Infinite Monkeys

poll... numbers... falling...

must... grasp... for... straws...

Sorry to dissappoint, but the only poll numbers I heard today before I wrote the post was Zogby, which had Bush up 4 points or so.

Of course I cannot counter that brilliant and stinging rejoinder about me grasping for straws. Ya got me there. Brilliant.

Fact is, I don't know what impact Kerry's slimy comment will have. But it was slimy and exploitive. Poll numbers or not. But thanks for reading my mind and telling me what to think. Being a Bush supporter I am obviously totally incapable of doing so for myself.

Obviously. Don't mention it.

Gooood comeback.

So I assume you believe that Kerry/Edwards exploitation of the Cheney daughter in this instance was perfectly acceptable and proper in a political campaign. Interesting.

Reminds me of when Rush was making fun of Chelsea Clinton during the 1992 campaign. I hated that, and thought he was being a jerk. Eventually, he saw it that way too.

So I assume you believe that Kerry/Edwards exploitation of the Cheney daughter in this instance was perfectly acceptable and proper in a political campaign.

Not to put words in Phil's mouth, but I suspect he doesn't care either way. He's in the tank for Michael Badnarik.

I think the reason Kerry mentioned the Cheney daughter was not to drum up homophobia, but to drive a wedge between Bush and Cheney. I'll explain that.

I could be imagining this, but I thought in the VP debates, Cheney essentially said "I do not agree with the president on gay marriage, but I am duty-bound to support this administration's position." By bringing up that issue and the specifics around it, Kerry is pointing to a situation where even Bush's most loyal core is disagreeing with him.

Or so I think. I could, of course, be totally imagining this interpretation of events.

I doubt the wedge between Cheney and Bush theory.

First, I suspect that to the extent this was ever an issue between them, it is resolved. Second, Bush is fiercely loyal to Cheney, as is Cheney to Bush. Second, it is too late to achieve anything by that. The election is in 16 days.

No, it was a cynical and malicious attempt to play to some people's baser motives. Hopefully, it won't work.

"Gooood comeback."

Right back at you. Some people would have stopped with the third "o" in "Goood." By adding that fourth "o," you have cowed me into silence by letting me know that I am matching wits with a master rhetorician. Even now, my wife has taken away my belt and shoelaces.

"So I assume you believe that Kerry/Edwards exploitation of the Cheney daughter in this instance was perfectly acceptable and proper in a political campaign. Interesting."

Assume what you like, my man.

But as I don't accept the premise of your loaded premise -- "May I assume you've stopped beating your wife? Interesting." -- you would assume incorrectly.

Honestly, truly, sincerely, I didn't see anything exploitative or out of line -- ham-fisted and eye-rolling, perhaps, but nothing to merit the screams of gay-baiting echoing across this and lesser blogs. I mean, it's not like the guy championed a constitutional amendment to expressly omit a group of people from receiving legal recognition and protections. Because that'd be a cynical and malicious attempt to play to some people's baser motives.

Sigh.

First, I do not think that the Kerry and Edwards comments were gay-baiting. Neither does anyone else. I believe, based on the fact that it was a "ham-fisted" statement, that it was calculated to appeal to those on the Right who might be bothered by it. Unfortunately, there probably is some truth to their belief.

As to the constitutional amendment to "expressly omit a group of people from receiving legal recognition and protections." This appears to be a strongly held position of the American people. Even in California. When the public is allowed to vote, they vote against gay marriage. The radical approach is to legalize gay marriage, and to do it through judicial fiat.

"First, I do not think that the Kerry and Edwards comments were gay-baiting. Neither does anyone else."

I apologize for my misinterpretation. However, when I read, "The Shock Jock is holding another Saturday-Sunday Symposium, this time on Kerry's cheap, tawdry, gay-baiting exploitation of Dick Cheney's daughter..." I hope you can understand my confusion.

"As to the constituional amendment to "expressly omit a group of people from receiving legal recognition and protections." This appear to mbe a strongly held position of the American people. Even in California. When they are allowed to vote, they vote against gay marriage. "

Oh, I readily concede I'm in the minority on this one. That said, I would still contend that Proposition 22 here in California played to people's baser motives and that the proposed Constitutional amendment did/does/will do the same.

I apologize for my misinterpretation. However, when I read, "The Shock Jock is holding another Saturday-Sunday Symposium, this time on Kerry's cheap, tawdry, gay-baiting exploitation of Dick Cheney's daughter..." I hope you can understand my confusion.

Good point. I did say that, and probably should have phrased it a little more artfully. I do not think they were "gay-baiting." My fault was in not thinking of another term to describe what they did. Gay-baiting to me is saying or doing hateful things toward gays. Kerry and Edwards clearly did not do that. What they did do, I believe, is play to people's prejudices.

That being said, I think it is possible to believe that "gay marriage" is wrong, yet still be willing to recognize civil unions and contractual rights. Yes, there will be people who will oppose it as a result of those "baser motives", but in Missouri and Louisiana it was supported by approximately 70% of the voters.

That said, I would still contend that Proposition 22 here in California played to people's baser motives

Possibly, but it is nonetheless the will of the people, a will that should not be subject to the contempt of activists in the judiciary.

and that the proposed Constitutional amendment did/does/will do the same.

The proposed amendment, at least as described by Bush during the debates, seeks to protect the will of the people from aforementioned judiciary contempt at the state level.

Personally, I think this whole issue is a game of semantics that's been blown way out of proportion. It's just that the term "marriage" has such a specific religious connotation; what possible good could come from screwing around with that? I doubt that many people would have opposed giving gay couples the same benefits under the law that married couples receive, had they been willing to call it something other than "marriage." Likewise, I suspect that most gay couples don't give two shits whether you call it "marriage" or not, as long as they're treated fairly and with equal protection under the law.

Therefore, the small group of very vocal activists that has insisted that "civil unions" be redubbed as "marriage" -- despite the fact that the only real result of doing so would be to greatly offend religious people, and despite the fact that the majority of citizens have made it clear that they are opposed to it -- are doing so just to be assholes.

Godless heathen though I may be, I'll fight for somebody's religious freedom over somebody's right to be an asshole every time.

'course, if I had my druthers, the government would be out of the marriage business altogther. But as long as they can derive a steady source of revenue from it, that seems highly unlikely.

"These are not good people Not good at all."

No they're not. I liken them to Well's Morlocks. The Left is not conciously destroying this Republic as much as they are devouring it. Each cherished attribute of the American experiment is mutilated by their assault, like cannibals swarming over their last victim knowing full well their next meal will be one another. A victory of that effort in November will validate their malevolence for a long time to come.
(from post Mice and Morlocks.)

I find it interesting that John Kerry's comeback for his mistake of mentioning Mary Cheney was that he was trying to show the love the Cheneys have for their daughter. The homosexual question came BEFORE the "we're surrounded by strong women" question AND John Kerry never once uttered the name of Vice President or Mrs. Cheney. What a joke! This guy is a horrible liar, and it's too bad more people aren't capable of seeing through him.

I've written on my website how I think John Kerry's ship has been seriously damaged. www.wallpaperforwindbreakers.blogspot.com

I don't think his ship has been seriously damaged, because to believe that he was making a calculated, cheap, tawdry exploitative reference to Cheney's daughter, you pretty much already have to believe the worst of him. It seems to me that the only people I see being outraged (or in some cases "pretending to be outraged" -- I'm willing to stipulate that this does not refer to anyone here, though) are people who already consider Kerry loathsome.

And on a more meta topic, given that what you're basically doing here is reading Kerry's mind and guessing his motivations, I think you're on shaky ground when you complain about other people doing the same to you.

I disagree about claiming to read Kerry's mind. I think we are allowed to draw inferences from the words he chooses. In a question that was not directed at anyone's family, he chose to (again) remind the electorate about Ms. Cheney. I keep wondering why he and Edwards felt they had to do it. Why his campaign manager characterizes Ms.Cheney as "fair game."

So, no, I am not pretending to read minds. I am just going off of what they say. I tend to agree that Kerry's ship has been damaged a little, but I have no clue how seriously.

But, for the record, I do in fact think the worst of Kerry.

I feel compelled to comment....what is the matter with me.....Kerry's comment is so clearly an attempt to peel off a portion of the evangelical christian vote, that its really not open for debate. However, that fact that the Kerry campaing actually believes it will be successful shows how ignorant they are of what christians believe. Evangelicals will rightly recognize the cheap attempt and will be even more energized to vote for Bush. The fact that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian means absolutely nothing. This was a major screw up by the Kerry people and reveals their desperation.

I find it amazing that you say something is "not open for debate" right after reading people disagree with your interpretation.

Concluding that Kerry's comment was nothing but his attempt to be sensitive is just nonsense. As others have pointed out, Mary Cheney was characterized as "fair game" by a Kerry operative. There were many other ways he could have answered the question without mentioning her. Of course Kerry's confusion about the very issue of whether homosexuality is a choice or not was revealed in his interview with CNN. Asked about the comment, Kerry proceeded to ramble on about individual choices with regard to sexuality. Which is it? I suspect his answer to Blitz is his true feeling on the subject, (its a learned behaviour),leading one yet again to the conclusion that it was a cheap tawdry political trick. You Kerry supporters are so blinded by your slavish allegiance to the Democrats that you can't think straight...no pun intended..

Ah, so the person who thinks there might be more than one valid interpretation than his own -- he's the one with blind slavish allegiance? And the person who has decided there can be no possible interpretation other than the least flattering one -- he would be the fair-minded rational person?

Kerry's statements do not lead "one" to any particular conclusion. They lead *you*. Or rather, they don't, because you came to your conclusion long before his statements.

Look, it's possible that Kerry was trying to lure the Evangelical Christians over to his side, although that seems unlikely to work for any number of reasons. It's also possible he was working toward the left, basically saying "Cheney is against gay rights even though his own daughter is gay. Hypocrite!" (This is how most references to Newt Gingrich's gay daughter were parsed). Maybe Kerry didn't even think it that far through; maybe he saw in the VP debates how pretty much the only time that both Edwards and Cheney seemed like human beings was when Cheney's daughter came up, so he figured he might get in on some of that.

And maybe, just maybe, this is exactly like the "Global Test" or "Terrorism was a Nuisance" soundbites that have been brought up out of context in the last few weeks, interpreted in as bad a light as possible, and dropped when they failed to get any traction outside of True Believers like yourself.

Because here's the thing, ronson -- I'm not a Democrat. I'm not blinded by the lies of either side. Your interpretation is possible, but I really don't think it's very likely. Trying to grab Evangelical Christians? How would that even work? "I realize I'm a liberal Senator and a Catholic, while George W. Bush is one of you and has accepted a large amount of money in campaign contributions, but heed my words! His vice-president has someone that some of you consider unsavory in his family!" Would that really work? I mean, ever?

And if that was his plan, wouldn't he try more than one throwaway statement in a debate? These guys (both Kerry and Bush) are very into repetition of Talking Points; if there was a message either one of them wanted to get across, they would have repeated it many, many times ("More of the same", "Record doesn't match the rhetoric", etc. You know the stuff I mean)

Say, I bet the Monkeys will be glad when the election comes so they can finally shut down comments! Sorry about this, guys.

Monty, you completed misunderstood my reference to peeling away evangelicals. I agree its not likely he can convince a religious conservative to vote for him. He doesnt want them to vote at all. He believes people of faith that support Bush are trogladytes who might be influenced not to vote for a candidate whose VP has a lesbain daughter. That they would make the attempt reveals the true bias against people of faith manifested in todays Democrat party.

The strategy is similar regarding the issue of the draft. His claim that Bush will reinstate the draft is an attempt to scare 18 to 29 year old males who are drifting towards Bush. That claim is palpably false.

With regard to the nuisance and global test comments they have not been taken out of context at all. They reveal a fundamental difference of opinion with regard to combating terrorism and international relations. The attempt to claim contextual misinterpretation suggests that Democrats realize his approach to both issues won't wash with the American people.

Again, I'm not a Democrat; I honestly believe that those statements have been purposely misinterpreted (in an Election Year? Heavens!). But by now, I think I've made my point and you've made yours, so it's probably time to move on.