

Just one more comment on the Cheney speech--Chris Mathews spent a few days lambasting Cheney on it and then said:

September 12, 2004 Sunday

MATTHEWS: Let's take a look at how Kerry's handling or not handling this question. He looks indecisive on Iraq; he also has a problem with reliability. The question started, as we know, as Cokie said, over Vietnam and over his anti-war activities after coming home. And this week, the vice president carried that attack on his unreliability even further.

Vice President DICK CHENEY: It is absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that--that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States and it will fall back into the--the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we are not really at war.

MATTHEWS: When I first heard that, I thought he was saying if Kerry wins, we're going to get attacked. I looked at it again today, this morning, and I said, `Wait a minute. What he's really saying, if you listen carefully, is we'll get attacked again. Anybody can get attacked again, that danger is there, and these people will react in the old time way of saying we've got some criminals out there we got to catch, not recognizing this movement of war against us.’”

I still agree that one CAN legitimately choose to interpret it as PAD does but one should have the honesty to admit that this is NOT the only valid interpretation.

Both parties want bigger government:

Democrats: They want more goverment to take from the rich and give to the poor and to legislate "feelings" and "Politically Correct" Crap

Republicans: They want to take from the poor, give to the rich, make the rich richer and the poor poorer while making their silly religious beliefs law for everyone.

Neither party wants "smaller government", because they know the America people don't want or need the government they're getting now. Both parties have ignored the constitution and buiklt goverment bigger and bigger and more intrusive into daily life of its citizens...

Look, I know you have this borderline-pathological need to disagree with everything I say, but you're setting new levels of obtuseness with this.

Nah, it's just fun.

I said specifically that Conservatives are eagerly advocating constitutional amendments that curtail freedoms, which is the opposite of the norm for amendments.

First, the context was about what the founding fathers would say about limiting or curtailing freedoms. My reply was in line with that context. The founding fathers limited certain freedoms despite their talk that "all men are created equal", etc.

Given the current debate about gay marraige, I have no reason to doubt that had they thought it would come to the debate we're having today, THEY would have limited marriage to one man, one woman in the Constitution themselves.

Second, not ALL conservatives are salivating at the thought of a Constitutional Amendment to limit gay marriage. I'm not, Dick Cheney's not, and I know several others who aren't. On the other hand, I think bringing it up as a possibility also also quieted down a few liberal activists and judges who were blatantly ignoring laws that were already in place, and rewriting it to fit their own agenda.

Liberals should be the last to talk about "states rights", when just this past summer they took Texas to the Supreme Court to have one of it's laws declared unConstitutional. You think the same thing won't happen with gay marriage laws passed by the states? It's already in the works.

And as you pointed out yourself. When it suits their own purposes, liberals are all for limiting freedoms and rights. Gun control? Political correctness? Sensitivity classes? Separation of church and state?

Gun control?

Sure, everybody needs an AK-47 for deer hunting...

Separation of church and state?

Well, when the president says that he's going on a jihad... I mean... crusade against terrorists, and that he was told by his imaginary friend (imho) to attack Iraq...

Then yes, we need separation of church and state.

Well, when the president says that he's going on a jihad... I mean... crusade against terrorists, and that he was told by his imaginary friend (imho) to attack Iraq...

Then yes, we need separation of church and state.

The last I checked, President Bush was not establishing a religion - just exercising his right to practice his own. It's justifiable to judge his leadership based on that faith, but it has nothing to do with separation of church and state. What was meant by that in 1776 has taken on a radically different meaning today.

I'd been agreeing alot with Craig lately, but so what if someone wants an AK-47 for hunting?

Criminals are going to ignore the law anyway, so a "ban" on certain weapons is meaningless. Why shouldn't a law abiding citizen be allowed to own one?

You cannot base a legal system on the acts of the few. Punish those who use "guns" illegally, and leave the rest of us alone. Don't ban it for all based on the acts of the few, otherwise, cars and planes have to be banned, as do phones and computers, and all knives, and baseball bats and golf clubs, pillows and plastic bags, all medication that can have bad results incase of overdose... etc etc etc

Bladestar:
otherwise, cars and planes have to be banned

Why? Because someone could kill someone with a car? or a plane?

That's asinine.

What is the intended purpose for a car or plane?
TRANSPORATION

What is the intended purpose for a gun?
To shoot a small projectile(bullet) from the barrel into it's target/victim/prey.

The last I checked, President Bush was not establishing a religion -

The last I checked, it wasn't Bush's job to allow his religion to dictate policy for a nation full of people that don't necessarily follow his religion.

Criminals are going to ignore the law anyway, so a "ban" on certain weapons is meaningless.

The question then to ask would be to ask why these guns were created to begin with.

You'd probably have to go to the NRA to find the answer to that though.

The last I checked, it wasn't Bush's job to allow his religion to dictate policy for a nation full of people that don't necessarily follow his religion.

At the same time, there's no prohibition against him doing so. A president makes the decision's he makes , hopefully, based on the best information available, good advice, and finally, his own conscience. Most people who have any type faith based upbringing is going to go back to that faith in making their decisions.

Bladstar:

>Criminals are going to ignore the law anyway, so a "ban" on certain weapons is meaningless.

Not sure that I agree with this, since a logical follow-up would be why make anything illegal. I'd think that to have natural consequences in place would be the answer.

Craig:

>The question then to ask would be to ask why these guns were created to begin with.
>You'd probably have to go to the NRA to find the answer to that though.

Having grown up in a house whose primary income comes from the sale of firearms, I've had many interesting, if not much heated, conversations with dad about this. I've never received an answer that ends up being more than subjective opinion.

Side note, this morning on NPR, there was a report citing stats about the gun control laws and the lapse of the automatic weapons ban in particular. While I don't have the source handy at the moment, the report concluded that a majority of Americans supported the ban. The NRA is the sole opponent of this ban.

Fred

eclark:

>>The last I checked, it wasn't Bush's job to allow his religion to dictate policy for a nation full of people that don't necessarily follow his religion.

>At the same time, there's no prohibition against him doing so. A president makes the decision's he makes , hopefully, based on the best information available, good advice, and finally, his own conscience. Most people who have any type faith based upbringing is going to go back to that faith in making their decisions.

While I have no issue with this, my deepening concern surrounds him citing God and his Christian faith in his determination to rid the world of terrorism and set the U.S. on the right moral course. This not only offends me but, far more importantly, sets a severe impression on Muslims and the rest of the world watching. I honestly believe that it fans the flames of fanaticism. Holy War and cries for such, anyone?

Sorry RJM, but killing is already is illegal, no need for a law banning things that can kill.

This not only offends me but, far more importantly, sets a severe impression on Muslims and the rest of the world watching. I honestly believe that it fans the flames of fanaticism. Holy War and cries for such, anyone?

Fred, look at this new item on MEMRI. The video is dated May, but was just made available yesterday from a leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (part of their state military). Note the phrase "This terrorism is sacred". Radical Islamists are already accepting that fighting the US with terror is part of their sacred duty.

President Bush has made it clear that we do not want a war on Islam. We have made painstaking efforts to not attack holy shrines - even when they have been converted to launch points for assaults against all the rules of "civilized" war.

Bush drawing strength from his faith and invoking it from time to time is nothing compared to what radical Muslim leaders are saying - and they've been saying it for a long time. It just took 9/11 for us to take notice. You can say that Bush is fanning it, but the flame was there burning all along.

The ban that just ended was not on "assault weapons". Private ownership of fully-automatic weapons without a federal permit has been illegal since the 1930s. What ended was a rather silly ban on certain cosmetic enhancements that can make a given firearm look more dangerous than it actually is, and a debateable (as in there are good arguments on each side) ban on extended ammunition clips.

As a hunter, I don't really see the need to carry more than five rounds in your rifle. If you can't hit it in five shots, go back to video games - no stray ricochets there. As a family man, I don't maintain a firearm for home defense. We live in a small apartment, you see, and I find a claymore and an assortment of daggers are quite sufficient. (Of course, did the police raid my home, I'd have them confiscated at the very least - the great state of California has decreed that double-edged blades are even more dangerous than fifteen-round banana clips. Go fig.)

On the other hand, if the great nightmare of times past were to come true, and I were to find myself defending my home against an invading enemy ("...foreign or domestic..."), I'd want as many rounds as possible of the most powerful ammunition I could lay my hands on.

Pad, when do we get back to WW discussions?
Hoping I did the html tags right this time.
Karen, when they talk you into listing the attacks that have taken place since 9-11, don't forget to include Spain and Russia.

Posted by: Leviathan at September 11, 2004 05:31 AM
If only Kerry could produce really good Aaron Sorkin dialog, I'd _pray_ that they drop down to one debate!

I'd be happy if Wells could produce really good Sorkin dialogue!

Posted by: Mark L at September 14, 2004 03:39 PM
The last I checked, President Bush was not establishing a religion - just exercising his right to practice his own. It's justifiable to judge his leadership based on that faith, but it has nothing to do with separation of church and state. What was meant by that in 1776 has taken on a radically different meaning today.

Posted by: eclark1849 at September 14, 2004 04:53 PM
The last I checked, it wasn't Bush's job to allow his religion to dictate policy for a nation full of people that don't necessarily follow his religion.

At the same time, there's no prohibition against him doing so. A president makes the decision's he makes , hopefully, based on the best information available, good advice, and finally, his own conscience. Most people who have any type faith based upbringing is going to go back to that faith in making their decisions.

When Bush makes decisions that infringe on the exercising of our freedoms based on his religious beliefs then yes, by exercising his own he infringes on ours.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Posted by: Ken at September 12, 2004 11:07 PM
No, he would have been asked to make it up by his superior.

No big deal!

Ahhh but here's the rub, Ken. When did he make the physical or his missing time up?

Posted by: Ken at September 13, 2004 02:42 PM
Really, your budget now allows for taking money from the social programs to fund warfare??? Oh, and defending the ideals of the country that we created is not important???

Explain to me, Ken, without using a reference to 9-11 or Al Qaeda, how a war in Iraq defends our ideals or our country. Especially since it's been determined time and again that Iraq posed no significant threat to the US.

Mark L
We have made painstaking efforts to not attack holy shrines - even when they have been converted to launch points for assaults against all the rules of "civilized" war.

Yeah, much better to kill the people rather than destroy the buildings. That'll win the Iraqi's over really, really fast!

President Bush has made it clear that we do not want a war on Islam.

How has he done this? By invading Iraq or Afghanistan? By now making aggressive comments towards Iran? By dismissing the line drawn from 9-11 to Iraq? Exactly how has he made it clear we don't want war with the Muslims?

Bush drawing strength from his faith and invoking it from time to time is nothing compared to what radical Muslim leaders are saying - and they've been saying it for a long time. It just took 9/11 for us to take notice. You can say that Bush is fanning it, but the flame was there burning all along.

If the flame was lit, Bush has primed it into a 4 alarm blaze.

When Bush makes decisions that infringe on the exercising of our freedoms based on his religious beliefs then yes, by exercising his own he infringes on ours.

Show me one example of a religious freedom that's been restricted by the Bush presidency. The last I checked, everyone in this country is still allowed to pray, worship and celebrate the Divine (or not do so) in their own way.

His faith may aid him in how he leads, but that's not an infringement of your rights.

How has he done this? By invading Iraq or Afghanistan? By now making aggressive comments towards Iran? By dismissing the line drawn from 9-11 to Iraq? Exactly how has he made it clear we don't want war with the Muslims?

From President Bush's speech to Congress on September 20, 2001:

"I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world.  We respect your faith.  It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends.  Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.  The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.  The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends.  Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. "

I think it is clear from our words and actions regarding the Muslim holy sites that we are making every effort to not make this a war on Islam - despite the attempts by our opponents to make it so. Comments about the actions of an Islamic theocracy that is building its nuclear capacity and supporting terror networks does not make a "War on Islam". Overthrowing the Taliban when they were deliberately supporting, aiding and training al Qaeda is not a "War on Islam".

Mark L,
Bush's faith is leading him in scientific decisions. This is not in the best interests of the country.

He also used the word "crusade" when he first brought up the war. This is more faith and has very bad connotations to the Muslim world. Once the first impression was over, it's too late to back track with sweeter language.

Don't forget his desire for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which is driven by his and his religion's discrimination of homosexuals.

Bush's faith is leading him in scientific decisions. This is not in the best interests of the country.

As I said above, it is justifiable to judge his leadership of the country and how his faith is a part of that leadership. However, to state that he has infringed rights by doing so is false.

He also used the word "crusade" when he first brought up the war. This is more faith and has very bad connotations to the Muslim world. Once the first impression was over, it's too late to back track with sweeter language.

He was specifically referring to the war against al Qaeda, not Muslims. I agree, the wording was awful, but to claim that we are waging war on Islam is false.

I have no problem with people holding Bush accountable to what they think about his leadership, but we don't need the invented charges - there's enough of those in the campaign already.

When Bush makes decisions that infringe on the exercising of our freedoms based on his religious beliefs then yes, by exercising his own he infringes on ours.

With all due respect, Catori, that statement is hogwash.

The First Amendment states that no law can be made or upheld that infringes upon your religious beliefs, even though that does happen. But Bush has made no law or for that matter, decision, that infringes upon anyone's religious beliefs. If he has, please cite it.

You can't be 46160 serious?!?