I have to give it to Kerry. The guy is still wooden at times, but he made a genuine attempt to connect with the audience. I think he was trying hard to reach out to moderates and independents with his support for fiscal responsibility and his pledge to not raise taxes on incomes below $200,000/year.
The President did better than he did in Miami, but you could tell that he was not even trying to reach beyond the base. On the issue of abortion and stem cell research he would not budge. And what was that about not picking justices who supported Dred Scott? I mean, I'm glad that he's doesn't support slavery, but if he was trying to pick up the African American vote, I don't think it worked.
Does anyone think this is changing the race?
Posted by Dennis at October 10, 2004 08:55 PMwe werent talking about the rnc, we were talking about bush and his position on abortion.
i dont think bush has any doubts at all about his position on abortion. he is against it and thinks it should be illegal.
i disagree with him on this stance but i do not agree that he should abandon a core value of his for political gain.
as for a consensus on abortion, who are you kidding? the left and the right will never agree on this issue. since the right sees abortion as murder and the left sees it as an absolute right of bodily control where would they have a middle ground?
As far as the second presidential debate goes Dennis, there were a number of intersting things.
And in October, that's fighting the right war at the right time in the right way.
Posted by: dorsano at October 11, 2004 01:05 AMhttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/9/16460/5820
The Daily Kos has a journal entry about Dred Scott. Apparently, there is a movement in anti-abortion circles to liken the Scott decision and abortion as relating to the treatment of Scott as property and not a person. They take out the whole idea that the case stems from racism, regardless of the property issues. Daily Kos says that doing a simple google search of Dred Scott and abortion brings up the subject, I haven't done it yet. Take a look at the Kos journal entry for more coherent coverage than I can provide.
In other words, Dred Scott was another example of Bush throwing red meat to the base, while those of us who don't know the code words, scratch our heads and say "wha?"
Posted by: TAE at October 10, 2004 11:34 PMMy wife had extremely dangerous (life-threathening) complications in the second trimester of her third pregnancy. The prospect of losing a wife and mother and losing an unborn child is a frightening, helpless position to be in and if anything is likely to make an athesist lie prostrate before God and beg for help, such a choice is one.
I'd like to see the nation come to some consensus on abortion.
But the truth of the matter is, the RNC does not want us too - that's why they continue to submit legislation that makes no provision for the life of mother. Such legislation will NEVER pass a Supreme Court test - but the RNC continues to sponsor it because they don't want to lose the votes (that they will lose) once a consensus is reached.
Bush knows his public stance on stem cell research and the legislation sponsored by the RNC is wrong and he doesn't have the moral character to flip-flop and admit his mistake.
And why should he budge on abortion?
I have a very different view than the president but lets not start blaming politicians for not flip-flopping.
As for stem cell research, again I disagree with the president, but the field is very new and he is taking (or hiding behind) a cautious approach.
Posted by: mike at October 10, 2004 10:05 PM