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

Part 1

[(Anonymous)]

Part of me wants to end this conversation now with just one sentence: Mary Berry was a professor of mine in college; she taught a legal issues seminar in my Junior year, which was one of the best classes I took in college, and I do not take slights to her with good humor.

If MFB was one of your professors and you liked and respected her, that’s fine. I can’t speak to that, and won’t try. However, I do think it’s fair to judge her by her public words and actions. On that front, I have plenty of reasons for saying what I did about her partisanship.

* President Clinton appointed Ms. Berry to replace another commission member, and her term is legally up in December of this year, at which time President Bush can replace her. Berry insists she won’t budge until January 21, at which point she obviously hopes a President Kerry will re-appoint her. In fact, she’s made quite an issue out of it.

* In a book she co-authored in 1981, she praised Russia and the communists, insisting they had much to teach the black community about “constitutional safeguards” and “equal opportunity.” She also compared black America in the ‘60s to Jews in the ‘30s, claiming the threat of genocide was the same.

* During the Commission hearings in Florida, she refused Govenor Jeb Bush the opportunity to even make an opening statement. In fact, she rudely interrupted him while he was welcoming her. She then proceeded to treat both Bush and Katherine Harris with contempt all through their testimony.

These are just three examples – I have many more. My point is not that Ms. Berry is a bad person, or even that she doesn’t know the law, but that she is outrageously, unashamedly partisan. Any report from a commission she chairs will carry her conclusions, whether they’re supported or not. And that is precisely what happened.

If you want to dismiss any determinaitons made by partisan supporters of one candidate or another, then what do you do with everything said during the recount - and about the recount - by Katherine Harris, who was a chair of Bush's Florida campaign contemporaneous with her serving as the Secretary of State in charge of elections? Isn't she also a very partisan person?

Partisan? Yes, of course, she’s a Republican and supports Bush. So partisan she couldn’t do her job properly? No, and that’s the difference. I watched Katherine Harris all through the recount mess, and she followed the law, as written. Period.

But the anecdotal evidence was presented as anecdotal evidence in the report. What on earth could be negative about that?

So, if I came to the Commission claiming that a policeman stopped me on my way to vote -- even though it turned out to be a mile from the polling place, and for speeding -- would you put that in a report as disenfranchisement? Because that’s the sort of “anecdotal evidence” we’re talking about here.

Part 2

[(Anonymous)]

Well, what are you deeming bureaucratic here? The felon purge list, which included names of many non-felons? Or the butterfly ballot issue? Or is it something else?

All of the above. Of course there were errors, mistakes, confusion, etc. These things happen to some extent in every election; they’re not deliberate attempts to keep certain people from voting, which is the point Kerry et al are trying to make.

So, how do you manage to trust something that relies on analysis by John Lott, who has used a false identity online, or who has embellished his own credentials, both of which are types of lies?

I know who Lott is. I know about his book (as well as that of Michael Bellesiles). I read your sources anyway, although the stor(ies) are familiar. Frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with the testimony he gave. The Left has attacked this man, and the AEI, in every way possible, trying to discredit them. As far as I’m concerned, his analyses are sound, and that’s what we’re discussing.

Or is the fact that I'm pulling these two links from Media Matters' site enough for you to jump to a conclusion

Along with what I already know about the issue? Pretty much.

You know, it’s funny… you say that you don’t just read liberal material and websites, but every link you give me is liberal. Media Matters? The Washington Monthly (read by Warren Buffett, Paul Krugman, Garry Trudeau, Molly Ivins, Bill Clinton)? Please.

Re: Part 2

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Of course there were errors, mistakes, confusion, etc. These things happen to some extent in every election; they’re not deliberate attempts to keep certain people from voting, which is the point Kerry et al are trying to make.

The fact that you're prepared to dismiss serious "errors" like these is frightening. How dare you support a government "liberating" other people around the world when it clearly is incapable of managing a simple election in its own country.

People like you are selling your own democracy up a freaking creek, and cheering while you do it.

Re: Part 2

[nostrademons.livejournal.com]

*sells democracy up a creek and cheers*

We're going to hell! We're going to hell! We're all going to hellllllll!!!!11one11

And G.W. Bush is the antichrist! The apocalypse is upon us! Iraqi rivers run red with blood, and the world erupts in brimstone!

I wonder if I get to pet one of the four horsemen. Or maybe I should just pet the horse, because otherwise that would be boytouching, which is a sin, which'll send me straight Down There with no chance of rapture.

I get far too excited about this.

Re: Part 2

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Maybe you need to travel more, get a little perspective on your political situation.

Re: Part 1

[wendywoowho.livejournal.com]

So....being partisan is BAD and untrustworthy if the partisan is a Democrat, but it just fine if the partisan is a Republican?

Hrm. Methinks your problem isn't with the "partisan" part of the descriptor, but the "Democrat."

Which, um, makes you an unabashed partisan....

Re: Part 1

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

I was thinking just the same thing. How boring, she has no issues at all with any Republican, but has issues with Democrats being passionate about their causes. Oh, and "disenfranchised" just means "oo racist" and therefore is meaningless, gotta love that one. And stories about being disenfranchised are anecdotal, and therefore just lies. Oh, and Dick Cheney has never lied, of course not, he's on the side of righteousness.

Though even *I* have seen footage of the man being caught in a lie on tv, and I'm not even American.

Axe this one, Heidi. It's not even worth your time.

Re: Part 1

[dejaspirit.livejournal.com]

You know, I'd have a lot more respect for people like her is they were at least HONEST in why they were voting Republican.

If Joe Schmoe is voting for Bush because he a homophobe and fears Gay marriage will happen, then while I still think he is a low level life form who should be mocked, at least he is an honest life form and I can understand why he is supporting the candidate that he is.

It's the two faced morons who would fucking dare say they support social change and civil liberties and then vote against them just so they can invest their fucking Social Security money that make me want to hurl. I have no time, or patience for people like that.

Re: Part 1

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Heidi has a lot more patience than I do, I'll say that. I wouldn't tolerate this discussion on my own lj, not for 12 seconds. But then again I'm a communist. (Damn dirty communists.)

Re: Part 1

[dejaspirit.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you and I are both idiot-intolerant. :P

*winks at dirty communist*

Re: Part 1

[(Anonymous)]

Heidi, at least, was polite. I'm not wasting my virtual breath on the rest of you.

I said no one had asked me to leave. Now someone has, more or less. So, as a woman of my word, I'm out of here. Feel free to tell yourselves it was because of your brilliant arguments.

Re: Part 1

[dejaspirit.livejournal.com]

Did you come here expecting milk and cookies from the people who you are voting to try to "keep in line". Yeah, get the fuck out of here.

Re: Part 1

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

I didn't find your racism particularly polite, actually.

Re: Part 1

[livii.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know this is a pile-on now, but honestly - in this anonymouse's world view, Democrats' beliefs mean they can't do their job, but Republicans *of course* can overcome this. In discussing Harris, isn't it just the teeniest bit possible, anonymouse, that *you* think she "followed the law" because she did what you wanted her to do? And that that mean old Berry was obviously an uppity Democrat bitch if she dared challenge how *you* thought it ought to be done?

I'm always interested in discussing politics and would have loved to have helped Heidi out here, but this is so ridiculous it just ain't worth it. If the anonymouse could accept *one* positive action by a Democrat and admit to *one* negative action by a Republican, I'd be willing to chat.