Three somewhat short political notes

[heidi]

Since my post last week about Sinclair disapeared because of my LJ problems, I didn't get to fully rant about their decision to try and game the electorate by showing an anti-Kerry film that is filled with distortions, and whose producers have been accused of libel by one of the other soldiers featured in the film. So, instead, I'll just do a follow-up today by noting that their stock is in free-fall, and MediaMatters is underwriting a shareholder lawsuit against the company.

Our two contenders for Senate from Florida had a debate last night, and the Republican candidate, Mel Martinez, said he was anti stem cell research, but was okay with in vitro fertalization. Can someone, ideally someone who doesn't support allowing additional lines of stem cells for research, please explain to me how those positions are inherently consistent with each other? Also, I'm wondering, in a sort of curious way, whether anyone in California who was voting against Kerry solely, or substantially, because of Kerry's position on stem cell research will now refuse to support Gov. Arnold in the future. But I'm not seeking a specific answer on that the same way I am regarding Martinez's position.

Lastly, can someone please explain to my why Bush's lie in the last debate regarding concern/worry and Osama got half as much press attention as Kerry's legitimate, fair and truthful statement about Mary Cheney? Also, was there anyone on my flist, at least in terms of those in the US, who didn't know, before the last debate, that she was a lesbian?

Oh, I guess I do have one more comment/question: Has Bush said there won't be a draft at all period no way no how, or there won't be a *general* draft? Because if it's the latter, well, maybe - but if it's the former, then I guess they've decided to not utilize the contingency plans for a draft of doctors, nurses and other health care workers.The New York Times has an article today which says that in a recent article in The Wisconsin Medical Journal, published by the state medical society, Col. Roger A. Lalich, a senior physician in the Army National Guard, said: "It appears that a general draft is not likely to occur. A physician draft is the most likely conscription into the military in the near future." So just an FYI for those of you in the medical fields...

Comments

[phoenixsong]

Mel Martinez, said he was anti stem cell research, but was okay with in vitro fertalization. Can someone, ideally someone who doesn't support allowing additional lines of stem cells for research, please explain to me how those positions are inherently consistent with each other?

I'm OK with stem cells, but here's my theory: Either they support IVF on the assumption that all embryos (potentially viable or not) are utilized -- which puts both mother and child(ren) at further risk if there are multiples, and I'll end the rant there -- or they just don't know that some IVF doctors give the parents a choice on how many to implant, or have a policy of only implanting a certain number of embryos in order to avoid risky multiple births.

[selinakyle47.livejournal.com]

Re: stem cells and IVF. The hypcrisy inherent in this Republican talking point drives me batty. I understand there are groups who oppose both positions (the Catholic Church for example) and are consistent in their philosophies. I suppose those who oppose expanding stem cell research but not IVF justify their position by arguing that IVF procedures do not necessarily lead to destruction of embryos, since the excess can be stored indefinitely.

Bottom line is that politicians can't argue against the faces of smiling babies and their parents. They'd lose right away.

[hedwig-snowy.livejournal.com]

1) Sinclair believes in free speech (as long as it agrees with them...)

"Sinclair Broadcast fired its Washington bureau chief, saying he revealed company business when he discussed its upcoming program on a documentary critical of John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities."

2) Stem Cell vs. In Vitro -

Analogous to the dichotomy of Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty views of some. How does that work?

3) I was interested in why so little attention was paid to immigration considering that it would seem that the terrorists may have a pretty easy time of getting through our porous borders. I sometimes wonder who is running the info machine in the White House. Last year, the WH announced that it was cutting back on Air Marshals the same week that the FBI put out a new warning of possible terrorist threats of hijackings. This month, they put out a bogus warning after they found a disc with layouts of U.S. schools only to turn around and have the WH cut funding for school security programs. Not logical...

But yes, the media does tend to take Kerry's 'missteps' and run them into the ground. This is perspective of course, but I have seen emails that Fox News gets from it's viewers that think Carl Cameron is Pro-Kerry? Ever listen to the adjectives he uses to describe a comment or action of Kerry's?

4) Wait, it's ok for the VP and Lynne (schlock writer) to use their daughter to try and humanize him, while attacking Kerry for his comment? Seems like political opportunism to me...not true outrage. Think they looked over their focus group data from people who somehow didn't know the VP had a lesbian daughter and decided it was another fake issue that they could use as a negative label. Glad the electorate is smarter than that...ya right...

Saw Ed Koch on TDS last night and realized how much hatred some New Yorker's have not just for the terrorists, but Islam in general. He even commented that he disagrees with Bush on virtually every single domestic issue. I guess he is just so scared that he would go with 'what he knows' rather than someone he agrees with on everything else. Somehow, I see that as cowardly and rather depressing. As I see it, I don't think Kerry will be that different that GWB on terrorism nor on Iraq, but for a small chance that foreign leaders can politically support us with Bush gone. To support Bush because you believe in his tax policies or his environmental record or his budget deficits is one thing, but to support him because you're afraid is truly 'letting the terrorists win' and that's disgraceful.

5) Finally, I found it amusing where the GOP spinsters are claiming that the draft talk originally came from the Kerry campaign. No, it came from blogs and the internet and then the President commented about the 'internets' in the 2nd debate. Now, the GOP brought a bill to the floor before the election to try an squash those rumors. I don't personally feel a draft is even slightly likely given our 'current' military deployments, but even Kerry can't say that it is 100% certain that it won't be needed in the future. That is impossible to predict.

[sincelastjuly.livejournal.com]

Lastly, can someone please explain to my why Bush's lie in the last debate regarding concern/worry and Osama got half as much press attention as Kerry's legitimate, fair and truthful statement about Mary Cheney?

because americans are fucking stupid.

i am sick of all of this.

[virginia-bell.livejournal.com]

Lastly, can someone please explain to my why Bush's lie in the last debate regarding concern/worry and Osama got half as much press attention as Kerry's legitimate, fair and truthful statement about Mary Cheney?

*puches something* argh, I know. That really ticked me off.

Signing off, V.M. Bell

[(Anonymous)]

Lastly, can someone please explain to my why Bush's lie in the last debate regarding concern/worry and Osama got half as much press attention as Kerry's legitimate, fair and truthful statement about Mary Cheney?

Because Kerry's statement was seen as illegitimate by a great many people, Republican *and* Democrat. Those conducting both formal and informal focus groups during the debate report that many participants literally gasped when he mentioned her.

It has nothing to do with Mary Cheney's being gay, per se. Yes, it was already known. Kerry didn't "out" her. And the Cheneys have talked about her a couple of times during the campaign -- when they're asked. But Kerry's answer (remember the question -- "Is being gay a choice?") could have mentioned any number of gay people he actually knows. Why didn't he mention Barney Frank, or Rosie O'Donnell, or someone like that? Instead, he brought up the daughter of his opponent's running mate -- whom he doesn't know -- and presumed to speak for her. That's way over the line.

And that's why people are upset.

[cruisedirector]

So they're more upset that Kerry mentioned his opponent's VP's daughter as a lesbian than they are about said opponent's homophobic policies?

I mean, Lynne Cheney has repeatedly stated her outrage that her daughter was brought up in such a manner. Why isn't Lynne Cheney more outraged that her own husband's running mate wants to make her daughter and everyone like her a second class citizen under the Constitution of the United States?

People are fucked in the head baffling.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, Lynne Cheney has repeatedly stated her outrage that her daughter was brought up in such a manner.

Yes, because it's just not done. You don't bring up your opponents' family members to score political points. If Bush had brought up Kerry's ex-wife to make a point about divorce, we'd never hear the end of it.

Why isn't Lynne Cheney more outraged that her own husband's running mate wants to make her daughter and everyone like her a second class citizen under the Constitution of the United States?

I'm sorry, but I don't get this "second class citizen" bit. Just because they can't get married, something they've never, ever been able to do, now they're suddenly less than human? Baloney.

John Kerry is against gay marriage too, you know. The only difference is that he's willing to let runaway state courts (i.e. Mass) tell the legislatures how to write their laws. That's not their job. Amending the Constitution is a last-ditch effort to stop such abuse. No good ever came from forcing something on the American people that a majority of them don't want.

I can understand the legal difficulties of a committed gay couple. They can't do a lot of things, like have joint credit to buy a house, automatically inherit property, or get tax breaks. That's why I support civil unions.

[selinakyle47.livejournal.com]

Alan Keyes, the GOP Senate candidate in IL has referred to Mary Cheney as a "selfish hedonist" and yet there's been little criticism from most Republicans, including the Cheneys.

[(Anonymous)]

To be perfectly fair, he didn't mention Mary Cheney until he was asked directly, and he isn't running against her father. Still, you think the Cheneys didn't rip him a new one?

Alan Keyes has run a terrible campaign, and is coming apart at the seams. He's a wretched man, and I say that as a conservative. He has no political future after this.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

If they did, they did so in private, not publicly. Her sister said she wouldn't dignify it with a reply but Dick & Lynn were silent on it. And yes, he's a monumental idiot.

[laleonaenojada.livejournal.com]

The only difference is that he's willing to let runaway state courts (i.e. Mass) tell the legislatures how to write their laws. That's not their job.

Actually, it is their job. All powers not specifically limited or granted by the US Constitution are left to the states. That's the 10th amendment. Each state then has its own Constitution outlining how the legislative and judicial branches interact. But it has long been a respected part of judicial authority to create common law through setting judicial precedent, such as deciding that gay marriage in a particular state is permissible. That doesn't mean that a state legislature cannot then pass an act preventing gay marriage, but that act can always be ruled unconstitutional (to the state Constitution) by the state supreme courts. That's the process of judicial review that is written into not only the US Constitution, but most (if not all) of the state constitutions.

~A

[(Anonymous)]

The legislative branch of the government, including each state government, writes and passes the laws. The judicial branch interprets them. That's the essence of separation of powers.

In MA, the state Supreme Court literally gave the state legislature a deadline to write gay marriage into law, or else. They usurped the legislature's power. That's not constitutional. A number of Republicans decided that the only way to keep this from spreading was to amend the Constitution to make marriage between a man and woman only. They haven't a prayer of getting it passed (I'm realistic), but I understand why they did it.

--Sara the anonymouse

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

But courts give deadlines to the legislature all the time! It's one of the most fundamental attributes of the desegregation cases - that the Supremes ordered timelines generated for desgregation in things like schools. So why is it ok in other areas for the courts to order the legislature to adhere to a timeline, but verboten in this one particular area? Short answer: it's not "not ok" in other areas - in other words, it's just fine for the judiciary to generate a timeline or timeframe for the other branches to adhere to.

[dramaturgy.livejournal.com]

Also, was there anyone on my flist, at least in terms of those in the US, who didn't know, before the last debate, that she was a lesbian?

I think I knew but it wasn't something I had apparenty committed to long-term memory. Or I could be thinking of something else and indeed did not know that.

[queenlily.livejournal.com]

Also, was there anyone on my flist, at least in terms of those in the US, who didn't know, before the last debate, that she was a lesbian?


I'm not on your flist, but I didn't know about her before the last debate or two. I've never seen her campaigning for Cheney.

Kerry probably brought it up because Republicans are supposed to have good moral family values, and it was a good strategy to say "Look what he has in his own family!" But it's just not nice to attack someone's family.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

I've never seen her campaigning for Cheney...

She runs his campaign. She did last time too, iirc. And why do you see it as an attack? Andrew Sullivan said that comparisons to being obese, or a slut, or retarded or an alcoholic are all inherently presumptive that there's something wrong with being gay- he thinks a comparison to someone being born in another country is legitimate, though. I found that an interesting analogy.

[queenlily.livejournal.com]

I see it as an attack not because of the content of the remark, but just because it was part of his strategy to undermine his opponent by using family. Four years ago, I heard that Gore's daughter kept out of the spotlight so the press wouldn't talk about her. Remembering that, and since I hadn't heard about Mary Cheney before, I thought it was not nice to drag her into the world's view just to hurt her daddy. But if she runs his campaigns, I guess she is a fair target.

That is a good analogy.

[bordergold.livejournal.com]

About the medical thing: I know many people who are taking a sort of med school scholarship where they know that in the future, should the need arise, they will be required to work in the military. i don't know the full details, but that's what they have been telling me.

Uh, sorry about my lack of coherency. =D

[bordergold.livejournal.com]

also, though I am conservative, I entirely agree that Sinclair is out of line. However, I am curious whether you, as a liberal, saw any "distortion" in F 9/11? I realize that it's not entirely the same situation, as the anti-Kerry film is being broadcasted on TV, but, yeah, I was wondering if you think it's purely fact?

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

No, I don't think the film is purely factual - there's a lot of opinions in there, and nobody's ever denied that there were. For example, Lila's reaction to her son's death, and her take on her family, are all opinion-centric things - the fact that her son was killed in Iraq is factual, of course, but her reaction to it, and other people's reactions to her, are opinion things. Similarly, the reactions of the former POWs to the physical & mental torture they underwent are all opinion-centric things - the fact of their torture is factual, but their reactions are emotional.

But what I think you're refering to is the stuff in both films that purport to espouse facts, but are in fact inaccurate. Nobody has been able to showcase anything factual in F:9/11 that is factually inaccurate (yes, Bush sat in the classroom for seven minutes after the second tower was attacked, yes, planes flew various bin Ladens out of the US just as US airspace opened, etc.), but in contrast, there are factual inaccuracies in the movie Sinclair is utilizing in their program - for example, a large number of former PoW's have said that they never heard their captors mention John Kerry's name. Furthermore, you might want to read through this to see Media Matters' listing of the various factual inaccuracies in Stolen Honor - and here, they're talking about facts, not things that could be deemed emotional reactions or opinions.

[(Anonymous)]

Nobody has been able to showcase anything factual in F:9/11 that is factually inaccurate

It's a small thing, but perhaps indicative of Moore's technique. He took a letter to the editor (from The Pantagraph, www.pantagraph.com) with the headline "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election" and completely redid it to make it look like a news article. You can read the whole story here (http://moorewatch.com/index.php/lies_damn_liesand_f9_11/).

Also, you might want to take a look at Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm).

Furthermore, you might want to read through this to see Media Matters' listing of the various factual inaccuracies in Stolen Honor

I'm not saying it's not possible the movie's inaccurate -- but the "proof" presented in your link has already been debunked. The guy in charge of Media Matters is David Brock, who is a proven liar looking for his 15 minutes of fame. He, like Michael Moore, isn't someone that people of any political persuasion should be looking to for truth and accuracy.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

Wow, how many times each day have you been refreshing this LJ post to see when I replied? I mean, it's how many days on and you reply just three hours or so after I posted? Impressive, anonymouse; your degree of obsession is insanely impressive.

So you dismiss David Brock as a proven liar - I think you're a little confused between the concept of a proven liar and an admitted liar. The former is someone like George W. Bush, who has said things like the bit in the last debate regarding concern and Osama, that are provably false. Also, Bill Clinton, regarding Monica. An admitted liar is someone like John Dean, who makes a principled decision to cease assisting in a cover-up, and instead take steps to expose it. Isn't it better to admit to your sins and decry them than to simply be proven as a speaker of falsehoods?

I also think that David has certainly had more than his 15 minutes of fame - he made a heck of a lot more money, and had basically an equal amount of prestige in different circles, when he was a shill and manipulator for Richard Mellon Scaife and his gang.

I read through the "59 deceits" page you sent me to, and I was shocked, awed and horrified to see that the page continues to claim that there were, contemporaneous with the start of the war in Iraq, connections between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. The page said, "Whether you agree with the preliminary staff report, the staff's critics, or the final commission report, there is no dispute that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al Qaeda, an organization whose only activity was terrorism."

Of course there is a dispute! What you cited says:

The final Commission Report finds that there were "friendly contacts" between Al Qaeda and the Saddam regime. The Commission does not find that there was a "collaborative operational relationship" for "carrying out attacks against the United States." Whether you agree with the preliminary staff report, the staff's critics, or the final commission report, there is no dispute that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al Qaeda...

What the report really said was that none of these contacts

ever developed into a collaborative relationship"

How dare the hypocrites who wrote those 59 "deceits" complain about Moore taking things out of context in his film, when their compunction to do the same thing they complain about is widespread, and, in fact, more insideous! Where they complain about Moore taking things out of context, they're complaining about things like Bush talking about terrorism and then hitting a golf ball. Where they take things out of context, they result in people walking around utterly ignorant of the reality-based community, which is, you know, where we actually live.

[(Anonymous)]

Hey, I'm here because I discovered your journal by sort-of-accident and I enjoy a good political discussion/debate. I've tried to be polite while expressing my views and not behave badly. No one so far has told me to get lost. However, this is your journal. If you really don't want me here, say so and I'm gone. Honestly.

So you dismiss David Brock as a proven liar - I think you're a little confused between the concept of a proven liar and an admitted liar.

Touche. You're right, he admitted to being a liar. My point was, given that, why should we trust what he says now as opposed to what he said when he worked for Republicans? "Hey, I lied then, but I'm really telling the truth now."

As for Bush "lying" about what he said about Osama, let me ask this: is Kerry lying when he continues to insist that a million voters (blacks) were "disenfranchised" in 2000 without a single shred of proof to back him up? Or can we just chalk it up to campaign rhetoric and let it go at that?

What the report really said was that none of these contacts ever developed into a collaborative relationship"

In the sense that Osama and Saddam never got together and plotted against the US, you're absolutely right. And no one in the Bush cabinet made that claim (despite Moore cutting off a Condi Rice comment to make it look like she did). Saddam was not responsible for 9/11. However, the commission also said there were definite connections between the two. Saddam provided safe haven for terrorists associated with al Qaeda. He also "allowed" a terrorist training camp, complete with airplane fuselage, to exist on Iraqi soil. He gave $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He supported terrorism and was a dangerous man -- that much is crystal clear.

How dare the hypocrites who wrote those 59 "deceits" complain about Moore taking things out of context in his film, when their compunction to do the same thing they complain about is widespread, and, in fact, more insideous!

Actually, it's one guy, Dave Koppel, who talked to a lot of people and spent a lot of time on this. He provides links for everything he says. So, what exactly does "their (who?) compunction to do the same thing" have to do with his fisking of Moore's film?

Hey, you can read Salon if you want to. I've read it from time to time, as I read many different news/political outlets. However, if you read exclusively liberal sites, you're not getting the whole picture -- just as those who read only right-wing sources aren't getting it all either.

--Sara the anonymouse

[stellabymoor.livejournal.com]

I used to work at a large teaching hospital in Houston, and while I haven't heard anything about a med draft (I'm on the suspicion that any draft talk is just talk), a few of our nursing directors have been called into active duty. I know one is a reservist, but I think the other one was a military officer. I've heard both will be gone for at least 10 months, and one is setting up a hospital in the Middle East.

because there is a world wide shortage of nurses, hospitals would fight tooth and nail if the government wants to take them away.

Houston does have a v. large VA hospital, so finding someone from there might yield more information.

and yay for me going into physical therapy - we're not that important, right?

ps - I did hear that Cheney had a lesbian daughter before the debate. it was a long long time ago, but I vaugely remember.

pps - on a completely different note, I need volunteer hours for my government course. I live in Texas - know any groups offhand that need 6 hours of help?