Journeys with George

Great Debates
21

elucidator, I think Scylla was using the “abortion is murder” stance as an example of standard partisan rhetoric so as to illustrate how your statements regarding Bush’s capital punishment record as Governor could be considered unproductive and immaterial to the thread.

While I can sympathize with Scylla’s feeling that your point was a partisan hijack (and appreciate the skillful way that charge was presented), I find your point that Governor Bush’s attitude toward signing death warrants is a relevant counterpoint to Candidate Bush’s appearance of sincerity in front of a reporter’s camera.

(What was it George Burns used to say about sincerity?)

22

elucidator:

Xeno is correct. I was using it as an example of rhetoric, not actual belief (my abortion beleifs are around here somewhere.)

We’ve been over the Bush/execution thing in a number of threads. Personally I think it makes a good rhetorical shot, but a poor substantive one.

As Governor of Texas, Bush didn’t decide to kill anybody. He didn’t make the decision. What he did do was not stop the decision that had been lawfully made.

Each of those people had been convicted in a court of law by a jury, had their appeals and what have you.

They were being sentenced to death for murder.

Should he have set them free?

Bush was a part of the government system that convicted and killed people who were found guilty of murder. He didn’t take part in the process, he just didn’t stop it and set a potential killer free.

Similarly, I do not blame the executioner. He didn’t make the decision. Nor, if there is any blame to be had do I blame the Dr. who performs an abortion. He doesn’t make the decision. Nor the judge who allows abortions, nor the politician who believes in the right to choose. They don’t make the decision.

Bush didn’t make the decision. He didn’t overturn the decision that had already been made either.

Saying that Bush killed people in Texas is the same kind of rhetoric that calls Judges baby-killers.

It’s empty, and it’s false.

23

He signs. That is enough. He signs. Would you?

24

I’ll go a step further:

What I think the role is of a Governor in a state with the death penalty is is to be the final check and balance after the process of conviction, sentencing, and appeal has been completed.

What that means is that I think he’s only supposed to act in the 11th hour if there is a clear travesty of justice occuring; if it becomes clear that the man has not received a fair trial, if new evidence has occured, or if there is something sudden and particular and clear that has come up in that case that calls either the verdict or the sentence into strong question.

I think that failing those circumstances, those eventualities, the Governor’s ethical duty is to not interfere with the sentence.

All that being said, I don’t think the Governor is responsible even if he fails to act. He’s just an extra safety catch. Need I remind you that the President also hows the power to pardon.

Was the President at the time responsible for those deaths in Texas? Should he have exercised his power?
(and on preview)

Yes. I would sign.

Unless you could show me in a given particularly case why I shouldn’t.

25

This displays some major ignorance of Texas law, which provides for a relatively weak governor. Texas gives the bulk of clemency power to its Board of Pardons and Paroles and not to the governor. The Board must vote to recommend commutation in order for the governor to grant clemency.

Juries and the courts sentence people to death, not the governor.

More information.

26

You think he could have blown off the lady doing the documentary on him? are you HIGH? If he had, she could
have really nailed him for it in the documentary. Bush had no choice but to either charm her to death or refuse to go along with the film in the first place.

27

Question: Have there actually been more or fewer abortion-related deaths since Roe v. Wade?

If you don’t know the answer, with convincing evidence and numbers to back it up, then using that argument (the implication that more abortion-related deaths occurred when it was illegal) for legalized abortion isn’t very persuasive.

28

—I was kind of hoping to focus on insights from the film, rather than the tired old fallacious standard rhetoric, but…—

Weak.

The point is that his rhetoric is out of line with reality. He claims he agonized over these decisions. He claims he went over the evidence. This is pretty darn hard to believe in many of those cases. He put no time into it, and certainly no research. He’s never had to answer any direct questions about what evidence convinced him that, for instance, Graham was guilty. Because there’s precious little evidence of it: and plenty of evidence against it (none of it heard at trial, despite being documented in police reports). And the man who was supposed to inform him had to time and time again be corrected after making demonstrably false statements about the cases to the public, his office repeatedly issuing retractions. Luckily, we’ve now sent this man to the Senate.

When someone says: “After considering all the facts, I’m confident justice is being done.” after expressing faith in the Texas system of justice, I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to ask someone what the basis of that faith is, and what the convincing evidence was. In Graham’s case, there WAS no physical evidence, only an eye-witness contradicted by two others. So it becomes pretty darn important to ask: what was so convincing about the case?

The point is that there’s good reason to think that he DIDN’T bother to play his role as the “last check” against anything. There’s good reason to suspect that he had no basis at all on which to judge whether or not a travesty occured in the first place, certainly not whether the BoPaP had actually done a good job. Is it wrong to ask him to elaborate on his supposed basis, if there is one?

Or is softball fawning simply his birthright?

29

No, deadly serious. Why do you think otherwise?

Think how much media scrutiny political candidates receive now. Consider how many people they have to win over. You honestly think someone would make it anywhere in that game if they weren’t intelligent with good people skills?

30

Apos,

I hate to be the first one to bring this up but, cite please?

Also, Bush did not convict nor sentence people. He, as Governor, let the will of the people in the state of Texas prevail. (Note, execution has not been deemed by the SC to be unconstitutional so don’t even try to go there)

Next, Bush’s job as governor was not to decide someones guilt, that had already been done by a jury, but to stop an execution if (and it is a big if) there was a good reason to believe the person was innocent. It’s not like Bush just decided to have someone executed. That person went through a trial, had representation and a lengthy appeals process. If you don’t like the death penalty vote against it. But trying to blame Bush for the law in Texas is just stupid.

Oh, and a quote:

Ding DING DING you idiot. Bush didn’t try the case nor did he sentence the man. A jury did that. The jury heard the evidence and Bush could only act if there was convincing evidence that the man didn’t commit the crime. Untill you provide a reasonable cite I am going to call you for Bullshit.

Slee

31

I guess you didn’t see it.

He didn’t agree to anything. She was a member of the travelling Press Corps and a Democrat. She brought a video camera with her with the intention of making a documentary.

She didn’t need consent. She didn’t ask for it, and it wasn’t given.

32

Elucidator:

While your image of women bleeding to death from back alley abortions is one designed to elicit empathy, nobody wants such a thing, the fact is that it is moot (at least in my mind,) as a determiner for whether abortion should be legal or not.

If something is wrong, or evil, and we allow it simply to prevent the people who do it from hurting themselves, that becomes a form of blackmail.

For example, if abortion is murder (and many people think it is,) than allowing murder to prevent the suffering of the murderers is hardly a good choice.

And now, I probably have to clarify my beliefs on the subject to avoid confusion. I think abortion is murder. I think it’s abhorent, and wrong.

I also think a woman has a right to what goes on with her body, and a woman should have the choice as to whether she wishes to carry a child to term or not. She should not and cannot be compelled to let her body be the vessel for another. With that right comes the responsibility to act before the fetus becomes a viable entity capable of human thought, and abortions should not be allowed after the fourth month or so, except in cases of physical danger to the mother.

33

Several clarifications and disclaimers are in order: Walloon is correct, so far as I know. But what happens if he doesn’t sign?

Scylla’s position and my own as regards the legality of abortion are not that much different, not different enough to hijack and debate. Though I must own up that I find the “blackmail” argument bizarre, and the definition as murder clearly begs the question. But that is another question, and one that I hold very strong views. Not here, not now.

To the matter at hand, I am uncertain as to what is the core question. Does the film at question present George as charming and friendly? Perhaps it does, I’ve not seen it. Nor am I likely to, as I can’t imagine why I should want to. Is that presentation an accurate reflection of the man himself? That is another matter, perhaps debateable. I suppose he is personally charming, so I’ve heard. So what?

Is the question then, having these charming attributes, does that make him a more desireable drinking buddy, or a more desireable President? If the issue is to be: Is it plausible that Our Leader is a warm and cuddlesome fellow, I will withdraw, I couldn’t possibly care less. I have, in my time, had considerable affection for scoundrels, I have learned that I can like people I cannot trust, and can trust people I do not like.

Have I missed your point, friend Scylla? Is this a film review, or a character analysis?

(If only she had named it The Discreet Charm of the Bush Wazoo.)

34

It’s supposed to be a debate about insights gained about Bush from watching the film.

Seeing as you didn’t, and don’t want to, perhaps you can be the control group, and say “balderdash,” and “tommyrot!” a lot.

35

Scylla:

I didn’t see the documentary but I did hear the end of the interview of her on “Fresh Air” including a clip of Bush kidding her about her relationship with a male reporter. I agree that he sounded quite charming. Nonetheless, this does little to change my opinion of him as a politician or a President.

By the way, shortly after the election, I heard a newsperson who had followed the campaign interviewed also in Fresh Air and he made the argument that, despite the fact that folks tend to get all worked up about how reporter’s own political opinions might affect their reporting, what probably mattered more is very much what you said: Bush charmed his press entourage much more than Gore did and thus got much more favorable coverage from them.

36

Have you ever heard the statistical phrase “self selecting sample”? Its kind of like polling the customers of a tarot card reader as to thier opinions of psychic phenomena.

So this is a candid viewpoint? Was it edited? Most of these things are, of course, for lots of reasons. Artistic reasons. Time constraints, of course. Political reasons, perhaps?

Hell, you could send a filmaker around to my house, let him hang out long enough, he could probably put together a couple of hours of one heck of a nice guy. Which is largely true, you understand, but a bit short of entire candor. Sometimes I can be downright unpleasant! No, really. Ask my kid.

Nonetheless, if forced at gunpoint to view said film, you might well be moved to say “Gee, that 'Luce, he’s one heck of a nice guy, but I still don’t want him to be President, 'cause his ideology is whack.” If you knew it was me, of course. Probably the incense burning in front of the Che poster might give it away.

So it seems like, rather than a debate, you want to set up a Bush love feast. Doesn’t it seem most likely to you that the people who want to see such a movie already like Bush? Its not like you got struck on the road to Damascus, you’re already a Republican! Self selecting sample, my man.

I mean, you want folks to wander in, glowing and gushing about what a swell fellow he is, it would be churlish of me to spoil your fun. But a debate? About what? About how swell this guy is, who managed to overcome an utter lack of adversity?

Give me a video camera and enough time, I can make you two hours of Gore being suave, scintillating and sexy. And I could perfectly understand if you responded “Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!”

Because you would be right. Gore is a stiff, pedantic policy wonk. Which is precisely why I voted for him. I didn’t want to hang with him, I don’t want my sister to marry him, I wanted to hire him to manage my country. Charm don’t enter into it.

37

Well, I would have been very interested in watching one on Gore or Clinton, 'Luce. I find it surprising for a person who is so interested in Bush (and I don’t mean that sarcastically,) that you wouldn’t have wanted to see it.

38

Jesus, no, man! I already know far more than I ever wanted to about Bill Clinton. Sure, there are things I want to know. I want to know whats in the Reagan papers that, by law, were supposed to have been released, but are bottled up tight and are seeing the light of day when they pry them from his cold, dead hands. And the papers from his days as Gov of TX, getting the same treatment, move along, nothing to see here. Like to find out what happened to the records of his last year in the Texas Air National Guard, which seem to have miraculously vanished.

For an open, friendly kind of guy he’s got lots of secrets. The Sopranos have less secrets than the Bushes. Less interesting ones, too.

39

Three quotes come to mind:

“If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” Florynce R. Kennedy, US Lawyer and activist, 1973

“It serves me right for putting all my eggs in one bastard.” Dorothy Parker

“Until that day when women, and only women, shall determine which American males must, by law, have vasectomies, then—and only then—will you or any man have the right to determine which American women can have abortions.” Betty Beale

Not that I’m showing any type of leaning here, I just wanted to share those finally in conversation… I side with the **Sticking Fingers in Our Ears and Humming Loudly (Maybe It will go Away) ** Party.

We used to have a really powerful governor, we seem like the type of state that would. But we don’t. Because of Republican governor Edmund Davis, who abused the power of governorship, muddled in the elections, was a republican, and an overall smeggling. So when Democrats finally started to unite (disunited just like today, yuck yuck yuck) he refused to concede he lost the election and took on emergency powers. But “angry whites” stormed the capital building and forced him to step down. And then the new constitution was written, maing the governor a sinecure.

I’m sure glad I went to 7th grade just so I could share what I remembered with the folks at the StraightDope. :smiley:

40

Scylla:

I didn’t see the documentary but I did hear the end of the interview of her on “Fresh Air” including a clip of Bush kidding her about her relationship with a male reporter. I agree that he sounded quite charming. Nonetheless, this does little to change my opinion of him as a politician or a President.

By the way, shortly after the election, I heard a newsperson who had followed the campaign interviewed also in Fresh Air and he made the argument that, despite the fact that folks tend to get all worked up about how reporter’s own political opinions might affect their reporting, what probably mattered more is very much what you said: Bush charmed his press entourage much more than Gore did and thus got much more favorable coverage from them.