Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
He didn't say national sentiment. He said national coverage.

The local coverage by the Boston Globe and other liberal media establishments in MA* slant the issue to make it look like there is more support than there is. You have to go to the national news sources to be able to get less biased information about what is going on in MA.

* Are there any other kind in Taxachusettes?

Nothing like the old 1970s slurs and a little ad hominem against the Globe.

Keep dreaming. Come on by with your crazy friends and signs, hang out over on Beacon Street, and rail away. They've really been amusing so far, and do quite a bit of damage to the cause.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
Apparently you didn't click on the link or didn't bother to read the article. This was just one of the problems with the BG poll

How can you punish something that requires the state's approval to do in the first place? WEre there really people who thought you should get tossed in the pokie for going to Vermont or Canada to get married?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Mr. Kerry: If your daughter wanted to marry another woman, would you support her right to do so?

Not a pretty question for anyone in national politics. I wonder how Ronald Reagan would have answered it?

So what answers do people expect from either Kerry or Bush when this is asked in the debate?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Now whether he should have been transported at taxpayer's expense to a duck hunting trip, though, is a different issue.

He should definitely have to pay for the in-flight peanuts.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Not a pretty question for anyone in national politics. I wonder how Ronald Reagan would have answered it?

Even better, I wonder how Dick Cheney would answer it? I certainly hope someone asks that in the VP debates (assuming his heart hasn't petered out by then).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Even better, I wonder how Dick Cheney would answer it? I certainly hope someone asks that in the VP debates (assuming his heart hasn't petered out by then).

Although I do not think I am going to get to see John Edwards make a fool of George Bush in a presidential debate or two, I continue to hope that I will see him make Dick Cheney look like a fool in a vice-presidential debate.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So what answers do people expect from either Kerry or Bush when this is asked in the debate?

Question: If your daughter wanted to marry another woman, would you support her right to do so?

Bush - No.

Kerry - I would support her right to enter into a civil union.

Cheney - Ask me when Mrs. Cheney isn't around to hear my answer.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Although I do not think I am going to get to see John Edwards make a fool of George Bush in a presidential debate or two, I continue to hope that I will see him make Dick Cheney look like a fool in a vice-presidential debate.

I do too, although a disadvantage for Edwards in such a forum will be his relative youth. On the podium with Cheney, Edwards may look like he's 8 yrs old.

Perhaps Edwards can challenge Cheney to a light jog around the auditorium.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Not Me
Question: If your daughter wanted to marry another woman, would you support her right to do so?

Bush - No.

Here is a better question for Bush:

Mr. Bush, if your daughter got sloppy drunk at a frat party and got pregnant after having a one night stand with a frat boy from a lower class income family attending college on financial aid, would you support her right to abortion?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If Bush didn't really believe there were WMD why would he have done all that he did? It was a real neck stretch. Clinton has said his intelligence said there were WMD, and the UN kept sanctions that were killing Iraquis because it believed Iraq had WMD.
Saddam had a bluff going that backfired on him. We're better off.

And by the way, to the Poster last week who said the liberals here aren't capable of hyperbole, I have to say if we can keep Sebby here you guys will be good to go. Sebastian this is a compliment.

Bush was following the Wolfowitz "reshape the Middle East" amateur foreign policy starter kit recipe. I think Kissinger first proposed the "place one democracy in the heart of the middle east and they'll all fall like dominoes" theory ages ago. 9/11 presented the perfect excuse for the premptive strike. If Bush didn't push the war on the heels of 9/11, he knew he'd never get another chance. Paul O'Neill's book admits Bush had decided to go to Iraq BEFORE 9/11. And Powell is eating his earlier words in 2000 and early 2001 that sanctions were working on Iraq and that the regime had been effectively emasculated.

We never bought Saddam's bluff. But we did encourage it.

Its nearly impossible to suggest with any credibility that WMD was not a pretext. If there were a trial on the issue, Bush would lose.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Perhaps Edwards can challenge Cheney to a light jog around the auditorium.

If he does, I hope Cheney would respond by challenging Edwards to a hamburger eating contest.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Not a pretty question for anyone in national politics. I wonder how Ronald Reagan would have answered it?

So what answers do people expect from either Kerry or Bush when this is asked in the debate?

Or Newt Gingrich.

And the civil unions answer is probably the closest.

"I believe that marriage is a peculiar institution that is limited to a man and a woman. I recognize, however, that many people have relationships that do not fit within that traditional mold. I am not opposed to the voters of each state determining whether they wish to extend benefits similar to those afforded married couples to homosexual men and women."

And, for the record, Dukakis should have answered:

"My first instinct, like anyone's I think, would be to seek immediate vengeance against my wife's murderer. But it is for exactly that reason that we have a criminal-justice system, instead of the lynch mobs of the wild west, to mete out punishment. And, after getting past the immediate anger and grief, I would want to see my wife's murdered tried under a fair system and sentenced to the maximum possible imprisonment, but I would not want to see him eligible for the death penalty because it's immoral [yada, about immorality]"

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Agreed. Now whether he should have been transported at taxpayer's expense to a duck hunting trip, though, is a different issue.

Whether he should have accepted a free vacation from a government contracting corporation at all is a different issue, too.

For those of you keeping track at home, we're now arguing over whether it is reasonable to suggest that a Supreme Court justice who sits on a case in which the defendant joined him on a free vacation, transportation included, paid for by the litigant's former company, while the case was pending, might not be impartial. In other words, we're arguing whether suggesting that the judge recuse himself is unreasonable. The question is not whether this Supreme Court justice has the ability to overlook his ties to the litigant, but whether it is unreasonable to question his partiality. That's a low bar, people. For good reason.

If he were a district court judge and didn't recuse himself under those circumstances, he'd be disciplined for having brought ill repute upon the judiciary and undermining public confidence in the institution.

Keep in mind that, if memory serves, Thomas recused himself from the VMI case because his son attended the school.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Paul O'Neill's book

He wrote a book? What's the title of the book he wrote?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
Agreed. Now whether he should have been transported at taxpayer's expense to a duck hunting trip, though, is a different issue.

Both of those guys should have been smart enough to know that what they did just can't be done. Whether we think Scalia would be influenced is almost immaterial - the issue is, did he cause a perception of unfairness? It was poor judgment for both of them. Now, Cheney is going to lose a vote, and Scalia's credibility is damaged, and he's going to have to recuse again.

Just incredibly careless.