Both candidates have claimed there won’t be a draft. President Bush looked in the camera and promised no draft on Friday night. But young people are still rightfully afraid. Via MyDD, here’s Tim Ryan (D-OH) giving a fiery speech on why college students don’t buy the rhetoric.
I’ve been scratching my head since Friday night, wondering what the heck the President was saying, mentioning Dred Scott v. Sandford in his answer to the question of appointing Supreme Court justices. Is that the only decision he could remember? Did he start cutting class midway through American history?
As usual, the blogging community has the answer. Improbably, the President’s mention of Dred Scott is code within the pro-life community for cases the Court has wrongly decided…in other words, Roe v. Wade. So while most of us were sitting on our couches, scratching our heads, and wondering why the President seemed stuck in the mid-19th century, he was actually speaking directly to the pro-life community and pledging to appoint justices that will consider Roe v. Wade to be a terrible mistake.
In case you think this is far-fetched, try a Google search of “Dred Scott” and “abortion” together. The comparison between the two famous cases is all over the anti-abortion/pro-life community.
Well, we knew that this election would affect who was appointed to the next several Supreme Court seats. And Friday night, we heard confirmation that President Bush, in his second term, is going to be much more likely to drive socially conservative issues than he has been during his first term.
Kudos to Paperwight for his post on the connection.
So…debate wrap-up. The debate likely helped Kerry more than Bush, who had everything to lose. And likely lost a few people with tired repetition of talking points instead of real plans. I was happy with how Kerry did, but I thought he lost a couple of opportunities to really “rise” above the rhetoric and establish himself as beyond the pettiness. More on this later.
Kerry did, however, show real evidence of absorbing George Lakoff’s lessons about “framing” — as the Orwellian comment concerning the “Clean Skies” initiative shows. That could help, at least avoid the pitfalls of playing into the conservative vision, but framing is also something that requires repetition and support.
I’m a bit confused about the $87 timber company thing. Does anybody know what that was all about? I thought it was one of Kerry’s weaker moments, and it gave Bush the ability to play the “folksy humor” card.
On the last question, about regrets and changing one’s mind, I appreciate the fact that Kerry had to be on the offensive, but wouldn’t it have been much stronger for Kerry to come out and say something like: “Unlike the President, who seems unable to see or admit mistakes, I’ve made mistakes and learned from them. Here are some mistakes from my career that I’ve learned from….” There has to be some material which isn’t damaging which somebody with a long career can use to establish their ability to rethink, learn, and grow…I don’t know. It seemed like an opportunity to show that he’s strong enough to admit when he’s wrong and learn from it. And that’s something that’s crucially missing from this administration, and a fatal flaw.
Wow. Bush and Kerry are proving that it doesn’t matter whether questions come from a single moderator or “town hall” citizens — they can repeat the same answers and attacks nearly verbatim. So far, this is playing out as a repeat of last week’s debate, with a little more walking around. President Bush has managed to get his facial muscles under better control, but I thought he was going to go ballistic on the moderator there when skewered on the “coalition.”
More later if I can stay awake.
Is this real? A joke? If so, Lewis Lapham’s “pre-writing” of the convention story is nothin’ compared to AP’s prognostication of the election:
At this hour, President Bush has won re-election as president by a 47 percent to 43 percent margin in the popular vote nationwide. Ralph Nader has 1 percent of the vote nationwide. That’s with 51 percent of the precincts reporting. Bush has won 324 electoral votes in 33 states. He is leading in 4 states for a total of 43 more electoral votes.
Kerry has won 105 electoral votes in 8 states and the District of Columbia. He is leading in 5 states for a total of 48 more electoral votes.Nader has not won any state and is not currently leading in any state.
In the 435 U.S. House races, the Republicans have won 173 seats and are leading in the races for 56 seats. The Democrats have won 145 seats and are leading in the races for 56 seats. Independent and other party candidates have won or are leading for 3 seats. If these trends continue, the Republicans will retain control of the House.
In the 34 races for the U.S. Senate, the Republicans have won 14 seats and are leading in the races for 4 seats. The Democrats have won 13 seats and are leading in the races for 3 seats. Independent and other party candidates have won or are leading for 1 seat. If these trends continue, the Republicans will retain control of the Senate and will gain 3 seats.
Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
I don’t really know if this is real, but several TV and news networks carried the story, according to California Yankee.
I’m guessing that no clear winner is going to emerge here, with half an hour to go.
Ouch. The moderator just asked Cheney if their spin on trial lawyers means that John Edwards is part of the health care problem. Cheney chuckled, the audience laughed, and now Cheney is telling some story about doctors worrying about malpractice insurance. Edwards has got to be able to deal with this. And he’s doing well. Even Cheney sort of softballed it, and I’m getting the feeling that nobody wanted to discuss it. Nobody has anything meaningful to say about tort reform because in reality it’s a tough issue — sure, costs would be lowered if less lawsuits meant lower costs to insurance companies, but lawsuits are one of the only ways available to prevent abuse by companies and occasionally unscrupulous managers.
Again, no clear winner. Each side is likely to think their candidate won. Some undecideds could break for Edwards simply because he’s articulate and likeable, and Cheney — while clearly knowledgeable — is barely likeable.
Edwards is getting slammed on his lack of experience, as we knew he would. But ouch, several times. Edwards is returning the questions as best he can, but ultimately it’s tough to answer.
It’s interesting. Cheney uses a few of the talking points, but only when hitting Edwards. In normal discussion, he’s not big on the “values” language we’re normally used to hearing from the Republicans these days. He’s concrete. In fact, he’s a holdover from an earlier time in the Republican party, before the “social conservative” takeover. Oddly, it makes me wonder if we’d be better off with Cheney than with Bush.
Man, this is actually getting pretty boring.