Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditNed Lamont has had a rough fall.
After beating incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman in the August 8 Connecticut Democratic primary, Lamont's campaign lost both its focus and its momentum.
With the tacit support of the Bush White House and the Republican National Committee, as well as a "who's who" of special-interest groups and their Washington lobbyists, Lieberman pieced together a sophisticated reelection campaign on his own "Connecticut for Lieberman" independent line. With relative ease, the senior senator and consummate Washington insider successfully repositioned himself as a reformer who wanted to put an end to partisanship.
The Lamont camp should have been able to expose the absurdity of Lieberman's claims and put the incumbent on the defensive in the fall campaign – just as the challenger and his supporters did so ably in the primary race. Instead, the challenger's campaign fumbled. Lamont's campaign manager, Tom Swan, admitted in mid-October that, "We had a slow start after the primary. It was a short-term mistake…"
Precious time was lost in late August and early September, as the Lamont camp tried to frame new themes for the fall campaign. Instead of driving home the message that Connecticut can and must send a message to George W. Bush and those members of Congress – like Lieberman – who have steered the country into a disastrous war, the Lamont campaign seemed to edge away from the smart and effective anti-war message the took its candidate from obscurity to the Democratic nomination.
Perhaps most unfortunately, the Lamont campaign started to sound petty. The daily attacks on Lieberman wore thin. There was too much picayune pondering of whether the incumbent had broken a term-limits promise, and too little emphasis on "Bring the Troops Home" fundamentals.
The Connecticut Senate race was becoming less and less a referendum on the war and more and more a referendum on Lieberman – a candidate who, despite his flaws, had a long history with Connecticut voters. As the crucial month of October slipped away, the Hartford Courant reported that Lieberman and his aides were "confident they [had] made the race about more than an unpopular war."
Polls have reflected that assessment. Lieberman has opened up a wide lead – 52 percent for the incumbent, 37 percent for Lamont, 6 percent for orphaned Republican Alan Schlesinger, in a Quinnipiac University survey conducted two weeks ago. Yet, the same poll found that 67 percent of Connecticut voters disapprove of George Bush's handling of the war – and, by extension, the senator's pro-war position.
Aware that they are in very real danger of losing a race they should be winning, Lamont and his advisors are focusing anew on the anti-war message that proved so powerful in the primary. "There are other issues, but everything else pales in comparison to the war," Tom D'Amore, a Lamont adviser, explained on Sunday. "It is the issue of our time."
To deliver the message that Lieberman is on the wrong side of the issue, the Lamont campaign is banking on retired General Wesley Clark, who served as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander before leaving the military and emerging as one of the most outspoken critics of the Bush administration's military misadventures.
In a new television ad for the Lamont campaign, Clark declares, "I'm retired General Wes Clark. Joe Lieberman introduced the resolution authorizing the War in Iraq. That was a mistake. Joe Lieberman voted for that resolution without asking the tough questions. That was also a mistake. And now, three and a half years into a failing mission in Iraq, Joe Lieberman can't seem to say we should change the course. And that's a REAL mistake."
Clark concludes: "Re-elect Joe Lieberman? Well, there's a word for it. ‘Mistake.'"
The ad delivers the right message, and it is being echoed with appropriate urgency by Lamont. Recalling how he began thinking about challenging Lieberman in November 2005, after the senator penned a Wall Street Journal opinion piece about his support for Bush's war, the Democratic nominee is telling Connecticut voters that "Joe Lieberman and George Bush are as wrong on [the war] today as they were a year ago, when I got into this race."
The question now is whether the right message is coming in time to renew Ned Lamont's prospects in an election that is barely a week away.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism is being published this month by The New Press. "With The Genius of Impeachment," writes David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, "John Nichols has produced a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States." Studs Terkel says: "Never within my nonagenarian memory has the case for impeachment of Bush and his equally crooked confederates been so clearly and fervently offered as John Nichols has done in this book. They are after all our public SERVANTS who have rifled our savings, bled our young, and challenged our sanity. As Tom Paine said 200 years ago to another George, a royal tramp: 'Bugger off!' So should we say today. John Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so." The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
I've been a Ned Lamont backer, contributor, and volunteer since he announced earlier this year. I don't fault the campaign, I blame the voters. It appears that most of the Democrats who voted for Lieberman are sticking with him. Adding the Republicans and the conservative independents leaves Ned with about 35 to 40 percent of the vote. Despite polls showing that 60 to 70 percent of Connecticut voters now oppose the war, the issue is not that important for many. In fact, many of the "Democrats" I have called can't even name an issue they are concerned about. I wish I understood what motivates people to vote for one candidate over another. Whatever the explanation, it most certainly is not "the issues". My personal opinion is that if the war were going well, 85% of Connecticut voters would approve. I think that most people are simply enamored of war. They love the idea that their country is projecting power and dominating other nations. If Americans didn't like war, would professional football be so popular? I no longer think it is possible for a genuinely pro-peace candidate like Ned Lamont to win, even in a supposedly liberal state like Connecticut. Kudos to Ned for trying. He was and is a great candidate, the best we could have found. I am grateful for his sacrifices for us. He did everything he should have done. If Ned loses next week, blame the voters, the culture, ignorance, stupidity, and indifference, but don't blame Ned or his campaign. They did a brilliant job.
Posted by mstamper at 10/30/2006 @ 06:08am
Mstamper,
Your post reads like a tombstones occupants final resting words...truth is most people are not 1 issue voters and it seems Lamount is a 1 issue candidate. If Iraq weren't an issue it also seems he wouldn't be a candidate....cut and run will leave a horrible blood bath behind,(even Darla gets this) a worse situation than we now have....I believe if there were no Iraq, there would be an even bigger blood bath on election day....for the dems..forget the "Progressives", they wouldn't even be a blip on the screen....
Posted by john maasch at 10/30/2006 @ 07:43am
wes clark - good stumper for anti-war candidates...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/30/2006 @ 08:37am
I see 3 of 10 posts...means RESE/PLUNGER and their "Lieberman/AIPAC/Jesuit Jewish Bankers" stuff must make up the rest.
Post-election dissection of the Lamont campaign will fall into three catagories...
1. "Ned lost because Repubs helped Lieberman" and it's corrollary "And most 'Inside-the-Beltway' Dems abandoned Ned". Which is true, but shows how WEAK a candidate Lamont was if he couldn't overcome that.
2. "Lamont started too late on the anti-war message" (as Mr Nichols outlined). Which might be true, but ALSO shows how weak a candidate he was and how poor his campaign staff was.
or 3. "Ned Lamont was a poor candidate". Which is the main problem, but given he was promoted by the Blogosphere and they made him "theirs"...they'll get the lion's share of blame for it. (Which is why they will use Reason #1 or # 2)
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2006 @ 09:18am
Posted by MASK 10/30/2006 @ 09:18am
diagnosis of clogging poster correct.
diagnosis of failure of campaign sounds pretty good too. looking back, with apparantly almost ALL the pubs voting lieberman, perhaps in hindsight ned was doomed from before the get-go...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/30/2006 @ 09:46am
Interestingly enough, I drove through northeastern CT yesterday and saw probably a dozen different houses with Lamont placards on the lawns, but only one with a Lieberman sign.
Hardly a representative sample, but the disparity was noteworthy all the same.
Posted by skeletonman at 10/30/2006 @ 09:50am
well it would sure help if lamont actually had a back-up argument to "things are bad and we need to get our troops out". he need to be concede what would happen in iraq if we were to pull out by the end of the year. or even next year. and what, then, the military would focus on, and where.
he still has not addressed this appropriately.
Posted by darladoon at 10/30/2006 @ 10:02am
Maasch,:.cut and run will leave a horrible blood bath behind,(even Darla gets this) a worse situation than we now have.
you have been saying this for years now. the situation has gotten considerably worse. what does that do to your argument? worse if we stay=worse if we go. for Iraqis. better for US if we go, 100 US soldiers a month that won't be killed.
e-mail me, I'm not sure if my mail to you is getting through.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/30/2006 @ 10:04am
mstamper, i totally agree, but people from that state have little choice. lamont, although opposed to the war, has no grasp of foreign policy whatsoever. lieberman might be a pathetic beltway insider, who doesn't seem to have an ounce of passion in his blood, but lamont, although passionate and full of energy, doesn't really seem to grasp the issues, or policy matters, very well.
he's sort of vapid, to be honest.
Posted by darladoon at 10/30/2006 @ 10:04am
johannerolf, what's your stance then, on the war? are you for phased, 12 month withdrawal? or 6 month? or immediate?
i'm for 12 month, re-deploy to jordan, kuwait, afghanistan, and patrol the iran/syria/iraq borders as best as possible, with the help of britain and france (if we can shore up more support).
what about australia? what are they doing now? and canada? i know they're in afghanistan, but not iraq.
Posted by darladoon at 10/30/2006 @ 10:06am
i just saw a great documentary, and it finished with john kerry's great vietnam-era quote:
"how do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?"
powerful words.
Posted by darladoon at 10/30/2006 @ 10:08am
JR,
Your email is not getting through. I will email you tonight as I don't have it with me here at Javits...you have my number...anrufen..
Posted by john maasch at 10/30/2006 @ 10:09am
Perhaps many people in Connecticut are coming to the same decision about the war in Iraq as I have - I am not going to lose any sleep over it, and not waste any more time worrying about it or thinking about it (easier said than done, BTW). Which might explain Lamont's wilting campaign.
The right time to figure out the war was a mistake was before the invasion. Because now there aren't really any good options. Stay the course? Nah. Cut and run? Nah. Gradual withrawal? How? And won't that just yield the same result as immediate withdrawal?
Sadly, and cynically, I think the best option is just let the Republicans do it their way, so that the blame will fall on them when we are eventually forced out of Iraq. It looks like it will be the Viet Nam of our generation, with about the same outcome except for the islamic terrorism aspect of it.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 10:16am
JR,
"worse if we stay=worse if we go"
I think it will be much worse if we bolt...and for us the long term effects will be to tell everyone not to rely on our word, especially if the slugging gets messy, and this is very messy. I understand why we went into Iraq, but I am not sure we know what we are doing now that we are there....it is better for Iraqis if we leave? I think the situation will go from chaos to complete chaos and the average Iraqi will be the one hurt. We must extract ourselves in an orderly fashion unlike Viet Nam exit, where many more were killed than we will ever know AFTER we left.
This has become more complicated than it should be and demonstrates we were short on short term strategy with a long term goal...to me, anyway..
Posted by john maasch at 10/30/2006 @ 10:22am
Here is what I would do if I were president for a day:
Reinstate the draft! So Mr. General, you need how many troops? Another 100k? Here's A MILLION troops!
And guess who would be in combat units in Iraq by March? All the sons, daughters, nieces, nephews and cousins of Bush, everyone in his administration, and everyone in congress who supports the war. No exceptions! If they can walk, they'd be there IN COMBAT.
Then, as soon as I did that, I'd put all those politicians back in power, exactly as before, only all of their children would be fighting in the hottest war zones in Iraq. For three year rotations!
I bet the administration and congress would find a solution then...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 10:25am
Now, now ILP....sabatoge the reupubs? Not very American of you....Force the Iraqis to stand up for their own land and resources...if the repubs have shit on their shoes, then so do you as we are all in the same field...just as LBjs shit was on the repubs shoes...American shoes.
Posted by john maasch at 10/30/2006 @ 10:25am
Now, now ILP....sabatoge the reupubs? Not very American of you....Force the Iraqis to stand up for their own land and resources...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/30/2006 @ 10:25am
No, John, they (Repubs and all others who were pro-war in 2002-3) got themselves into this. My idea is not sabotage, it is just a way to ensure accountability. The Repubs like to blame Clinton/dems/liberals/communists for their own mistakes. I don't want them weasling out this time.
They need to take the blame for their own mistakes!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 10:32am
JOHN, btw I am very american. That's why I've been against this war since 2002, when I could see it was already a done deal despite the denials at the time that it was.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 10:33am
One more thing, John. I did everything I could to stop the war. Which, of course, wasn't much I admit. There weren't very many options open to an average citizen to prevent the war back then. There never are, but I spoke out against it until I was blue in the face.
Who was the prophet ignored by Israel? Jeremiah? I know how he felt!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 10:36am
"worse if we stay=worse if we go"
let's take a longer view for a moment. Bush likes to say that in 50 years he will be lauded.
after the US had inserted itself into the Vietnam civil war, and spent tens of thousands of the flower of its youth, and torn our own country apart, in the process, the american people had finally had it, and the US withdrew. the civil war in Vietnam continued until the commies won. fast forward to now. Vietnam is united and prospering, at peace with its neighbors, one of those neighbors they did a huge favor for, by kicking out Pol Pot. it is at peace and trading with the US.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/30/2006 @ 10:43am
So we got into a war in Iraq that has now outlasted the civil war.
Why?
The intelligence was "flawed" says the Senate intelligence commitee's report.
Oh OK, that's true.
How did the administration massage, present and manipulate that intelligence to achieve its predetermined objective of "kicking Sadam's ass"?
Well that information (called phase II) will be ready by November 2004. Nah, the people in an elected democracy don't need to know that DELIBERATE lies and distortions have led to the DEATH of almost 3,000 American's and tens of thousands of Iraqi's.
So when will it be ready so that we can pretend that we live in a democracy again? Answer: within 6 months of Pat Roberts NOT being the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
Posted by freedomplease at 10/30/2006 @ 10:47am
Who was the prophet ignored by Israel? Jeremiah? I know how he felt!
Ones spouse?
Thats how I feel in my own house...ILP...:)
Posted by john maasch at 10/30/2006 @ 10:50am
JR,
Many more were purged (in nViet Nam)as only the communists can do with a flourish...all I am saying is we must exit with a better strategy than we entered...
Posted by john maasch at 10/30/2006 @ 10:52am
BTW, great trappist ales at the Mrkt...I will be back there soon....
Posted by john maasch at 10/30/2006 @ 10:52am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/30/2006 @ 10:43am
JOHANN....and it's still a dictatorship....kinda "left out" that part.
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2006 @ 10:55am
And they live a horrible standard of living in the area I speak to many of them a Taipea airport......they should have surendered ans we would have made them another S Korea...
Posted by john maasch at 10/30/2006 @ 11:00am
They also rely on those nasty US dollars sent back by their American relatives..
Posted by john maasch at 10/30/2006 @ 11:01am
Frank,
Once the public get a dose of Conyers and Waxman in their living rooms every night hounding Bush and not doing anything in Congress, it is they who will be banished to the back bench...these clowns and their ilk inspire no one and turn off the middle by the millions. They are true party hacks.
Posted by john maasch at 10/30/2006 @ 1:08pm
Mask:JOHANN....and it's still a dictatorship....kinda "left out" that part.
is that relevant? Iraq will still be a dictatorship in 50 years as well, if the history of arab states is any guide. you have to get over any illusion you have of the US' stance towards dictatorships. until Bush, there has never been a crusade against dictators in the world. actually including Bush, since his crusade is rhetorical.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/30/2006 @ 1:29pm
Maasch, Many more were purged
so? I acknowledged that when I said the civil war continued after we left.
there was a balance of power in Iraq until we invaded. it will not be restored until we leave. the americans have their thumb on the scales right now, with their 140,000 troops. when, certainly not if, we leave there will be a bloody power struggle, it's really bloody now. we don't KNOW if it will be more bloody, but I'll accept that as a premise
. however that bloody power struggle will bring a winner and a loser and yes, stability. that is the lesson I draw from Vietnam. as long as the US occupies that country there will be the struggle for liberation from that occupation, which complicates the picture, and costs unacceptable loss of american life.hey prolife people, wanna save some american LIFE? get the troops out now.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/30/2006 @ 1:39pm
Also, where the hell is Bill Clinton. He should be all over Conn. this week rallying the troops to vote for Lamont.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/30/2006 @ 12:34am
Nope...not in his interest. Lamont was the Blogosphere "pure progressive" candidate....the exact kind that could threaten Hillary's nomination in 2008.
Undercut Lamont, and you undercut the blogs and "purists" and show that "their candidates always lose" and Obama, Feingold, or any other "anti-Hillary" in Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire...folds.
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2006 @ 1:43pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/30/2006 @ 1:29pm |
Relevent, JOHANN, only in the point that "oddly" the characteristic of "dictatorship" always seems to get missed in analysis or even praises of leftist dictatorships like Vietnam or Cuba.
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2006 @ 1:45pm
Mask, you are answering the voices in your head. you are certainly NOT answering what I wrote. merde.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/30/2006 @ 2:04pm
Interestingly enough, I drove through northeastern CT yesterday and saw probably a dozen different houses with Lamont placards on the lawns, but only one with a Lieberman sign.
Hardly a representative sample, but the disparity was noteworthy all the same.
Posted by SKELETONMAN 10/30/2006 @ 09:50am
Skeletonman - where were you in Northeastern CT yesterday? I was in Danielson visting my brothers, and then Thompson visiting my parents.
Are you a voter in the 2nd district of CT? I am - I think Lieberman will take the district, but the tougher race will be simmons/courtney. It's a virtual dead heat right now.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 2:05pm
Here is what I would do if I were president for a day:
Reinstate the draft! So Mr. General, you need how many troops? Another 100k? Here's A MILLION troops!
And guess who would be in combat units in Iraq by March? All the sons, daughters, nieces, nephews and cousins of Bush, everyone in his administration, and everyone in congress who supports the war. No exceptions! If they can walk, they'd be there IN COMBAT.
Then, as soon as I did that, I'd put all those politicians back in power, exactly as before, only all of their children would be fighting in the hottest war zones in Iraq. For three year rotations!
I bet the administration and congress would find a solution then...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/30/2006 @ 10:25am
Forced fighting for the war architects' family and loved ones and donors, etc would certainly get the "solution"-phase to materialize much more quickly.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 2:09pm
Rio - you think Lieberman is "independent"?
If he had won the primary he'd still be labelled a democrat. What changed to make him an independent (besides him changing his own label, of course)?
Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 2:16pm
Frankgrits - well that's just it; it's a great idea if it could ever be put into action. However, immediate family isn't even really the concern. It'd be interesting to see all the deferments applied for by bush supporters' kids.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 2:18pm
Rio Bravo wrote: "Tell me the name of the ONE child BORN as a direct result of the act of sexual copulation of homosexuals and I will vote for their marriage of those two?"
Allow me to ask you this question Rio - if a women knew since she was a girl that she couldn't give birth, for example, because her uterus is incapable of carrying a fetus (a cousin of mine has this condition), then we should take it that your position is that she should not be allowed to marry (a man) because she won't be able to have children as a result of sexual copulation?
Your answer would obviously have to be "she shouldn't be able to marry" in order to remain logically consistent with your position I pasted at the beginning of this post.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 2:24pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/30/2006 @ 1:52pm
FRANK, my reasoning WOULD be flawed...if your conspiracy theory held true.
But WHY would Lieberman take such a job at DefSec? To suffer the humiliation of failure in Iraq until forced from his job less than TWO YEARS LATER?!?!??!
When he can finish out ANOTHER 6 year term in 2012, with the war past him, and run again and likely win?
YOUR reasoning is flawed. What's the "up-side" for Lieberman under your "theory"?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2006 @ 2:46pm
Skeletonman - where were you in Northeastern CT yesterday? I was in Danielson visting my brothers, and then Thompson visiting my parents.
Are you a voter in the 2nd district of CT? I am - I think Lieberman will take the district, but the tougher race will be simmons/courtney. It's a virtual dead heat right now.
Posted by URMYGYRO 10/30/2006 @ 2:05pm
I drove down 395 to Putnam, then along US 44 towards Storrs to a family event. I'm from northern Maine, actually.
Brake for moose, baby. It could save your life.
Posted by skeletonman at 10/30/2006 @ 3:19pm
Skeltonman - I went to UConn in Storrs as an undergrad! It's nice out there, to get away from the congestion for a while. Although being from Maine, I'm not sure if you're from a "congested" area! hehe.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 3:28pm
The flaw in ILP's logic is simply that any Congress wouldn't allow any president to send their sons a daughters to the front lines.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/30/2006 @ 2:15pm
That isn't a flaw in my logic, FRANK. You are simply stating an obstacle to the implementation of my plan, not a deficiency in my argument.
As my whole scenario is impossible anyway (president for a day? me? no chance of that happening), I don't understand your objection to my musings. The point of the post was to pre-empt anyone from replying to my anti-war posts with requests that I suggest a solution.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 3:28pm
Rio - care to answer the post about "sexual copulation" I reposted from a different thread, or do you prefer to ignore the inconvenience of the question?
Also - you didn't answer, do you think of Lieberman as an "independent"?
Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 3:29pm
FRANK, I don't think it is a coincidence that the first pres. Bush was more circumspect and far more responsible using military force than the second one. Having seen fighting first-hand, he had a much more sober outlook. Possibly also why he wanted Dubya in the National Guard instead of Viet Nam - Poppy didn't want to be Brando in The Godfather: "Look what they've done to my boy!"
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 3:32pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/30/2006 @ 3:46pm
Ducking and dodging. No surprise that you're unable to assemble a reasonable counter-argument. Don't fret, logic just isn't for you.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 3:52pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/30/2006 @ 3:46pm
RIO....the "childless couple" argument?
Or are you opposed to known infertile people marrying too? (That'd be a HONEST, if insane line of reasoning!)
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2006 @ 4:01pm
Mask - don't hold your breath waiting for Rio to either (a) retract his statement, or (b) back his statement up.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 4:08pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/30/2006 @ 4:12pm
Well, FRANK...I'm still waiting on YOU to explain WHY Joe Lieberman leaves his cushy 6 year guarenteed job as US Senator (with the promise of easy re-election in 2012)...to become SecDefense for TWO years, during the WORST part of the Iraq Fiasco, and then become unemployed in 2008?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2006 @ 4:17pm
Frankgrits - is that a negative question? hehe
Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 4:17pm
I don't think straght people should be allowed to marry... That would save us men from girlfriends who make ultimatums.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 4:39pm
URMYGYRO You are wasting your time with RIO. That guy isn't rational.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 4:44pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/30/2006 @ 4:39pm
No, RIO's logic would have saved me. I KNEW my wife couldn't have any kids when I married her.
If only we had RIO running things, then I could have told her she was no better than them evil sodomites and that I wouldn't waste my time on a rocky place where my seed could find no purchase!
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2006 @ 4:45pm
If the Democrats backed Ned strongly he'd be winning. Chris Dodd has finally been in a commercial giving support. But if you had Clinton and Barak Obama come to town and forcefully support Ned Lamont, the poll numbers would be reversed and Lieberman would be working on his concession speach.
Also it boggles my mind when there are people who are against the war but will vote for Lieberman because it is just one issue and they agree with him on those other issues. How could you trade thousands of american lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives for the V-chip or some other Lieberman "accomplishment".
Posted by betterdays at 10/30/2006 @ 6:09pm
DARLADOON, MSTAMPER, JOHANNESROLF,
I can understand that most people ARE NOT and SHOULD NOT BE one issue voters under normal circumstances. However, with a runaway King George II and a kiss King George's feet supine compliant Congress running a failed war with no end in sight does not make for normal circumstances. The failed Iraq war destroys other spheres of American life and that I outline as follows:
1. The Iraq War is hemorraging the federal budget. With TWO BILLION a week in spending, one can think of better things to spend hard earned American tax dollars on. 2. The destruction of Civil Liberties is astounding. Military Commissions at Bush's wim, condoning torture, and killing Habeas Corpus all in one fell swoop. That can no longer be tolerated by a country which is a BEACON of FREEDOM THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. 3. Bush's foreign policy is making more terrorists and endangering American lives by the hour. Only a fool (which Lieberman is) would follow George Bush because the President is leading America to invade of all places, Iran. If you think Iraq is a bloodbath now, invade Iran and America will be swimming in the blood of American soldiers.
There are other reasons to elect independent minded people to the House and Senate not the least of which I outlined above. The current times are not normal and the Iraq War is a huge enough debacle that overrides the normal taboo of single issue voting. And any sane rational human being who is truly against the Iraq War CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT VOTE for Joe Lieberman on November 7.
Posted by POSEIDON at 10/30/2006 @ 8:52pm
I'm not sure to what I owe this mention in such august company, o god of the seas, but I concur.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/30/2006 @ 9:22pm
What a pathetic group this is. What would any of you defend? I can only imagine if we weren't in Iraq that you'd all be quibbling over the big mistakes we made in Afghanistan and how we should get out. G-d forbid any of you volunteer to defend anything. G-d forbid any of you have children who even go to colleges that allow ROTC on campus. [The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools" - Thucydides - Hmmm, Ned Lamont/Harvard/Yale ROTC NO! Wesley Clark, to his credit went to a school that produces scholars and heroes.] Finally not one of you mentioned Ned's biggest problem - standing on a podium on election night with Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson, Al "Tawana" Sharpton, and Maxine "the CIA sold drugs" Waters. None of whom are from CT - everyone of whom was certain to alienate the Dems/Reps/Inds. that Ned needed to win. Swan must be an idiot - "slow start after primary". I'd call it stillborn. Ned had plenty of good issues to work with - corruption, cronyism, national healthcare, etc. I lived through the whole Tawana Brawley episode, I listened to Jesse call me a Hymie - what a mistake for Ned to have them anywhere near his campaign. Maybe he's hoping Jesse will get him a Budweiser franchise or Toyota dealership after the campaign is over.
Posted by BigGreen at 10/30/2006 @ 9:54pm
green, I suppose you are posting this from the warzone in Iraq or afghanistan. if you aren't, well, then all that righteous indignation is phony. what are you defending?
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/30/2006 @ 10:22pm
JRolf - if Biggreen is typing that from Iraq, then you have no say over it, being that you're not in the war now, so what could you possibly know about the subject? Answer, according to your pregnancy logic - nothing. So be consistent and don't question him.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 10:32pm
If Lamont loses, pending a more concrete dissection, it will be because he relaxed. After the primary he went into "missed votes" mode, instead of sharpening, deepening, and supplementing his principle message. Sitting here in AL, I just went, "Huh?"
I hope he doesn't lose. But if he does, and if I may expand this a little, this should serve as a caution to the Dems not to let up and/or dissemble should they regain control of one or both bodies. This may seem like the obvious now (at least to me), but it didn't seem obvious to the important people in the campaign.
In the unsolicited platitude dept., the hardest work comes right when you think you have it the easiest.
Posted by irtzl at 10/30/2006 @ 10:39pm
urmypunk
most of the troops think they are there to get even with saddam because he caused 911. i think johannesrolf realizes that is not true. your analogy is very weak.
Posted by loveloki at 10/30/2006 @ 10:52pm
Loveloki - where is your evidence that most troops think they are in Iraq to "get even" with "sadam because he caused 911"? And are you stating that troops are somehow unaware that Saddam Hussein has been captured?
And my analogy is actually flawless if we're to take JRolf's logic as accurate (so, of course, I agree with you, that the logic of my post is "weak" - but tof course that means JRolf's arguments about men having no say about pregnancy is "weak" as well - I'm sure you will NEVER admit as such).
Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 11:39pm
"urmypunk"
Nice. I absolutely love that I'm getting under your skin. When you woke up this morning you had no idea that your blood would boil over the words an anonymous handle on a political blog. ;)
Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 11:40pm
"urmypunk"
Cute.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 10/30/2006 @ 11:47pm
you could never make my blood boil. the only person here who has ever made me angry is zero. you could not make me angry on your best day. like i said before, i find you irritating. like a fly. it's really not cute that you always need to brag about yourself here constantly. the evidence, my insecure little non-friend is a very well known poll. ask anyone here about it. they can tell you. because they are informed. maybe you should be a little more flawless about being informed. and your weak analogy is just that.
Posted by loveloki at 10/31/2006 @ 12:30am
Loveloki - ok, I'll ask you - where can I find the "very well known poll" that will put me in my place?
And you can deny it --- but your entire post reads as written by someone who is more than simply "irritated." You're upset. It's fantastic.
And you're absolutely correct that the analogy was weak --- but of course that means JRolf's pregnancy analysis is also weak, since I was using his logic. ;)
And please call me "irritating", "insecure" and not "informed" some more. It turns me on. I love being called anything that starts with the letter "i".
oooh, that reminds me, "i"ce cream time.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/31/2006 @ 12:59am
Posted by URMYGYRO 10/31/2006 @ 12:59am
Oh Urmy, you are sooo irresistable. MUAH!
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 10/31/2006 @ 6:40pm
"intoxicating" humor malcontent - "I" like it!
Posted by urmygyro at 10/31/2006 @ 6:57pm
Loveloki - where is your evidence that most troops think they are in Iraq to "get even" with "sadam because he caused 911"?
Posted by URMYGYRO 10/30/2006 @ 11:39pm | ignore this person
URMY, fyi, Loki may be referring to this Zogby poll from 2/28/06...
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
"Nearly nine of every 10 - 85% - said the U.S. mission is "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks," while 77% said they believe the main or a major reason for the war was "to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq." "
Posted by Lillian at 10/31/2006 @ 11:30pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/01/2006 @ 11:00am
Marybretbrad - I believe you're talking about a post from a different thread, but nonetheless - I was responding to Rio Bravo who said he would support marriage between gay people if they could have children as the result of sexual copulation. The hypothetical I put out was to refute his logic, which it did very well. If there are any red herrings here - it would be using "seat belts" as an example for why gay people shouldn't marry.
Marybretbrad wrote: "Our marriage laws improve the lives of millions of children by giving their parents added incentives to stay together when they may be tempted to split apart."
You really think that's the thought process for people who want to divorce? So what would the divorce rates be then without these "incentives"?
Marybretbrad also wrote: "Gay marriage (at least court imposed gay marriage) sends the message that marriage is about the selfish interests of the spouses; not the altruistic love parents exhibit towards their children."
So no gay people who want to get married already have adopted kids, or want to adopt kids in the future?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 1:40pm
Hail, oh denizens of the fever swamp!
I'd just like to drop in and thank you folks for bringing us Repbublicans former Presidential candidate, wooer of rich women, owner of $8,000 bicycles and a wardrobe full of spandex, and seldom employed John Kerry, aka the gift that keeps on giving. Yesterday, he reminded us all why a majority of Americans cannot stand the core of the Democratic Party, so ably represented here on the pages of the Nation on a daily basis, and invite you to consider that perhaps Karl Rove, in some nefarious way, is behind the whole 'US soldiers are uneducated idiots' bon mot that Mr. Kerry threw out the other day.
Also, I thought I'd throw out this quote from Dr. Hanson, simply because it's so darn spot-on:
How could John Kerry, born into privilege, and then marrying and divorcing and marrying out of and back into greater inherited wealth, lecture anyone at a city college about the ingredients for success in America? If he were to give personal advice about making it, it would have to be to marry rich women. Nothing he has accomplished as a senator or candidate reveals either much natural intelligence or singular education. Today, Democrats must be wondering why they have embraced an overrated empty suit, and ostracized a real talent like Joe Lieberman.
Posted by pontificus at 11/01/2006 @ 2:00pm
Marybretbrad - and your logic, of course, would have to be for not allowing heterosexuals who know they medically can't have babies get married, and should also be for disallowing heterosexuals to stay married unless they have children after a certain period of time.
Both of those would be extreme views, to say the least. Of course, you can just admit you're a homophobe, and that you don't mind some heterosexual married couples don't have children, and that you don't mind taht a large portion of heterosexual married couples end out divorcing - you just want to make sure that gay people know their place.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 2:06pm
Uneducated US troops plead for help from John Kerry! Photographic evidence here! [tinyurl.com]
Posted by pontificus at 11/01/2006 @ 2:30pm
Pontificus- Kerry definitely opened mouth and inserted foot. He's a poor politician.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 2:53pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/01/2006 @ 2:53pm
Pontificus- Kerry definitely opened mouth and inserted foot. He's a poor politician.
I truly wish that it was only a slip of the tongue. But the problem is, the comment undoubtedly does represent his attitude towards the military. It's a sad state of affairs in our country when people such as Kerry can come within a few scant tens of thousands of votes of being elected President. Scary, too.
Posted by pontificus at 11/01/2006 @ 3:00pm
I didn't say it was "a slip of the tongue", I said he opened mouth and inserted foot.
GWB does that plenty too, and he is also a poor politician (he happened to be elected twice (or once, depending on who you ask) but how effective a politicians he's been since in office is certainly debatable.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 3:45pm
Posted by URMYGYRO
I didn't say it was "a slip of the tongue", I said he opened mouth and inserted foot.
Upon a little reflection, I can see that you have a point. Kerry did perhaps most accurately, 'put his foot in his mouth'
to put one's put in one's mouth', to say something which causes one embarrassment.
As I said, Kerry's problem is not so much that he misspoke, but that he spoke too well.
In contrast, Bush's verbal missteps are primarily 'slips of the tongue'.
Slip of the tongue: an accidental and usually trivial mistake in speaking
In other words, Bush's verbal miscues are primarily of the sort where one fails to well articulate one's attitudes, whereas with Kerry's, it's more that he fails to cover them up.
Posted by pontificus at 11/01/2006 @ 4:07pm
I agree with your analysis - although I think GWB is horrible for many reasons - while Kerry is just stupid for many reasons.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 4:24pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/01/2006 @ 11:00am
"This is a red herring, the federal law (that says cars produced after 1970(?) have to have seatbelts) affects over 99% of the passenger miles driven in this country."
Comparing marriage to seatbelt laws is a red herring?? Boy, I'll say. But do go on.
"That law saves tens of thousands of lives a year."
UmmHumm. Sure it probably does. And our hetro only marraige laws have saved how many lives now? (The 12 mentally unstable rednecks, who would have commited murder against their own children when they found out, "your not my son anymore. You're dead to me." don't count).
"The fact that garbage trucks and pre-1970 cars don't have them does not diminish the fact that that thousands of lives are saved by a law that doesn't treat every motor vehicle exactly the same.
And the fact that some couples are childless, (like me), does not diminish their relationship. (Really now, this is a horrible analogy, you have drawn. Tell you what, let's trade "equitable marriage" law for "saves some lives, but increases your odds of being late for work and reaise LOTS of revenue" seat belt laws).
"Our marriage laws improve the lives of millions of children by giving their parents added incentives to stay together when they may be tempted to split apart."
Wow, even without the "equitable marriage" laws you are attmpting to juxtapose this against, this is such a flawed premise. People who can't get along should stay together, fight all the time and make their lives, and the lives of those around them, a living hell, "for the children"?
As someone whoe parents waited, "til you guys were grown" to divorce, I can tell you, all three of my siblings and I would have been happier living with one content parent, instead of two miserable parents. Divorce (by my parents, earlier) would have improved my childhood. Not to mention the improvement to my parents life.
Oh yea, and it's a pointless point, to your argument either way.
"The fact that infertile individuals marry does not diminish the benefits to the children of parents in the middle. "
And gay people marrying diminishes benefits to your (or anyones) children how? You have invalidated your own argument in one sentence.
"Implying that the existence of childless couples proves marriage isn't about children is as intellectually dishonest as saying the existence of garbage truck proves cars shouldn't have seatbelts."
What a bunch of garbled logic. Seatbelts are about safety from bodily injury. Where does it state, other than in your "mind", that marriage is about children. At one time it was about property...then romantic love...when was it "all about children". Citation please. (From the law, not some rightwing talking point, please.)
"Gay marriage (at least court imposed gay marriage) sends the message that marriage is about the selfish interests of the spouses; not the altruistic love parents exhibit towards their children."
"Court imposed"?? Was your marriage "imposed" by the court? Or merely, officiated and recorded. Do you mean these laws will "force" gays to marry? (If so, I am against them.)
How can marriage be about, "the altruistic love parents exhibit towards their children." when nobody, (that you would, apparently, respect), has children til (usually long) after they are married?
"I would enthusiastically support a LEGISLATIVE (not judicial) initiative that created gay marriage for gay couples if and only if it explicitly listed it's rational as benefiting the children of homosexuals."
Nice wormy sentence. I'm sure you would have advocated that we wait for all human right abuses to be recognized by a cohesive majority. (Including those like me, who find equal rights under the law to be a "no brainer", but who are not directly effected by the law, and hence, likely to vote based on other issues. War, constitutional issues, the economy, etc.)
Nice too, how apparently, using the logic in your sentence, hetro couples should have to be pregnant or already have children, to get married. Especially, considering you are the type, who would probably be against gays couples adopting, much less single gays adopting. Which, of course, is the only way it could "benefit(ing) the children of homosexuals".
Thank you for posting such a long peice of drivel. It was easy to disassemble and helps everybody know where you are coming from; up your own ass. (IT IS your own ass, isn't it? I only ask, because history shows that most homophobia comes from suppressed urges. (See any "moral values" politicians legal record for citation.))
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 11/01/2006 @ 4:24pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 11/01/2006 @ 4:24pm
As someone whoe parents waited, "til you guys were grown" to divorce, I can tell you, all three of my siblings and I would have been happier living with one content parent, instead of two miserable parents. Divorce (by my parents, earlier) would have improved my childhood. Not to mention the improvement to my parents life.
And as someone whose parents did not wait, but rather got divorced at the drop of a hat, Eric, I can tell you that the grass is not greener on the other side. Divorce, for most kids, and as many psychologists, social workers, and survivors will tell you, is a disaster on many, many levels.
The failure of the 'do your own thing' morality engendered by the left is one of the things that makes me hate the left so much, Eric.
Posted by pontificus at 11/01/2006 @ 4:34pm
Eric - good post, you sliced Marybretbrad's post up in more detail than I did.
Of course, as both you and I pointed out - Marybretbrad (and others who express similar justifications for denying gay marriage) is simply hatred towards, and fear of, gay people.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 4:38pm
Pontificus - so your parents got divorced, and so did Eric's parents. And so do lots and lots of parents. Do you really think divorce rates between heterosexuals will increase if gay people are allowed to marry? What about gay people getting married is going to disturb ability for heterosexual people to get married and stay married?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 4:41pm
Pontificus wrote: "The failure of the 'do your own thing' morality engendered by the left is one of the things that makes me hate the left so much, Eric."
What is this broad "failure" you speak of? You need to be much more specific. If your post is to be taken as on topic, then are you really implying that liberals have higher divorce rates than conservatives?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 4:43pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/01/2006 @ 4:38pm
Of course, as both you and I pointed out - Marybretbrad (and others who express similar justifications for denying gay marriage) is simply hatred towards, and fear of, gay people.
So, by your definition, anyone who disagrees with the need for gay marriage is motivated by hate? Do you think everyone who disagrees with you on this issue should have their views censored from public discourse because their views are 'hateful'? Are such people, in your view, guilty of a hate crime?
Posted by pontificus at 11/01/2006 @ 4:43pm
I'm not sure how you made the leap to me making it a hate crime for you to express your opinion - but it's patently absurd.
And I said "and others who express similar justifications for denying gay marriage." The key is the justification for denial of gay marriage. None of them here are based on logical arguments that can withstand scrutiny. The arguments against gay marriage on these threads get shredded time and again.
But if you feel you can make a solid, logical argument for why gay people should be denied gay marriage - please do, no one is preventing you.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 4:49pm
Let me guess in advance - you're going to make:
(a) slippery slope argument
(b) history argument
(c) gay people can't produce children through sex
All of these arguments have been refuted (quite effectively, too) already on these threads. But if you've got something new...
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 4:53pm
The usual other justification is religious-based - which I would submit is certainly based on homophobia.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 4:56pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/01/2006 @ 4:49pm
I'm not sure how you made the leap to me making it a hate crime for you to express your opinion - but it's patently absurd.
I don't think so. You said, and correct me if I am wrong, that people who disagree with the idea of gay marriage are motivated by hate and fear. Thus, you have defined their views as hateful. Correct?
And perhaps you did not specifically say that anyone whose views are motivated by hate are guilty of a crime, but many on the left are happy to make such a stipulation. For example, it is a staple of many college speech codes that 'hate' speech can lead to disciplinary action up to and including expulsion, and that 'hate' speech is not protected as free speech. So, given a population of people such as yourself, who are happy to classify the views of those who disagree with you as 'hateful', in league with those who consider 'hateful' views to be punishable, it's not a very long leap, don't you agree?
Posted by pontificus at 11/01/2006 @ 4:59pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/01/2006 @ 4:53pm
(c) gay people can't produce children through sex
All of these arguments have been refuted (quite effectively, too) already on these threads. But if you've got something new...
I'll pick (c), and I've heard the 'refutations', and I don't buy them. Just because the law is flexible enough to make sentimental exceptions to the fundamental purpose of marriage (procreation), doesn't mean it justifies turning the whole idea on its head.
Sorry, gotta go. Kids calling :)
Posted by pontificus at 11/01/2006 @ 5:02pm
Pontificus wrote: "I don't think so. You said, and correct me if I am wrong, that people who disagree with the idea of gay marriage are motivated by hate and fear. Thus, you have defined their views as hateful. Correct?"
How would that make expression of those views a hate crime?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 5:11pm
Pontificus wrote: "And perhaps you did not specifically say that anyone whose views are motivated by hate are guilty of a crime, but many on the left are happy to make such a stipulation. For example, it is a staple of many college speech codes that 'hate' speech can lead to disciplinary action up to and including expulsion, and that 'hate' speech is not protected as free speech. So, given a population of people such as yourself, who are happy to classify the views of those who disagree with you as 'hateful', in league with those who consider 'hateful' views to be punishable, it's not a very long leap, don't you agree?"
"Perhaps" I didn't say? I certainly didn't say what you ascribed to me or imply what you inferred.
So you're analogizing life on college campuses to life in the "real world" now?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 5:19pm
If marriage is really all about procreation then how can you be for allowing infertile couples to marry or couples who decide to not have kids to stay married?
Has the "law" made exceptions for them (and what is "the law" anyway - is it some body existing on its own - or is created by people)?
And when you return (seems when we're about to get to the point of having folks back up their thoughts - a lot of folks all of a sudden have to go) why not tell us how allowing gay people to marry will "turn marriage on its head."
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 5:26pm
Did finally allowing black people (and other minorities) and women the right to vote somehow turn the idea of democracy "on its head"?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 5:28pm
Marybretbrad - So what you're saying now is you'd vote for gay marriage?
What are you so scared of in seeing gay people get the right to marriage? Many, if not most, of gay people would certainly make caring parents and provide good homes. You simply don't like that it would be two men or two women raising the children. You can simply admit that, instead of using "the law" for cover.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 5:36pm
And actually Marybretbrad, most statutes (or interpretations of common law) didn't and don't define marriage the way you described - why do you think so many states in 2004 added referendums on gay marriage (read: wanted the populace to express their homophobia at the polls) to define marriage as between a man and a woman?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 5:40pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS
"The failure of the 'do your own thing' morality engendered by the left is one of the things that makes me hate the left so much, Eric."
"So, by your definition, anyone who disagrees with the need for gay marriage is motivated by hate?"
First, please consider; By your definition, MR. "one of the things that makes me hate", the answer is, yes.
Second, please define this alleged failure. As hard as it may have been for you, with divorced parents, doesn't my opposite experience, just illuminate the fact, that a.) hetro marriage is no panacea. Do you think, as children, we should have had a say in our parents decisions? and b.) The bad experiences we had were based on both of our parents, apparently, making bad decisions, earlier in life. Hence supporting the argument, not for gay marriage, but against putting legal obsticles in the way of difficult personal decisions, to start with.
"I'll pick (c), and I've heard the 'refutations', and I don't buy them. Just because the law is flexible enough to make sentimental exceptions to the fundamental purpose of marriage (procreation), doesn't mean it justifies turning the whole idea on its head."
You have yet to cite, the legal citation, or traditional (and, no 6 yrs. ago does not qualify as 'tradition') basis for this " fundamental purpose of marriage (procreation)" argument, you keep putting forth. As far as I can tell, marriage is about those " sentimental exceptions" and property rights, not procreation. (Non-biblical) citation please.
For the record, we have no children, or plans to have them. Should we "save" our marriage for somebody who is bound and determined to be part of the population problem, instead of wasting it on our " sentimental exceptions". Or is this just some sort of " sentimental exception" you are offering to your god. In which case, please remove it from my governments pervue.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 11/01/2006 @ 5:43pm
" If the laws are outdated because of changes in medical technology and societal acceptance of gays, then explicitly change the laws throught the legislature, don't have judges say, "Well, we're going to pretend that it says what we want it to say because that would really be better."
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/01/2006 @ 5:32pm
Semi-valid point about the judges vs. legislature. Unless the judges can prove constitutional intent is not supported by the law, it should stand.
So this means you support gay marriage, but want a referendum you can vote on, instead of a court verdict?
Or, maybe, based on your homophobia and/or religious beliefs, you would vote against the intent of the constitution.
If the later is the case, then why waste our money on a referendum, that would be overturned by the courts, based on unconstitutional criterion.
In the end, I believe, based on all your previous posts, that any concern for constitutional law or civil liberties is usurped, in your mind, by your superstitious beliefs. (But, that last part, is just my opinion.)
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 11/01/2006 @ 5:53pm
Eric wrote: "For the record, we have no children, or plans to have them. Should we "save" our marriage for somebody who is bound and determined to be part of the population problem, instead of wasting it on our "sentimental exceptions". Or is this just some sort of "sentimental exception" you are offering to your god. In which case, please remove it from my governments pervue."
LOL. I never thought of it that way, but great point. It's as if Pontificus, and others who share his view, think there are limited seats to a ball game and they are the "real fans" and are pissed at the "fair weather fans" for buying up the limited inventory and forcing them to watch the game at home or at the bar.
None of the homophobia crowd has explained how gay marriage will hurt their marriages.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 5:53pm
There are studies that show marriage is the best environment for children. This is science. Please, get serious.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/01/2006 @ 5:48pm
How can those studies have anything to do with gay people since gay people don't have the right to marry?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 5:54pm
Marybretbrad: I'm glad you support gay marriage.
Marybretbrad wrote: "What I'm afraid of is normalizing the belief that if you want a law changed all you have to do is find the right judge."
Have you ever studied judicial opinions in any depth? Have you surveyed judical opinions (choose even just one topic) to see how judges apply precedent and statutes?
If it's not about finding the right judges - why does the Bush administration bring every military case to the 4th circuit - to be heard by appointees appoved by Jesse Helms? Why doesn't Bush direct the cases be brought in the 2nd circuit, or the 9th circuit, or even the 7th circuit?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 5:58pm
If you remember, the right to vote was "earned" through constitutional amendments. Explicitly changing the law.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/01/2006 @ 5:53pm
Was the overturning of "separate but equal" laws done by legislatures or by courts?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 6:00pm
There are studies that show marriage is the best environment for children. This is science. Please, get serious.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/01/2006 @ 5:48pm
This sounds more like an argument against divorce, not any argument for marriage at all.
OK. How about this: No divorce allowed, for married gays, who have already adopted children. I mean science is science and it is all about children, right?
"If you remember, the right to vote was "earned" through constitutional amendments. Explicitly changing the law."
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/01/2006 @ 5:53pm
And what did you do to "earn" your right to vote? What a bizzarre viewpoint.
Most of us believe that right exsisted all along and was only necessary to clarify, for the benefit of stupid people.
Apparently, I have mistaken you as a fundy-vangalist/pro neo-con type. There seem to be inconsistancies, either in your posts, or my memory of them. I have no desire to search for previous posts by you, so I will take your word on it.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 11/01/2006 @ 6:10pm
Posted by MASK 10/30/2006 @ 2:46pm
Mask: the following was a letter to the editor from today's Hartford Courant (can't take credit for it, but it's interesting)
"Imagine that Sen. Joseph Lieberman wins re-election next week as a petitioning candidate. Not much of stretch, given the latest polls.
Imagine that Republican Gov. M.Jodi Rell wins re-election next week. Hasn't been much of a stretch for more than a year now.
Image that the Democrats win enough races next week so that the two national parties split the Senate 50-50. National polls suggest that this is possible, assuming that Sen. Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats. He has given his word to do so.
Imagine that the Republican administration finnaly decides that it is time for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to go. Not really that far-fetched since some prominent members of the GOP have made thsi suggestion publicly.
Imagine the President Bush, in an act of bipartisan fence-building, asks Sen. Lieberman to become secretary of defense. Not that far-fetched, either; the senaor was on the very short list the last time this idea came up.
Imagine that Sen. Lieberman decides that it is in the public interst for him to serve at the pleasure of the president even if his constituents feel otherwise. He is proud that he has always voted his conscience, so this decision would not be at all surprising.
Finally, imagine Gov. Rell appointing an interim junior senator from Connecticut for the next two years.
The Senate is now 51-49."
Ok - I'm sure you will point out, and I noticed it myself, that the VP casts the deciding vote if the Senate is split, but still, why not have a majority instead of be even, and leave the VP out, if you can.
Also, I've read today that Bush is sticking by his guns and won't fire Rumsfeld, but I have my doubts. We'll see. It was an interesting letter, it could end out being exactly right.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/01/2006 @ 9:20pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/01/2006 @ 5:11pm
Pontificus wrote: "I don't think so. You said, and correct me if I am wrong, that people who disagree with the idea of gay marriage are motivated by hate and fear. Thus, you have defined their views as hateful. Correct?"
How would that make expression of those views a hate crime?
How disappointing. When I confront you with a direct question, you choose to dodge. Please answer the question I posed.
Posted by pontificus at 11/02/2006 @ 06:46am
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/01/2006 @ 5:11pm
How would that make expression of those views a hate crime?
That's the question I asked you, rephrased and shot right back at me. My question was, since you make me repeat it, if you say that the views of people you disagree with are motivated by hate and fear, doesn't that make their expression of those views 'hate speech'? And aren't many of those on the left fully in favor of censoring hate speech?
Posted by pontificus at 11/02/2006 @ 06:57am
Posted by MALCONTENT 11/01/2006 @ 5:43pm
Second, please define this alleged failure. As hard as it may have been for you, with divorced parents, doesn't my opposite experience, just illuminate the fact, that a.) hetro marriage is no panacea.
Straw man. I'm not offering any panaceas (does anyone?). I'm saying that traditional morality, which strongly discourages divorce, offers the better way than the deconstructed and debased morality of the left, which seeks to distort and degrade the very concept of marriage.
Do you think, as children, we should have had a say in our parents decisions?
No, and I don't see the relevance of the question.
and b.) The bad experiences we had were based on both of our parents, apparently, making bad decisions, earlier in life. Hence supporting the argument, not for gay marriage, but against putting legal obsticles in the way of difficult personal decisions, to start with.
I'm completely confused here, please elucidate.
"I'll pick (c), and I've heard the 'refutations', and I don't buy them. Just because the law is flexible enough to make sentimental exceptions to the fundamental purpose of marriage (procreation), doesn't mean it justifies turning the whole idea on its head."
You have yet to cite, the legal citation, or traditional (and, no 6 yrs. ago does not qualify as 'tradition') basis for this " fundamental purpose of marriage (procreation)" argument, you keep putting forth. As far as I can tell, marriage is about those " sentimental exceptions" and property rights, not procreation. (Non-biblical) citation please.
Oh, please. Traditional marriage has been implicitly understood as a hetero union for the purpose of creatign and raising children from time immemorial. Those who would advocate including gay unions under the term 'marriage' have the onus on them to say why, not vice versa.
Posted by pontificus at 11/02/2006 @ 07:15am
For those Nation readers who missed it yesterday,click here to the uneducated US troops pleading for John Kerry to save them. [powerlineblog.com]
Thank God we have people like John Kerry who are willing to show the country what the left really stands for.
Posted by pontificus at 11/02/2006 @ 10:15am
thanks lillian.
eric, i agree with your opinions on marriage. kids model parents. if parents live miserably for years and years, not only are the kids also miserable at the time but they are also learning to live miserably as adults.
darin, holy cow! you have come a long way baby. now if you could only enlighten todd.
so kerry said something bad, once again. he apologized. where is the apology to the troops from bushco. for their many many horrendous actions, statements and lies?
personally, i believe kerry was calling bush an idiot. his statement was easily misinterpreted. i don't think he should have apologized. i think he should have vehemently clarified.
Posted by loveloki at 11/02/2006 @ 11:12am
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/01/2006 @ 9:20pm
So..."the Plan" is...Lieberman suicidally gives up his Senate seat just to "do a solid" for the Republicans in the Senate, and allow Rell to appoint a Republican for two years (who will likely lose next go around)
What's in it for Lieberman?....Career ends, no hope for staying in Government after Bush leaves in 2009, put in the history books ALONG WITH Rumsfeld as the "Defense Secretary during the first great foreign policy/military failure of the 21st Century", and all he does is give the US Senate the Republicans....for 2 years!?!?!??
Yeah...let's IMAGINE that.
Posted by Mask at 11/02/2006 @ 12:07pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 11/02/2006 @ 11:12am
so kerry said something bad, once again.
Define 'bad'. Does anyone really doubt that he meant what he said?
he apologized. where is the apology to the troops from bushco. for their many many horrendous actions, statements and lies?
The lies in your fevered imagination, or the lies in the real world?
personally, i believe kerry was calling bush an idiot.
And yet...Bush got better grades than Kerry at Yale, and Bush has been elected President twice. Kerry has accomplished...what? Marrying rich heiresses?
his statement was easily misinterpreted.
Misinterpreted how? Does anyone really doubt that Kerry meant what he said? Do you?
i don't think he should have apologized. i think he should have vehemently clarified.
Ah, and here I totally agree. Why apologize for something that you meant? Kerry does, actually, believe that US soldiers are uneducated idiots. Don't you think?
Posted by pontificus at 11/02/2006 @ 12:40pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 11/02/2006 @ 11:12am
When are you guys on the left going to figure out that your representatives, like Kerry, don't have a debatign problem, or a PR problem. You have an idea problem. It's not when people like Kerry misspeak, it's when they say what they actually think that they get into trouble. When people like Kerry and Hillary Clinton say what they actually mean, in public, the media can't cover for them, and the American people can see them for who they are: elitist fools.
It's been said that the only way a leftist gets elected in this country is by lying about what they stand for. This whole Kerry episode is proof of that.
Posted by pontificus at 11/02/2006 @ 1:04pm
Pontificus wrote: "I don't think so. You said, and correct me if I am wrong, that people who disagree with the idea of gay marriage are motivated by hate and fear. Thus, you have defined their views as hateful. Correct?"
How would that make expression of those views a hate crime?
How disappointing. When I confront you with a direct question, you choose to dodge. Please answer the question I posed.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/02/2006 @ 06:46am
Pontificus - If I say their views are motivated by hate and fear, which is what homophobia is motivated by - then why do you need to ask?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/02/2006 @ 3:01pm
How would that make expression of those views a hate crime?
That's the question I asked you, rephrased and shot right back at me. My question was, since you make me repeat it, if you say that the views of people you disagree with are motivated by hate and fear, doesn't that make their expression of those views 'hate speech'? And aren't many of those on the left fully in favor of censoring hate speech?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/02/2006 @ 06:57
I don't think hate speech should be censored, unless it's putting specific targets in immediate danger (which would be a very rare case).
Posted by urmygyro at 11/02/2006 @ 3:02pm
So..."the Plan" is...Lieberman suicidally gives up his Senate seat just to "do a solid" for the Republicans in the Senate, and allow Rell to appoint a Republican for two years (who will likely lose next go around)
What's in it for Lieberman?....Career ends, no hope for staying in Government after Bush leaves in 2009, put in the history books ALONG WITH Rumsfeld as the "Defense Secretary during the first great foreign policy/military failure of the 21st Century", and all he does is give the US Senate the Republicans....for 2 years!?!?!??
Yeah...let's IMAGINE that.
Posted by MASK 11/02/2006 @ 12:07am
Are we presuming, Mask, that a Democrat will win the Presidency in '08?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/02/2006 @ 3:05pm
osted by PONTIFICUS 11/02/2006 @ 07:15am
"Straw man. I'm not offering any panaceas (does anyone?). I'm saying that traditional morality, which strongly discourages divorce, offers the better way than the deconstructed and debased morality of the left, which seeks to distort and degrade the very concept of marriage."
Straw man? Or you cherry picking my statement? Fine. There is no panacea. " please define this alleged failure"(?) How did the "left's agenda" in any way influence our parents decisions? I say it didn't. Do you disagree? Do you blame the "left" for influencing your parents opinion?
I guess that would be understandable, as I blame damnable tradition and archaic, biblical guilt hammered into my parents heads, as children, by their rascist, sexist, homophobic parents.
Just think. Your parents divorced and made your life miserable. Mine didn't divorce and they made my life and their own, less bearable. All to appease the "morality" of a bunch of stupid people who, when it comes down to it, don't really give a fuck about them.
Please enlighten me as to the substance and source of your "tradiitional morality".
"No, and I don't see the relevance of the question."
You're right. There was none. Was just an aside. Care to answer?
"I'm completely confused here, please elucidate."
OK. I will try:
The bad experiences we had were based on both of our parents, apparently, making bad decisions, earlier in life. Yes? No? Hence supporting the argument, not for gay marriage, but against putting legal obsticles in the way of difficult personal decisions, to start with. If yes, maybe parents would make decisions based on what is best for all involved, instead of adhering to a rigid sceme, based on traditional mythology. If no, then I don't understand your position. Do you think your parents divorced to spite one another/you?
"Oh, please. Traditional marriage has been implicitly understood as a hetero union for the purpose of creatign and raising children from time immemorial. Those who would advocate including gay unions under the term 'marriage' have the onus on them to say why, not vice versa."
This statement reveals a distict lack of knowledge on your part, about the history of marriage. Not trying to be a smart ass (for a change) when I say that "tradition" generally means more than "In my, or my parents recollection, from our limited cultural perspective".
"Those who would advocate including gay unions under the term 'marriage' have the onus on them to say why, not vice versa."
Not sure I follow this question. Please clarify.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 11/02/2006 @ 7:37pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 11/02/2006 @ 7:37pm
please define this alleged failure"(?)
Traditional Judeo-christian "right-wing" values, as you might put it, decrees that divorce should be restricted to very limited cases. The left preaches that there is no fundamental reason to not divorce if you feel it may make you happier, or, in practice, for any reason whatsoever. This, in itself, is a failure. Not necessarily for the parents, who may or may not be happier, but certainly, in most cases, for children, for whom, the evidence tells us, divorce and the lack of a stable family is almost always worse than not.
How did the "left's agenda" in any way influence our parents decisions? I say it didn't. Do you disagree? Do you blame the "left" for influencing your parents opinion?
The last 40 years have seen an explosion in the divorce and illegitimacy rates, a period which coincides with the widespread adoption of leftist societal values, such as they are, to the detriment of traditional Judeo-christian values. I see it as patently obvious that the left's agenda involves a frontal assault on Judeo-christian morality and faith, and to the degree that people like my parents accept this as permission to do things like casually divorce, it is the left's fault.
Societal disintegration and societal suicide (declining birth rates) is well-documented in countries which have abandoned, or substantially diluted their traditional Judeo-christian morality. Leftists in our universities preach, as a matter of dogma, that Judeo-christian values are no better than any other system, when to any rational observer of the facts on the ground, this is plainly not the case.
Please enlighten me as to the substance and source of your "tradiitional morality".
I think we all know what traditional morality is and where it comes from. And it doesn't guarantee you or anyone else happiness. What it is designed to do is provide for the healthiest society possible.
Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2006 @ 04:22am
Posted by MALCONTENT 11/02/2006 @ 7:37pm
"Those who would advocate including gay unions under the term 'marriage' have the onus on them to say why, not vice versa."
Not sure I follow this question. Please clarify.
People who advocate gay marriage often posit that it is some sort of fundamental right that they are being denied, which to me is absurd. Marriage is and always has been a protected relationship sanctioned by society for the purpose of producing and the raising of children, which are the lifeblood of society. In other words, society has a compelling interest in protecting fecund man/woman relationships above and beyond all other human relationships. The man/woman relationship is as fundamental to nature as the law of gravity, all other relations between people are, in the eyes of society, secondary. True, man/woman couples that are infertile are allowed to marry, but I call this a sentimental exception; infertility, by tradition and in law, has always been one of the few allowed reasons for divorce.
In light of the fact that the concept of marriage does not apply to gay couples, becaue they cannot have children, it is therefore not a civil right. Gays have the obligation to convince society why their unions should have this same exalted status; it is not the responsibility of society to prove otherwise.
Posted by pontificus at 11/03/2006 @ 04:37am
Posted by PONTIFICUS
It is apparent, that there is no point in debating this topic with you. You still persist in your erronious historical assessment of marriage. You claim as "absurd" the concept that all are not deserving of equality, in our govts. pervue.
You "responses" contain meaningless non-responses like,"I think we all know what traditional morality is and where it comes from."
Then why did I ask? Can you not answer?
You equate declining birth rates wtih "societal suicide".
And statements like, "...that Judeo-christian values are no better than any other system, when to any rational observer of the facts on the ground, this is plainly not the case."
Since when are believers of 1800yr. old stories and invisible men in the sky, "rational observer(s)"?
Lastly, you could have answered the question about whether you blame the "left" for your parents divorce, with a simple "yes", as long as you were going to transfer blame for their actions away from the responsible parties. (Aww...did they not live the entirety of their lives, just for litte 'ole you? Somehow, I think you would be just as whiney, if they had stayed together...If they had, and you were still unhappy, would you blame the "right"?... At least you have your imaginary friends).
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 11/03/2006 @ 7:25pm