9:37 Home from bowling. Heard some of the debate on the radio. Nothing was being said that was substantially different from what I’ve heard before.
9:39 Kerry is looking right into camera. Is it that someone told him to do so, is the moderator just sitting in front of the camera?
9:40 My God, I’ve never seen Bush’s smirk more pronounced.
9:42 Any Canadians out there with opinions on whether government controlled health care results in poor quality?
9:46 Wait…is that what Bush said? The way that Kerry put it? Did Bush actually say that young people should be able to take money out of SS and put it into accounts? I thought he was just talking about putting money into savings.
9:48 I find that a bit hard to believe, that that tax cut alone would have kept SS going until 2075.
9:52 Okay, seriously. Did Bush have, y’know, a minor stroke on the left hand side of his face? I mean, the sneer is starting to distract me.
9:53 This is the first question to Bush that he hasn’t used to attack Kerry.
9:53: Whoops. Spoke too soon. Got in a shot under the wire.
9:57 That’s an interesting promise, that Kerry will bring the minimum wage up to over $7 an hour. Kerry’s also using the opportunity to target women.
9:58 AW, COME ON. Bush veered jobs over into education, and now he’s veering minimum wage into education? Jesus.
10:00 Holy crap. Two boldly dodged questions by Bush.
10:02 I mean, I hope American women were paying attention to that. Bush’s out and out dodging of the question was not only pathetic, but it really made clear that, hëll yeah, he would want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
10:04 What the hëll is Bush blinking so much for?
10:07 No, Kerry did NOT talk about a global test in respect to getting permission from other countries to defend himself. Does Bush NEVEr get tired of exaggerating it? Thank God Kerry is meeting that one head on.
10:09 Oh, come on. Bush heard that there wasn’t support for the Assault weapons ban (which I doubt) and therefore decided not to bother to push for it? As if he hasn’t failed to put the full court press to those things that he really DOES believe in.
10:14 I’m not sure if Bush met with the Black Congressional Caucus or not, but he sure as heck didn’t meet with the other organizations Kerry mentioned.
10:17 Jeez, I wish Kerry would find another word to use other than “respect” when it comes to matters of religion.
10:18 Now KERRY swings a question over to education? Oooookay.
10:22 The point isn’t that the country was divided in 2000. The point is that the country was united in 2001 and now is split once again, even worse than before.
10:24 what a powder puff question for the last question in the debate.
10:26 Idear? IDEAR? Kerry can say “nuclear,” but he can’t say “idea?”
10:29 I like the notion that Bush is optimistic. Unfortunately, it doesn’t jibe with many of his speeches that hit again and again sentiments of fear and terror.
I thought Bush’s closing speech was better, but overall Kerry just flat out performed better. I think Bush really hurt himself when he dodged several questions in a row. And I’ll tell you, I was dubious about the whole Bush-listening device thing, but there were moments when it really did look like Bush was listening to someone else talking…Ah well. I dunno.
• 
Bill wrote:
The post I was responding to seemed to imply–and this may have been a misreading on my part–that healthcare (which I took to include drug companies and the work they do) should be nonprofit. My thought was that this would cripple the drug industry, which has benefited us all so greatly (Life expectancy of 85+ hasn’t happened because of our healthier diets, that’s for sure).
(in the interest of full disclosure, I’ve snipped the last two paragraphs of his post- which both made excellent points that I don’t plan on disputing- it’s just a space concern)
Bill, I’d have to agree that capitalism works, with the codicil that it works only as well as or marginally better than any other system we (as a species) have tried so far. Call me loony if you want, but I’d like to think that in a perfect world, profit would not be the sole (or even overriding) motive for research into lifesaving medicines and surgical procedures, but rather simply the drive to save lives and improve quality of life for our fellow humans. I’ll concede that certainly it isn’t the case *now*, but what’s the harm in wishing it were so and working towards that goal legislatively, socially and politically? This may be putting words in someone else’s mouth, but I think the idea that Marc was trying to get across is that health care *shouldn’t* be profit driven, it ought to be affordable by all.
I’ll take you Ayn Rand fantasy and raise you one loony-left pipe dream. 😉
Take care!
To Jeff Coney:
Sorry I got the amount you posted wrong. (it was the inevitable “where the heck are my glasses?” moment.)
To even have a detailed, itemised list of how much each aspect your/your wife’s health care cost and what is owed to who (whom? Arrgh!) is incomprehensible to me. With your particular situation I would be furious!
The American health care industry is actually quite impressive and arguably the most advanced in the world as long as one has financial means to afford the best service/advice/procedures.
The trick is to keep average middle-class America from realising they can not have access to the best health care because they will not be able to afford it. Kudos to the Republicans for doing their job so well. 🙂
Even more so then being billed for a basic human right, to me, the idea that wealthier people can and will get better treatment then lower income people seems so wrong that it is almost evil.
This must be an issue I am passionate about if it can prompt me, a proud Atheist, to quote or paraphrase the bible, but isn’t there a passage in there about a Camel being able to pass through the eye of a needle before a rich man could enter heaven? Does anyone see maybe, the sentiment behind such a thought?
Personal wealth or lack thereof, should not affect how much effort and resources are applied to preserving/treating/improving human life.
Again, I go back to my point about taxes being used to pay for essential services that the individual could not afford on his or her own, is how they are supposed be used.
The idea that taxes will pay to repave the street you live on every year so that the actual residents of said street aren’t burdened with the cost, is OK, but taxes being used to provide you with basic personal healthcare is wrong, resulting in inferior socialised medicine that will cost you your freedom to choose your own doctor is utterly preposterous.
I believe a politician should keep his personal beliefs and his political beliefs separate.
That statement makes no sense. I can understand saying you cannot force someone to agree with your belief on a particular issue, but what point is there in having a belief if it does not guide how you live and make decisions? And if it does guide you, it sure better have an impact on your political beliefs.
Jim in Iowa
It
A Canuck Redux says:
“Bill, I’d have to agree that capitalism works, with the codicil that it works only as well as or marginally better than any other system we (as a species) have tried so far. Call me loony if you want, but I’d like to think that in a perfect world, profit would not be the sole (or even overriding) motive for research into lifesaving medicines and surgical procedures, but rather simply the drive to save lives and improve quality of life for our fellow humans. I’ll concede that certainly it isn’t the case *now*, but what’s the harm in wishing it were so and working towards that goal legislatively, socially and politically? This may be putting words in someone else’s mouth, but I think the idea that Marc was trying to get across is that health care *shouldn’t* be profit driven, it ought to be affordable by all.”
“I’ll take you Ayn Rand fantasy and raise you one loony-left pipe dream. ;)”
“Take care!”
Hey, I like your world better than Ayns any day! However…my fear is that any attempt to legislate something like this will come crashing against the wall of reality, resulting in a situation that is much much worse than what we currently have. One must admire idealism but that doesn’t mean you have to let your bus driver go over a cliff just because he thinks the bus can fly.
Belive me, I have sympathy for people who get bills that have $10 a cotten ball and crap like that. I had an unfortunate cat incident a few years back whereupon my cat scratched my foot, resulting in an antibiotic resistant bacterial infection that tore up my leg with truly terrifying speed. One week in the hospital being pumped full of drugs that require federal approval to use later and I managed to survive with both legs intact. It took a long time to pay off the amount not covered by insurance. Then again, how much can I complain about being able to pay $100 a month or so for a few years when I’m still alive AND have two legs, allowing me to easily kick my cat in the ášš every day without falling over? God bless America!
Ben from Canada again, with some comments on the medical discussion:
Canadian doctors are still, continuously, in the very high end of the pay bracket. In other words, they’re making money hand-over-fist. Contrary to what the U.S. media is feeding you folks, we have a lot of research going on here.
For example, the first actual out-and-out cure for a variety of cancer was discovered at McMaster University, in my hometown of Hamilton, Ontario.
The concept of government-funded medicine does not preclude the idea of rewarding strong producers for what they produce. Indeed, a friend of mine in the pharmaceutical field -prefers- working in Canada to the U.S., because there’s a lot less pressure to produce the next saleable drug, and a lot more pressure to produce drugs that actually work…and can then be sold all over the globe.
I saw a TV special a few years back, where they compared U.S. media stories about Canadian healthcare to the truth. The U.S. interviewed Canadians who talked about the fabulous medical care they’d received in the U.S. and couldn’t get at home.
The U.S. media portrayed this as a failing in our medical system. When CBC interviewed the same people, the responses were along the lines of, “Well, the place in the U.S. was the only place that had the organ I needed,” or “They had pioneered a medical treatment that wasn’t available anywhere else.” The CBC then went on to note foreigners who’d come to Canada for medical treatment only we could provide, and Canadians who’d gone to other countries than the U.S. for specialized treatment.
It all gets twisted, you see, as part of the political agenda to keep pharmaceuticals rich. I mean, c’mon, folks…they’re the most profitable business in the U.S. You don’t think they’ve got their fingers in the media, in politics, and all over the map, protecting their bottom line?
Bill mulligan wrote:
“Then again, how much can I complain about being able to pay $100 a month or so for a few years when I’m still alive AND have two legs, allowing me to easily kick my cat in the ášš every day without falling over? God bless America!”
You can complain when you realise that in other countries, not just Canada, you would have been treated using the same drugs, had just as good of a recovery and over all health care experience, and you would not have to pay $100 a month or more for a few years.
How many is a few years? 3? 3.5? 4-6?
@ 3 years and assuming $100/ month (not the “or so” which I take to mean more then $100) that’s $3600 you have to pay.
What if you or your loved ones get sick/injured during this period? Then how much more will the debt rise?
What if you didn’t have insurance? What if you were low income and could not afford $100/ month?
Staring to see any reasons to complain yet?
“Hey, I like your world better than Ayns any day! However…my fear is that any attempt to legislate something like this will come crashing against the wall of reality, resulting in a situation that is much much worse than what we currently have. One must admire idealism but that doesn’t mean you have to let your bus driver go over a cliff just because he thinks the bus can fly.”
Given the actual “wall of ” REALITY that other countries make Government paid-for health care work (not perfectly and not without serious effort admittedly), and that fear of failure is not a good reason to avoid trying,
how does free health care for every American citizen regardless of their annual income result in having the bus driver going over a cliff because he thinks the bus can fly?
A more accurate analogy would be: the bus driver sees that other buses have been made capable of flight and he then gets his bus modified so it too will be able to achieve flight.
Before I make any more points: this not any kind of a direct attack against you and I am glad you had a full recovery and can laugh about it while keeping your cat. Me, I may have had the good humour to view it with later on but that cat would be de-clawed.
Ok, now a point or two more:
I have family in the US, so I have some knowledge of their experience using that model of health care, and there are some potential advantages to it, but what makes you feel that other health care models (maybe Canada’s as I’m most familiar with it) are “much, much worse” ?
I’ve heard the Rhetoric about not being able to choose your own doctor and that seems to be a uniquely American idea.
Up here I can see my family doctor that I’ve chosen, or go into a clinic if it’s going to be quicker and be seen by any of the physicians there. I can go to any clinic I want, anywhere is this country.
My employment provides me with drug and dental benefits, and thanks to the combination health care for myself and my wife and kids will not place me in debt.
How is this much much worse?
I’m a glass half full kind of guy–being alive, as opposed to dead, like my great grandfather, who died from an infection after cutting his toenails too closely. $100 bucks a month is getting off easy, I probably pay that much for cable and my highspeed internet connection.
Sure, lots of places pay less than we do. You can get thousands of dollars worth of AIDS drugs in some African countries, but that’s because the drug companies make enough here and other places to make up for the loss. If they could not charge high prices elsewhere I guarantee they would not be developing any AIDS drugs–they aren’t stupid.
Seems to me the logical way to sort this all out would be for some state to go to a Canada style system–raise taxes but pay the health care for all state members. If it works other states would follow. My suspicion is that nationalized health care is one of those things that probably has to be forced on people to have it be viable–not that this automatically makes it a bad idea.
“Only a tiny minority of people want to see Canada go over to the US system of private care, perhaps one-thirtieth of the population, and these are the same republican hardliners who wanted to join the US in 1867.”
Wow. They must be getting really long in the tooth!
Phinn
“The CBC then went on to note foreigners who’d come to Canada for medical treatment only we could provide, and Canadians who’d gone to other countries than the U.S. for specialized treatment.”
There’s something that probably doesn’t get placed on the brochures: “It’s not just the USA–There are LOTS of other countries we need to go to for the care we want!”
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001878.html
Kerry Sorry for Remark About Cheney’s Lesbian Child
(2004-10-14) — John Forbes Kerry, father of two heterosexual daughters, today apologized for referring to the sexual preference of Vice President Ðìçk Cheney’s daughter during last night’s final presidential debate.
“There’s nothing wrong with being one of God’s homosexual children,” said Mr. Kerry, an openly-heterosexual veteran of foreign war who is also a U.S. Senator, “And far be it from me to pry into the private life of Mr. Cheney’s lesbian child, who is gay and a homosexual. People can’t choose whom they will love, and so I should not have mentioned that his daughter is a lesbian person, and not a heterosexual, but in fact a gay homosexual woman who is a lesbian with the last name Cheney.”
Mr. Kerry said he would send a card to the vice president’s daughter to fully express his regrets.
“I’m sure Hallmark has a nice collection of cards that say things like, ‘I’m sorry I talked about your sexual preferences on national TV’,” said Mr. Kerry. “But I really wasn’t trying to remind conservatives that the vice president has a daughter who is not heterosexual, but rather a homosexual lesbian gay woman named Cheney.”
Mr. Kerry’s running mate, John Edwards, will reportedly issue an apology tomorrow for similar remarks he made during his debate with Mr. Cheney.
Something else to chime in with about health care. The current U.S. system influences what medical treatments you will or won’t choose because of money issues. I’ll give a personal example (and, having not done a study, this may be an isolated thing). My wife and I had our first child a year ago, and her insurance at the time paid 100% of all costs relating to maternity and birth. She got laid off and found a new job that offers crappier benefits, and only covers about 80% of all costs relating to maternity and birth. So, what happens if she needs a c-section (again)? What happens if the doctor looks at how things are going and recommends a c-section or some other procedure, but knowing we can’t afford it, my wife turns it down, despite the risks to her or the baby? Basically it comes down to we can’t afford to have another child right now, and we’re really hoping one of us (most likely her, since I’m just a bum of an artist and a stay at home dad) gets a job with better health benefits.
In general, I think the whole system needs to somehow be less money driven and more focused on keeping people healthy (and not unneccesarly pumped full of meds.). How that would happen successfully, I have no clue.
Monkeys.
Hm. I have an honest question here. What is Kerry apologizing for in mentioning Mary Cheney in the debate? From what I can tell (which may not be much), there wasn’t very much that was inflammatory here. Irrelevant, perhaps, but not inflammatory…
Irrelevant, perhaps, but not inflammatory…
Agreed. And irrelevant isn’t something to apologize for either. Otherwise Bush would be apologizing after every question he’s asked and feels the need to talk about something else instead.
Toby,
You call a benefit that pays you 80% of a procedure crappy? This is a perfect example of the Entitlement Mentality.
You should come to my hometown, where in the past year, the only two doctors left who delivered babies had to stop because the insurabce companies refused to insure them anymore. One left the state (I am in Pennsylvania) and the other has had to stop delivering babies. The one who is still here is bummed he has had to stop delivering babies, and he does blame lawsuits. he says it is easy to blame the insurance companies, but they need to be financially solvent. So they either need to charge higher rates or leave the states where it is no longer wise for them to stay. If they do charde higher rates, that gets passed along to the doctors. The doctor I am speaking of says even if, say, his insurance rates went up 5%, he can’t raise his fees to offset his increased costs, due to caps the government puts in place bacause of Medicare and things like that to CONTROL COSTS. And he can’t charge higher rates to people not on Medicare and other government programs because then that would be discriminatory.
So, in this one small instance alone, the attempt to control costs has squeezed doctors and hurt access to care. They cannot raise rates to offset expenses, they cannot practice without a license and they cannot keep their license if they are not insured. I shudder to think about a health care system totally run by the government
Oh, and before people feel the government running things would be more efficient than the insurance companies and these “Big, Bad” players in the health care system, consider this: Remember when Hillary took the opportunity of her husband’s emergency bypass to make a political point that she wished “everyone would have the same care” as they did?
Well, this statement was dissected by publications as diverse as the Post and New York Times. The finding:
A.) President Clinton had to wait about a half a day for an appointment with a cardiologist and only about two for surgery
B.) Under a Hillary-style health care system, he would have had to wait about two weeks for an APPOINTMENT, and 24 days after that for surgery. In other words, he would be dead.
of course, being a former president will always aford him the best care possible. t’s the rest of us who would have to wait, suffer and die unnecessarily if we change our system in the name of some insane definition of “fairness”.
Just my random thoughts on healthcare and insurance.
One, insurance costs in general are rising. Lots of different reasons, including those black holes in the insurance companies where money goes in and is never seen again…unless you look in the wallets of the CEOs and other adminstrators. Insurance companies are for profit, just like a bunch of other companies, and one way to improve profit is to reduce coverage while raising premiums. Its simple greed economics, and the “customers” of the company, those paying the premiums, are pretty powerless to stop it. Hence, the need for governmental oversight…short of control, maybe some form of regulation. Banks are a similar racket…I mean, how much sense does it make to give your money to an insitution (bank or insurance company) for safe keeping, until you need it later, and then, when you DO need it, they don’t give it all back, or charge you up the wazoo for it? Shouldn’t THEY be paying YOU for all the interest and investment power your money has given them? Think about it…
And now about “free” healthcare. There won’t be such a thing until we hit ST:TNG’s currency-less Federation, and even there, we know that gold-pressed latinum has a high value. Healthcare costs have to be borne by someone. There’s a doctor and a tech and a nurse and a hospital and supplies, and those little hospital meals with the green JELL-O, and all that stuff and service costs someone something. What most people call “free” healthcare really means healthcare paid for by money collected by taxes. It’s maybe the biggest pool of insurance money. Your taxes would become your premium. Overall costs might be individually low, depending on how successful you could keep the healthcare funds out of the general revenue fund, and you’d have to work hard to keep those beaurocratic black holes from gobbling up the fund, but in theory, you could run a pretty efficient helthcare system on it.
I’ve seen both sides of the medical liability lawsuit. I’ve read the stories about doctors closing up shop because they can’t get liabilty insurance. Don’t know how complete those stories are. On the other hand, no study completed to date has supported medical liability costs as a factor of rising healthcare costs.
People keep saying the government needs to pass a law limiting the liabilty of medical malpratice. Maybe instead people need to stop thinking the doctor is responsible when their baby is born with a genetic birth defect. Or has brown eyes instead of blue. Or turned out to be a violent little creep, because, y’know, it was the doctors’ fault that the parent’s didn’t do their job as parents and work to instill values like integrity and respect in their kid.
I jest, of course, but if you look hard and long enough, you’ll probably find some real-world lawsuit that matches my jest. Maybe instead of laws that arbitrarily limit all malpractice suits, including the very legitimate “My doctor dropped my baby on his head during the procedure, and now he has brain damage” case, and instead enact laws that allow doctors to counter-sue frivolous malpractice claims? Of heck, not even wait for a countersuit, just place within the judges discretion the ability to law a contempt fine on the plaintiff and lawyer who sues for $10,000,000 because “we were supposed to have a boy, and the doctor messed it up and now we have a girl.”
Kerry’s reference to Cheney’s daughter had the appearance of being an attempt to use a child against her parents (at best) or an attempt to carve off a few Bush votes by appealing to what he sees as the homophobia of the “Reagan democrats (at worst).
It also just seemed sleazy. Suppose, when Kerry talked about his Catholic faith Bush replied by talking about how he was SURE that Kerry had struggled long and hard to console his daughters during his DIVORCE and subsequent ANNULMENT and…would anybody think he was being sincere?
At any rate, it certainly has played poorly. I talked to one woman today, a Kerry supporter, who was furious, a lot angrier about it than I was (But that’s probably because my expectations for the guy aren’t high to begin with). Polls show Bush seeming to gain, despite the media saying he lost all 3 debates. But who knows? I was ready to say the race was turning solidly for Kerry a few days ago, now I’m not at all sure.
What I think would go a longer way towards stemming frivolous lawsuits than a cap on damages is adopting the “loser pays” rule that most other countries already have. A lot of lawsuits today are settled not because the defendent actually did anything wrong but because it’s cheaper than paying lawyer fees for months even years to fight it out.
If a doctor or hospital knew that they could make the defendent pay their lawyer fees if they prevailed at trial, they’d be more willing to fight it. And, fewer people would see slipping on a mall food court as winning the lottery if they knew that if they lost, they’d be on the hook for paying not only their legal costs but also those of the mall’s owners. Finally, I think many lawyers would be hesitant file frivolous claims if they knew the best they were likely to receive would be their billable hours instead of half of a multi-million dollar settlement check.
Kerry’s reference to Cheney’s daughter had the appearance of being an attempt to use a child against her parents (at best) or an attempt to carve off a few Bush votes by appealing to what he sees as the homophobia of the “Reagan democrats (at worst).
Bear with me on this one. I’m still not seeing it. When there’s a position that quite clearly touches on the individual involved, that seems to be quite fair game to me. Or was it much more out of the blue than I thought it was?
Bill Mulligan: “There’s something that probably doesn’t get placed on the brochures: “It’s not just the USA–There are LOTS of other countries we need to go to for the care we want!”
Me: Actually the point was that for certain treatments people have to go where they are available, including Americans. Or did you not realise how many Americans seek Treatment abroad?
Jerome Maida :
“You should come to my hometown, where in the past year, the only two doctors left who delivered babies had to stop because the insurance companies refused to insure them anymore.”
“I shudder to think about a health care system totally run by the government”
Me: The town I grew up in has a population of 6000. We had then and have now more then 2 doctors that deliver babies. We have a well equipped hospital, a not so impressive clinic, and more then enough doctors to handle a population that size.
Jerome Maida :
“Under a Hillary-style health care system, he would have had to wait about two weeks for an APPOINTMENT, and 24 days after that for surgery. In other words, he would be dead.
of course, being a former president will always afford him the best care possible. it’s the rest of us who would have to wait, suffer and die unnecessarily if we change our system in the name of some insane definition of “fairness”.
Me: Wow, have you ever been fed false facts to convince you that paying for your health care out of your own pocket is much better for you.
Under our system, emergency cases such as heart attacks and strokes of course get priority treatment. People suffering from the flu are the ones that wait in emergency rooms while the critical cases are treated first.
The people having a heart attack don’t die because they are waiting 2 weeks for emergency treatment.
Under your current system you would have to wait longer then Bill Clinton did and you would get inferior treatment because Bill Clinton has more money then you do.
Now yes our system is not perfect, an example is a nurse that I was chatting with while she took my blood and in her case she has a torn meniscus (sp?) and has to wait 8 months to have surgery on it.
That is very unfortunate, but at the same time this not a life-threatening situation and because the provincial conservative party gutted the province’s health care system to deliver an election promise of a 40% reduction in income tax.
Why people do not realize that huge tax cuts also mean huge drops in essential services I still don’t understand.
An “insane definition of fairness”? What’s insane about health care being a basic human right of all people? What’s insane about the average person being able to receive equal quality healthcare as compared to a wealthier person?
Does having more money somehow make a person’s life more worth saving?
America is one of the richest, if not richest countries in the world, yet it doesn’t provide health care for all of its citizens. Doesn’t that seem wrong?
“Hm. I have an honest question here. What is Kerry apologizing for in mentioning Mary Cheney in the debate? From what I can tell (which may not be much), there wasn’t very much that was inflammatory here. Irrelevant, perhaps, but not inflammatory…”
I think it’s fairly obvious that the post regarding the “apology” is a gag. I mean, come on, look at the wording attributed to Kerry. It’s a joke.
As for the reality, non-joke aspect of Kerry’s comments, I think the one who should be ashamed of himself is Cheney. Not only was it abundantly clear in Kerry’s initial comment–which was in direct response to a question about homosexuality being a choice–that he wasn’t slamming anybody, but also Cheney has made repeated public references to his daughter’s sexuality, and Edwards himself made a comment about how Cheney is accepting of her preferences and Cheney simply smiled and said he appreciated it. But Kerry says basically the same thing Edwards and Cheney did, and suddenly Cheney’s flipping out. A pathetic and manipulative ploy to cast Kerry in a bad light.
The one who did really put her foot in her mouth was Edwards’ wife. Speculating that Cheney’s family might actually be ashamed because they’re overreacting? How about saying “I think they’re overreacting” and leaving it at that. Then again, no one is voting for Edward’s wife. Still, that was just a flat out blunder.
PAD
He used Mary Cheney as a prop.
That is why it was sleazy.
I think I’m going to stop watching the news until this election is over. I’m tired of the lies and distortions from both parties. The straw that broke the camel’s back is from Kerry this time — a quote he gave to the Des Moines Register, published today. Here’s an excerpt:
“With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft. Because if we go it alone, I don’t know how you do it with the current overextension” of the military, Kerry said.
This is an outright fabrication, and amounts to nothing more than fear-mongering to grab a few more votes.
Man, am I fed up!!! Maybe I’ll do a write-in vote for Alfred E. Neuman.
And now it is being reported that a seventeen member Army Reserve Platoon in Iraq is under arrest for refusing to go on a mission claiming their vehicles were unsafe.
I strongly suspect that if Clinton was still President and he was the one that invaded Iraq, the GOP would be attempting to impeach him again.
How well do you think it would go over with those Christians who like to hunt if a pacifist Christian politician decided to campaign against the 2nd amendment?
It is this kind of logic that puzzles me. I am not trying to be critical, I just honestly don’t get it.
If someone believes the war in Iraq is wrong, but the majority believes it is right, should he vote for the war?
If someone, for religious reasons, believes the death penalty is wrong, but the majority of Americans believe it is right, should he leave his beliefs at home and vote for the death penalty?
Polls show that there is an overwhelming majority (between 70 and 75%) of the population do not agree with gay marriage. Why is it wrong to put a constitutional amendment in place (since if it was up for a vote, it would win by a landslide, at least today)?
My point is that it is absurd to say anyone, liberal or republican, should believe something, but not vote based on those beliefs. We do not live in a monarchy. We live in a representative republic. One wacko who thinks (fill in the blank) cannot establish policy.
The one exception is when it comes to executive orders. The President does have some power to have some influence. Bush has actually been fairly moderate in what he has done. It has been definitely conservative, but there is far more that he could have done.
Bottom line: I have no problem with an offical voting and acting on his beliefs, whether they are liberal or conservative. If they are out of touch, extreme, etc., they will generally be booted from office. While I support Bush, his policy in Iraq has in particular upset a large number of people. He did what he felt was right. If enough of you disagree, he will be sent walking in a few weeks.
My problem is not with politicians who vote their conscience according to their beliefs. My problem is with politicians who hide those beliefs so they can get into office, and those politicians who vote based on money rather than their beliefs. And an honest examination can find politicians like this in both parties.
Jim in Iowa
He used Mary Cheney as a prop.
Sorry, I just don’t get that. It’s an example, not a prop. It personalizes his argument with a named person, and it’s a stronger argument because it doesn’t come from his ticket, but from the other ticket.
Furthermore, the concept of “it being sleazy” makes sense to me only if you consider homosexuality shameful or something to be kept hidden or not to be spoken of. I’m not sure that any candidate should admit to that…
John Kerry could have easily used for his example either Wisconson Rep. Tammy Baldwin, or even Rep. Barney Frank, who’s from a little place called Massachusetts if he was only looking for a gay person. His swipe at Cheney’s daughter was exactly that, a swipe. Both democrats and republicans are upset about it.
Excuse me. Kerry did not “swipe” at Cheney’s daughter. If you consider what Kerry did to be a “swipe”, I suspect that you have a problem with homophobia. Mary Cheney had been “outed” for a while.
Example, extended version: A person is elected into the House of Representatives because he has proved himself on a local level in regards to school funding, lowering the crime rate and cutting taxes. Once in the House, someone introduces legislation to get rid of the 2nd amendment. He is a pacifist and believes deep down that gun cause more trouble than they solve and would like nothing more than to outlaw them. HOWEVER, he also knows the majority of his constituents are hunters and gun collectors. How does he vote?
A politician is supposed to represent the interest of those who elected him into office. In the above case, he should put aside his personal beliefs and vote how he thinks the majority of those he is representing would want him to vote.
So to answer your questions:
If someone believes the war in Iraq is wrong, but the majority believes it is right, should he vote for the war?
Yes.
If someone, for religious reasons, believes the death penalty is wrong, but the majority of Americans believe it is right, should he leave his beliefs at home and vote for the death penalty?
Yes.
Polls show that there is an overwhelming majority (between 70 and 75%) of the population do not agree with gay marriage. Why is it wrong to put a constitutional amendment in place (since if it was up for a vote, it would win by a landslide, at least today)?
I believe polls are to be to be ranked just under
Oh please. I’ve stated on this site before that I have absolutely no problem, and in fact see the day where gay unions will be legal and recognized. Kerry was using a planned talking point, and it’s backfiring on him.
” We’re all God’s children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to
Ðìçk Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was, she’s being who she was born as.
“I think if you talk to anybody, it’s not choice. I’ve met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.”
This is a swipe?
I really, really don’t think so.
Well, The woman I referred to earlier was gay herself and SHE thought Kerry was trying to use Mary Cheney against her father. It does seem a bit gratuitous to have her mentioned twice in the debates–why not mention loveable Homosexual New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy, a far better example of someone who is “living a sort of convention”.
The terrible statement that Ms. Edwards later made that Peter refers to was probably just, as he says, a blunder, but it certainly reinforces the idea that this is a deliberate attack (I would disagree, in large part because it’s hard to believe the Democrats would be so tone deaf as to think that this was a winning issue for them).
“If you consider what Kerry did to be a “swipe”, I suspect that you have a problem with homophobia.”
“Furthermore, the concept of “it being sleazy” makes sense to me only if you consider homosexuality shameful or something to be kept hidden or not to be spoken of.”
Nope. Nice try. Advice to future presidential wannabes: Leave. The. Other. Guys’ Kids. Out. Of. It.
But if Democrats want to keep this issue alive for the next 2 1/2 weeks, I say: Go For It! Soccer Moms LOVE this sort of thing!
Well, The woman I referred to earlier was gay herself and SHE thought Kerry was trying to use Mary Cheney against her father. It does seem a bit gratuitous to have her mentioned twice in the debates–why not mention loveable Homosexual New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy, a far better example of someone who is “living a sort of convention”.
Actually, it wouldn’t, because it’s clear to me that the point was to show that this is something that crosses party lines; you want somebody tied to the Republican party, so that undecideds and wavering Republicans can’t dismiss this as a Democratic only issues.
Nope. Nice try. Advice to future presidential wannabes: Leave. The. Other. Guys’ Kids. Out. Of. It.
Sorry. I’m still not getting it. Republican ticket makes policy that touches very directly on a member of their own family. Why is that verboten? It’s not like she’s still in the closet, you know….
So Roger, are you saying it would have been better for the democrats if Mary Cheney was still in the closet?
The question to Kerry was about Gay Marriage. Please show me where Mary Cheney has ever publicly said anything about the subject. If she had said she’s for gay marriage, then it would have been a point for the democrats to bring this up. However, she didn’t and it looks like an attack.
A letter writer to the Andrew Sullivan blog makes an interesting point–for a lot of people, especially those of us over a certain age, it’s just not considered proper to talk about other people’s sex lives–gay, straight, battery operated, whatever. It’s something town gossips and high school teens do. Yes, we all knew Mary Cheney was gay. I also know the other daughter is straight. If Kerry had referred to the straight daughter using birth control or some other heterosexual activity I still would go “ewww”.
I’ll make another example–if one of Kerry or Bush’s kids had an abortion, I would consider it very low class to use the argument in a debate. Such distaste would not be because of any position of mine on abortion.
I would also have objected if Bush had somehow, maybe as part of an observation on health care, snuck in a reference to Kerry’s prostate cancer. It would be low. Not because I have any objection to cancer. Well, it’s not like I send them Christmas cards but, you know…
A CNN reporter said that the entire press room groaned when Kerry made the remark. Homophobes all?
During the last election, some Bush supporters spread a rumor that John McCaine had a “black baby”. Were the people who were outraged by this bit of sleaze upset because they were racists? McCaine DOES have an adopted child with dark skin. Are you saying there’s anything WRONG with that?
“A truth that’s told with bad intent, beats all the lies you can invent.” (So eat your beans with every meal.)
Could this be for Kerry what Amy Carter’s nuclear proliferation advice was for Jimmy? Wait and see what Saturday Night Live does with this.
This is an outright fabrication, and amounts to nothing more than fear-mongering to grab a few more votes.
Unless I’m mistaken, even officials in this Administration have said we’re stretched thin.
So, it’s easy to see why they’re all but pressing “retired” soldiers back into service, making threats against others to reenlist, etc.
If Bush gets another term keeps this up, we’ll be at war with another country or two in the next four years, and we won’t have a choice.
Fabrication? Hardly.
Fear-mongering? Not unless you think that voting for Kerry will get us another 9/11.
Kerry has said that he will NOT cut and run from Iraq.
Kerry is saying that our current commitments may well require a draft.
So….is Kerry trying to tell us there will be a draft when he gets elected?
Also, forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t a draft require congressional approval? If so, it ain’t gonna happen. The last vote on the issue only got 2 votes for it (both Kerry supporters–Gulp!).
Not gonna happen.
So Roger, are you saying it would have been better for the democrats if Mary Cheney was still in the closet?
Um, no. It’s just a publicly available fact; and, in fact, Mary Cheney is actually in the public eye, having been hired by Coors because of her orientation. I just don’t find it particularly remarkable.
And, by the way, the question was not about gay marriage; it was “is homosexuality a choice.” There is, I think, a valid point to be made about acceptance of homosexuality in there.
A letter writer to the Andrew Sullivan blog makes an interesting point–for a lot of people, especially those of us over a certain age, it’s just not considered proper to talk about other people’s sex lives–gay, straight, battery operated, whatever.
Again, I obviously don’t get it; if there’s a personal connection in the opponent’s camp, and it doesn’t violate privacy, then I think it’s fair game.
I would also have objected if Bush had somehow, maybe as part of an observation on health care, snuck in a reference to Kerry’s prostate cancer. It would be low.
THis is what I mean; I don’t see this as a problem. If Bush could make a comment that Kerry’s prostate cancer was, say, treated much better under the current system and would not be under Kerry’s proposed system (and could prove it), then it’s a valid point to make.
During the last election, some Bush supporters spread a rumor that John McCaine had a “black baby”. Were the people who were outraged by this bit of sleaze upset because they were racists? McCaine DOES have an adopted child with dark skin. Are you saying there’s anything WRONG with that?
Sorry, I don’t get your point here. Is it sleazy and wrong to spread that rumor? Well, I think it was done to imply that it was out of wedlock…and to play on racist fears. I think both of those things are wrong…shouldn’t we think that’s wrong?
Sigh…my point was that OF COURSE it was wrong! NOT because the baby is black but because the INTENT of stating this was to do harm.
So it comes down to–was what Kerry said an innocent remark or was it intended to cause play on the supposed bigotries of others? Was the intent bad? I’m not sure.
Now obviously you think it wasn’t. fair enough…but can you really not understand how some might see otherwise and how it would then be wrong?
One other point–if Bush had ended up running against gephardt and had brought up his daughter’s homosexuality don’t you think it is very much in the rhelm of possibility that he would also have gotten a lot of flack for it? Possibly from some of the same folks who are now defending kerry.
Of course, like all what ifs, we will never know.
The last vote on the issue only got 2 votes for it (both Kerry supporters–Gulp!).
Yes, it was such a serious vote that the person who put it up didn’t even vote in favor of it.
That was a joke vote – a vote to show all the public that there won’t be a draft, and to make sure those guys get their áššëš reelected for another 2 years.
If Kerry says we might be stuck with a draft, it’s because Bush has put us in the situation.
Sigh…my point was that OF COURSE it was wrong! NOT because the baby is black but because the INTENT of stating this was to do harm.
Ah. Sorry. Teach me to surf the web while at the campaign kickoff for our school (Trey Gates is not a bad speaker, but his father is much better).
So it comes down to–was what Kerry said an innocent remark or was it intended to cause play on the supposed bigotries of others? Was the intent bad? I’m not sure.
Was it to score political points? Certainly. And as I said before, it works best if he cited someone related to a Republican. But was it hurtful to the Cheneys? I don’t think so; in fact, it was quite sympathetic. Was it gently pointing out the cognitive dissonance between the public and private stances in the Republican ticket? Quite possibly, but it’s something I think is fair game…
And with Bush’s hypothetical statement toward Chrissy Gephardt, it would depend on what he said. If it’s offensive when applied to a random public figure, then it’s offensive when applied to her. If it isn’t, I cant see how it would be with Chrissy Gephardt.
Catching up on a couple of matters…
I’m wanting to look up the DSM-IV criteria for “schizophrenia” not so much because of the prayer thing (I pray a fair bit myself, especially lately), but because Bush can somehow “feel” all these prayers being said. Unless he’s holding a somewhat more important job than I’d thought, those prayers aren’t being addressed to him. How’s he supposed to be “feeling” what people are presumably doing in privacy?
As regards public prayers –
“When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret shall reward you.” – Matthew 6:5-6
And about the health systems, I think Canada’s got a great system. You get sick up there, you go to a doctor, the Canadian government pays for it. I think we should have the same thing here – I get sick, I go to the doctor, the Canadian government pays for it! 🙂
Jonathon:
>I’m wanting to look up the DSM-IV criteria for “schizophrenia” not so much because of the prayer thing (I pray a fair bit myself, especially lately), but because Bush can somehow “feel” all these prayers being said. Unless he’s holding a somewhat more important job than I’d thought, those prayers aren’t being addressed to him. How’s he supposed to be “feeling” what people are presumably doing in privacy?
Is there an echo in here? 😉
Again, my point in saying this wasn’t at all about the fact that he prays. It is with the implications of his words. His statement iplies “magical thinking”, which is one of the criteria for schizophrenia. Do I honestly think he has this? Nope, but it is dangerous thinking nonetheless. He is supporting his own beliefs based on a perception that he feels others praying for him. Again I pose the question, what about the millions praying to their god to end the violence and his actions?
Roger,
It was sleazy becasue you just don’t bring up the other guys Family. It seems to be an unwritten rule.
And just for the record, (because you have to do this when debating persons or subjects of the lefty persuasion….)
I am for gay marriage, homosexuality is not a choice you are born that way, yes yes yes…
and if I were American I would stil vote for W.
Bill Mulligan posed the question of whether a draft would require congressional approval.
Normally, I’d have said “yes” to that. Today, Under Bush, I’m not so sure. The Executive Office of today exercises many powers that to me appear to be beyond the power granted to it by the Constitution. Prime example being the abilty to declare war. This power is solely vested within the congress, yet after 9/11, Congress all but ceded that authority in the office of the President. Our Founders had a darn good reason to put the power to declare open war on another country not in the hands of the Commander in Chief, but in the hands of the elected body of congress, and that reason was so that we did not go to war based on one man’s ideals, convictions, or declaration. Having just lived through a war, they fully understood the horror and terrible cost of any armed conflict, and ennacted a check agaisnt our new country entering a military conflict needlessly. The grant of power ceded to the Office of the President following 9/11 amounts to an illegal transfer of constitutional power.
All of which leads me to the conclusion that there’s no telling what other powers this President may have, or may THINK he has, to exercise. He’s issued, or had issued, a gag order to employees of the US EPA, preventing them from commenting or speaking to the press regarding the performance of the EPA during his tenure. He’s fostered an environment within the government (and I know, I’m a federal employee myself) where to question, challenge, or criticize his actions results in discrimination or outright job loss.
So I wouldn’t put anything past him as beyond his ability to attempt to do. If he feels that, if a draft is “necessary to ensure the safety and security of this country,” he’ll use his post 9/11 authority granted to him by congress to institute a mandatory draft. He has the legal precedent behind him already, and he’s formeted an atmosphere of fear and apprehension within his own government, reducing the chances that his decision would be challenged before it was issued.
Really, all he’s missing is the black armor and the breathing resiprator. Otherwise, he’s showing all the signs of a Sith Lord.
Makes sense KingBobb, as Cheney seems to be Palpatine behind the scenes pulling his strings…
So…
Edwards is Luke Skywalker? And Kerry is Han Solo? Yikes, does that make Bush…Edwards…Father?
Noooooooooooooo!