Chaim:
That’s a good point, but did Dubyuh’s Jesus answer bother you?
You mean that he considers him his favorite political philosopher? No, it didn’t bother me particularly. Bush (as well as all the others) is a Christian. Why shouldn’t he consider his teachings to be extremely influential to him?
Chaim Mattis Keller
CMKeller said:
That much is certainly true.
Lib: What Jesus answer?
What I heard was that in one of the debates, someone asked Dubyuh who was the most influential philosopher in his life, and he answered Jesus Christ. Big ruckus ensued.
David: He took some flack (and also gained some admirers for standing up to the “persecution Christians endure so much in this country”) for answering the question as to who his favorite philosopher was as Jeus Christ.
Yer pal,
Satan
Speaking of which, did anyone catch the debate between Bradley and Gore that was on Nightline in Dec.? Gore said that he thought evolution should only be taught in religion class. Now, I figured I misheard at first, but I checked the transcript and there it was. Did he mean to say “creationism”, or is he really that clueless?
I first had this pointed out to me over on the LBMB. You’re the first person I’ve seen who actually saw the debate. I thought it was either an error in the transcript or a misstatement on Gore’s part. From what you said, it must have been him, not the transcriber. He has made comments about creationism in religion classes before, and his statement makes a lot more sense from his point of view if you substitute in “creationism” for “evolution” in that sentence. Basically, he misspoke.
I like exactly 0 of the candidates from either major party. I appreciate McCain’s stance on campaign reform, which I feel is a vitally important issue, but I find many of his social policies objectionable. If I really felt that he would be able to enact significant campaign finance reform I might vote for him anyway, but I lack that faith.
As to GWB and the past, my perspective is that any candidate has the right to not speak about his past adventures. However, if questions are raised which relate to a candidates stated policies, then if he does not address those questions it is not unreasonable to assume the facts would be uncomfortable for him. In Bush’s case, the allegations involve the use of cocaine. Bush has made very stiff punishment for drug use, particularly “hard” drugs, an element of his public policy and his campaign. This leaves him open to charges of hypocrisy which his repeated equivocations have done little to assuage.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Satan posted:
Me neither. Especially since I don’t view Gore’s separate comments to actually be contradictory, let alone a flip-flop.
Disclaimer - I am not a big Gore fan. He’s yet to really make much of an impression on me at all.
I don’t have the exact quotes, but it is my understanding that in one statement he said something to the effect that he supported a woman’s right to choose, and in another statement he said he, personally, thinks abortion is wrong. Well I feel the same way. I also think abortion is wrong (and yes, there are exceptions, such as when a woman’s health/safety is at risk). It’s certainly not something I would ever consider doing myself unless I was going to die if I didn’t. But I would never want Roe v. Wade overturned.
I guess I feel like it is possible to believe something is morally wrong, yet see the need to legislate that it should be legal to do (or, not make it illegal to do). For instance, I think it’s morally reprehensible to cheat on your spouse. But I’d never want to make it criminal to do so.
Now, if I’ve somehow misinterpreted Gore’s two statements, I hope someone will correct me.
“How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.” - Anne Frank
I think the “Gore’s big flip-flop” is more about how in Gore’s early career as a Congressman and a Senator, he toed the pro-life line very closely: he was rated 82% by the Right-To-Life organization in the late 80’s, IIRC. So what Bradley is going after is less that Gore personally believes abortion is wrong, so much as that ten years ago Gore’s public position on abortion was the opposite of his current position (which Gore states has “always” been his position on abortion).
Personally, I have no interest in the primaries; my two favorite candidates (Bob Kerrey and Jack Kemp) decided not to run, and living in Maryland means that by the time it gets around to my primary, the nomination will likely already be decided.
JMCJ
This is not a sig.
Shayna, the abortion issue is that Gore in the past voted against federal funding for abortions, and for a bill that would define the fetus as a person. He now claims to have changed his mind on these issues, hence Bradley’s (basically correct) charge of flip-flopping.
Shayna:
Your impression is wrong. He had a long history of anti-abortion-rights votes in Congress, some on extremely radical bills, before he decided that he’d be in better position for national office in the Democratic Party if he claimed to be pro-abortion-rights.
George Will’s column in this week’s Newsweek gives an excellent summary of Gore’s history on the issue, with specific citations.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Thank you for the clarification, John, ruadh and cmkeller. I had gotten my information from a radio news blurb which obviously didn’t go into the full detail about the contradictions.
However, I don’t think this is a fair assessment either…
While some people may think it would be cool if we could read each others’ minds, our limited brain power prohibits us from doing so at this time. I have changed my mind over time on any number of issues, about which I at one time held very strong opinions. Sometimes experience and/or opening one’s mind to really hearing the other side of an argument can prove to be persuasive enough to cause one to hold different beliefs at various times in their lives.
That anyone could presume to know that he only changed his stance because he thought it would improve his chances at a national office, or that he is only claiming to be pro-choice, is absurd. Sorry, I don’t mean to offend, Chaim. I’m just flabbergasted that anyone would state so emphatically that Gore doesn’t really feel the way he does but has some ulterior motive. I’m not disputing that it is possible. Sure, in the world of politics it wouldn’t necessarily be surprising. But to presume to know how he really feels in his heart is just wrong, IMO.
I’m still not necessarily pro Gore, but I’m also not willing to attribute motive to his stance without firsthand knowledge of his innermost thoughts. If he says he changed his mind, then he changed his mind. I’m still not sure I see the big deal in that.
“How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.” - Anne Frank
Phew, thats what I was hoping. Especially when he was trying to get the atheist vote in the next sentance with something patronizing like “atheists have rights too”. Well good, since my money is on him getting the nomination over Bradley (who I’d prefer) I’m glad he’s not totally clueless.
Shayna said:
I’m reminded of something that (IIRC) Mary McGrory said: “The press considers consistency the most important virtue in politics. If a politician murdered his own mother, the first thing the press would do would be to point out that one three or four occasions this politician had spoken on the record specifically against matricide.”
I think the reason it’s becoming a big deal is because Gore is not saying he changed his mind; he’s saying that there has never been a change in his position. Given the obvious falsehood of that statement, I can see why Bradley and others are making a big deal out of this.
JMCJ
This is not a sig.
Waaaaah! I think my head’s about to explode here.
Admittedly, I shouldn’t be relying solely on the SD for my political information, but it seems no matter how many sources I read, they all have a different take on things. OTOH, this is the STRAIGHT dope, so perhaps I do expect a certain level of factual information to be found here.
ruadh said…
Then John said…
So which is it? Is he claiming to have simply changed his mind, or is he saying he’s always felt this way?
[Vinny Barbarino hat on]I’m SO confused![/Barbarino hat off]
“How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.” - Anne Frank
Shayna: Both, actually. Initially he presented himself as a lifelong abortion rights supporter, now he (or at least his aides) are saying his position “evolved.”
Personally I don’t care that much; I judge a candidate by what I expect them to do in office and I don’t think he’ll use his presidential power to restrict abortion rights. But as a matter of principle he does need to be called on this.
And the early results from New Hampshire: McCain a resounding first place, with Bush a slow second… Gore and Bradley neck and neck, but it looks like Bradley may pull out the victory…
JMCJ
This is not a sig.
I think it’s pretty clear by now that Bill Bradley has absolutely no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. The only question is, how much longer will he persist with his lame campaign.
John McCain is just as dead as Bradley, despite his win in New Hampshire, but his obsequious fans in the press will keep his corpse propped up for quite a while longer.
Actually, I like McCain, and liked him a long time before he announced his run for the Presidency. But he’s alienated me (and most conservatives) by pandering to the media. Already we’ve seen him got squishy on abortion and tax cuts- what other conservative principles is he planning to jettison to maintain his current ephemeral popularity with the press? (The dumb schmuck doesn’t seem to realize that this press infatuation would immediately disappear if he ever got the nomination, at which point his media sycophants would suddenly remember they’re Democrats and start assailing him as a cruel, heartless fiend who wants to starve the poor.)
The very things that make McCain so popular with the press at the moment (and with so many otherwise liberal Democrats) are precisely why McCain has no chance of winning the G.O.P. nomination.
so what do y’all think - this time next year, who will be your President?
and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe