Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
Didn't even notice this before, but it appears that Lizzie Edwards actually answered the "gay from birth, or choice" question that her man Kerry skipped in order to drag Mary Cheney into the fray:

"I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences . . . "

Preference? Not orientation?

Okay, that's clear now.

This sort of Clintonesque word parsing over so trivial an "issue" indicates how desperate the Rs have come. It wouldn't surprise me to see massive fraud, irregularies, and voter intimidation performed by such a desperate party.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
AH, the dreaded "sloppy seconds" defense -- which has assumed increasing prominence on the right in recent months! Curses!

This would be a good time for all to concede that the concept of Original Sin was likely premised on the first political race.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And what do you think VF/Alterman is? Objective?

That wasn't the point though. I wasn't relying on that cite at all for my position. I just posted it because SS gave me one last shot and it was the first thing with any substance I could find.

I should let this go, but I can't:

Club, the "substantive" piece you cite was written anonymously by someone who feared the Democrats would kill him (or worse!) if his true identity were revealed:

"Why don't you print your real name in this article?

"I am accusing Gore's team of despicable and scandalous behavior. The true extent of their plan to overthrow the election has not yet been revealed and I wouldn't trust them to walk my dog."

http://www.florida2000election.com/sections/12.htm


S_A_M

P.S. From now on, better rely on Hank to do the Internet research for your side.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
I like your new debating tactic you've been using the past few days. Simply claiming "you lost", or "I won", even in the face of contrary facts, seems to make you a happier debater. I, for one, am bolstered simply by proximity to such contentment.

Thank you, but I can't claim credit. Hank invented that.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by bilmore
Didn't even notice this before, but it appears that Lizzie Edwards actually answered the "gay from birth, or choice" question that her man Kerry skipped in order to drag Mary Cheney into the fray:

"I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences . . . "

Preference? Not orientation?

Okay, that's clear now.

I don't have any dog in this fight, but aren't preferences just a manifestation of how one is oriented?

And I'm still trying to figure out why this is such an issue. Mary Cheney's sexual orientation has been public knowledge for years.

Why, bilmore, why?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
This sort of Clintonesque word parsing over so trivial an "issue" indicates how desperate the Rs have come. It wouldn't surprise me to see massive fraud, irregularies, and voter intimidation performed by such a desperate party.

This sort of Kerryesque handwringing over what is obviously a joke indicates how despondent you have become. It wouldn't surprise me to see massive fraud, irregularies, and voter intimidation performed by such a desperate party.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by spookyfish
I don't have any dog in this fight, but aren't preferences just a manifestation of how one is oriented?

I was born with lungs, and so I prefer to breath air?

(It was a joke. Take nothing more from it than that.)

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
This sort of Clintonesque word parsing over so trivial an "issue" indicates how desperate the Rs have come. It wouldn't surprise me to see massive fraud, irregularies, and voter intimidation performed by such a desperate party.

Well, I'm confident that the Justice Department is prepared to handle all of the complaints of massive fraud, irregularities and voter intimidation. Oh wait...

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
This sort of Kerryesque handwringing over what is obviously a joke indicates how despondent you have become. It wouldn't surprise me to see massive fraud, irregularies, and voter intimidation performed by such a desperate party.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

12-4.

(Hi, Hank!)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Well, I'm confident that the Justice Department is prepared to handle all of the complaints of massive fraud, irregularities and voter intimidation. Oh wait...

This does seem rather dumb and shortsighted of them, knowing for months in advance as they did that ACT, ACORN, MoveOn, and their ilk were going to be heavily involved in voter reg and get-out this time.

But, also, consider the cries of outrage had the DOJ announced a few months back that they WERE going to ramp up for this - heck, wasn't it in Colorado just yesterday where the AG announced that they would be looking for fraud, and the DNC head immediately sent out a press release decrying the horrid, horrid intimidation that such an announcement created?

Can't win, huh?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
12-4.

?? French radio code for surrender?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I like your new debating tactic you've been using the past few days. Simply claiming "you lost", or "I won", even in the face of contrary facts, seems to make you a happier debater. I, for one, am bolstered simply by proximity to such contentment.

That is a key part of the B/C campaign strategy, as well as this Adminsitration's strategy for shaping public opinion. We can learn from our opponents.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That is a key part of the B/C campaign strategy, as well as this Adminsitration's strategy for shaping public opinion. We can learn from our opponents.

Terry? Terry, is that you?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Thank you, but I can't claim credit. Hank invented that.

Back in the day we were yin and yan of the cheap shot, snide reply and trivial arguments. But lately you've been getting all substantive on me.

[bilmore]

Economy and Jobs

· Kerry claimed that during the Bush administration, “1.6 million jobs [were] lost.” In truth, the figure is half that. Only 800,000 net jobs have been lost, and even that number is widely expected to be revised downward to 600,000. Considering that 9/11 wiped out 1 million jobs right away, and 1.5 million within a year—all coinciding with the inherited recession and the stock market correcting its irrational exuberance—Bush’s record on this count is, in fact, impressive.

· Kerry: “He’s the only president to have incomes of families go down for the last three years.” According to official U.S. Commerce Department figures, per-capita after-tax income is up 6% since December 2000—and that’s not even counting the results from the economic growth of 2004.

· Repeating a populist—and untrue—line from his stump speeches, Kerry said, “The jobs the president is creating pay $9,000 less than the jobs that we’re losing.” This sounds like a devastating indictment, and it plays right into the urban legend that disappearing manufacturing jobs are replaced by burger-flippers. According to the nonpartisan FactCheck.org, “Higher-paid occupations, like managers (who can be in any industry) and health professionals, are growing faster.” This claim is largely based on Federal Reserve of Chicago study released last month.

· In perhaps the most flagrant lie of the night, Kerry charged, “Under President Bush, the middle class has seen their tax burden go up and the wealthiest’s tax burden has gone down. Now that’s wrong.” No, Kerry’s wrong. The average family of four earning $40,000 has seen an average tax reduction of $1,900. (Bush said $1,700 in the debate.) Either way, that constitutes a staggering 90% reduction from their previous income tax burden. And with the creation of the new 10% bracket, every person paying income taxes has received a tax cut. With respect to the other side of the class warfare argument, the top 1% now pays a slightly greater share of the overall tax burden than before.

Health care

· Kerry stated flatly, “I have a plan to cover all Americans.” The nonpartisan Lewin Group (which was cited by Bush) calculated that Kerry’s plan would cover only 25.2 million out of 45 million uninsured Americans. As President Bush noted during the debate, the Lewin Group also found that the 10-year price tag would be $1.2 trillion, roughly double the cost estimated by the Kerry camp—which would cover barely half the number of people Kerry claims it would.

· Without batting an eyelash, a dour Kerry pronounced, “Health-care costs for the average American have gone up 64 percent.” Except, they haven’t. It’s not entirely clear what constitutes “health care costs,” but it is clear that health insurance premiums have not risen anywhere near that amount. The worst-case statistic, as calculated by the ultra-liberal Families USA (an organ of Big Labor), health insurance premiums have risen by 36 percent since 2000.

· Pulling a page from the Clinton handbook, Kerry said, “Five million Americans have lost their health insurance in this country.” In fairness to Kerry, this is an accurate statistic—but also incredibly misleading. Because of population growth, the percentage of the population that is uninsured is the same as it was in 1996 (15.6%), and below the level it was in 1998 (16.3%).

· Although not challenged by Bush afterward, Kerry threw out an eye-popping—and entirely fictional—figure. The Massachusetts liberal, when discussing the provision in the Medicare prescription drug bill that prohibits the federal government from negotiating with the drug companies, charged that this would cause a “$139 billion windfall profit to the drug companies coming out of your pockets.” The accountants behind the Academy Awards, Price Waterhouse Coopers, found that the impact on drug companies’ profits would be negligible or even negative.

College Costs

· In rattling off a litany of problems allegedly caused by Bush, Kerry claimed, “tuitions have gone up 35 percent.” Actually, what students pay has gone down. From a June 28 cover story in the right-wing rag USA Today: “What students pay on average for tuition at public universities has fallen by nearly one-third since 1998.”

· In one of the unintentionally funniest moments of the debate, Kerry countered what he himself had said earlier about Pell Grants. First, he said, “They’ve cut the Pell Grants and the Perkins loans to help kids be able to go to college.” After Bush called him on the fib by pointing out that the number of kids getting Pell Grants has gone up, Kerry admitted, “[T]he Pell Grants have gone up in their numbers.” He quickly added that this was “because more people qualify for them because they don’t have money.” Actually, the real reason is that eligibility rules have been loosened in order to allow more kids to qualify.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/j...20041015.shtml