NationStates Jolt Archive

The following is a column by George Will that I found at www.townhall.com . Before you denounce it as being conservative, why don't you read it and take into consideration the many valid points he raises.

WASHINGTON -- Mr. Kerry, in your convention speech you threw caution to the wind and endorsed what you called ``one of the oldest Commandments: `Honor thy father and thy mother.''' Oldest? Were they not all published together?

Here are some other questions:

You invoke the Commandment to explain why you ``will not cut'' Social Security benefits. Does that include raising the retirement age, which Congress set at 65 in 1935, when the life expectancy of an American male was 62?

Regarding military action, your platform says ``we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake.'' But the platform's preceding paragraph denounces President Bush's ``doctrine of unilateral pre-emption.'' If unilateralism is wrong, are you not committed to some sort of ``green light from abroad''?

Are you glad that in 1981 Israel set back Iraq's nuclear weapons program with a unilateral pre-emptive attack on the reactor near Baghdad?

Your platform says: ``A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk.'' But Iran's radical Islamist regime is undeterred by diplomatic hand-wringing about its acquisition of nuclear weapons, which may be imminent. Is pre-emptive military action against Iran feasible, or are its nuclear facilities too dispersed and hardened? What would you do other than accept Iran as a nuclear power?

Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian says, ``We have reached an internal consensus that insists on Taiwan being an independent sovereign country.'' Beijing's military chief recently said Taiwan will be reunified with the mainland by 2020, the first reunification deadline ever set. On an island physically similar to Taiwan, Beijing recently simulated an invasion. Would you respond with force -- unilaterally, if necessary -- to defend Taiwan?

The Clinton years were, you say, glorious because ``we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed.'' Did not the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, followed by the attacks on the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and the East African embassies mean we were at war but were uncomprehending? Have not scores of thousands of young Americans been deployed, ashore and on ships, since 1942?

You supported humanitarian military interventions in Somalia, the Balkans and Haiti. Would you intervene militarily to stop the accelerating genocide in Sudan?

You say, ``I stood up and fought against Richard Nixon's war in Vietnam.'' Nixon's war? Did it start after John Kennedy put U.S. combat troops there, and after Lyndon Johnson increased the number to 500,000?

The easily distressed abortion rights groups were distressed when you said that your faith teaches you what elementary biology teaches everyone: life begins at conception. But you say personhood does not. Fine. When does it? What are its defining attributes? Does, say, an elderly person with dementia have it, and hence a right to life?

You oppose, on federalism grounds, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. You say marriage law is traditionally a state responsibility. But so was abortion law for the Republic's first 197 years, until 1973. What is the difference?

When the Pope said Catholic legislators have a duty to oppose gay marriage, you said he had ``crossed the line'' because ``it is important not to have the Church instructing politicians.'' Have you felt that way even when the Church has instructed politicians take liberal positions regarding economic justice, race and other matters?

Your platform says, ``The price of gas is at an all-time high.'' But it isn't as measured in constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, or as a portion of Americans' purchasing power. Do you have some other way of justifying the platform's claim?

You have often said -- e.g., in Algona, Iowa, last year, when your campaign was impoverished -- that ``there's too much money loose in the American political system.'' Now your campaign is awash with money. So are the 527 groups that are supporting your campaign -- but of course without even a smidgen of ``coordination'' with it, because that would be a crime under the new campaign finance law. Do you advocate new laws to discourage the kind of people who are choosing to participate in politics through financial contributions on your behalf?

You and other supporters of increased government regulation of political spending say this does not abridge freedom of speech. What does most of your spending pay for?

Throwing caution to the wind, your platform insists that ``small towns are at the heart of America.'' Your sense of America's small-town heartbeat comes from where -- Sun Valley?

So? Bush lied about WMD.

So? Bush lied about WMD.

Yeah, that was a great response to the points that George Will raises. Nice try at changing the subject though.

Mr. Kerry, in your convention speech you threw caution to the wind and endorsed what you called ``one of the oldest Commandments: `Honor thy father and thy mother.''' Oldest? Were they not all published together?
No, I'm sure God wrote that commandment first. The other nine were written once he realized that "honoring" wasn't the same as "loving", "not killing", or "not stealing from".

Also, that article is annoying for more reasons than it's content. It's so verbose. Politics is politics, you know, but if your message isn't wrapped neatly it won't sell. This article is wrapped very sloppily.

Yeah, that was a great response to the points that George Will raises. Nice try at changing the subject though.
points? oh....you mean that giant post.

points? oh....you mean that giant post.

You can read where I got the article from if you would like. I simply copied and pasted so whats the point really, just read the article above.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20040805.shtml

Also, that article is annoying for more reasons than it's content. It's so verbose. Politics is politics, you know, but if your message isn't wrapped neatly it won't sell. This article is wrapped very sloppily.

Nobody wants to take a serious stab at refuting George Will, thats a shame.

Mr. Kerry, in your convention speech you threw caution to the wind and endorsed what you called ``one of the oldest Commandments: `Honor thy father and thy mother.''' Oldest? Were they not all published together?

(Emphasis mine).

I'm sure that should help you.

I assume you know the difference between the oldest and one of the oldest

The following is a column by George Will that I found at www.townhall.com . Before you denounce it as being conservative, why don't you read it and take into consideration the many valid points he raises.

WASHINGTON -- Mr. Kerry, in your convention speech you threw caution to the wind and endorsed what you called ``one of the oldest Commandments: `Honor thy father and thy mother.''' Oldest? Were they not all published together?

Here are some other questions:

You invoke the Commandment to explain why you ``will not cut'' Social Security benefits. Does that include raising the retirement age, which Congress set at 65 in 1935, when the life expectancy of an American male was 62?

Regarding military action, your platform says ``we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake.'' But the platform's preceding paragraph denounces President Bush's ``doctrine of unilateral pre-emption.'' If unilateralism is wrong, are you not committed to some sort of ``green light from abroad''?

Are you glad that in 1981 Israel set back Iraq's nuclear weapons program with a unilateral pre-emptive attack on the reactor near Baghdad?

Your platform says: ``A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk.'' But Iran's radical Islamist regime is undeterred by diplomatic hand-wringing about its acquisition of nuclear weapons, which may be imminent. Is pre-emptive military action against Iran feasible, or are its nuclear facilities too dispersed and hardened? What would you do other than accept Iran as a nuclear power?

Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian says, ``We have reached an internal consensus that insists on Taiwan being an independent sovereign country.'' Beijing's military chief recently said Taiwan will be reunified with the mainland by 2020, the first reunification deadline ever set. On an island physically similar to Taiwan, Beijing recently simulated an invasion. Would you respond with force -- unilaterally, if necessary -- to defend Taiwan?

The Clinton years were, you say, glorious because ``we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed.'' Did not the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, followed by the attacks on the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and the East African embassies mean we were at war but were uncomprehending? Have not scores of thousands of young Americans been deployed, ashore and on ships, since 1942?

You supported humanitarian military interventions in Somalia, the Balkans and Haiti. Would you intervene militarily to stop the accelerating genocide in Sudan?

You say, ``I stood up and fought against Richard Nixon's war in Vietnam.'' Nixon's war? Did it start after John Kennedy put U.S. combat troops there, and after Lyndon Johnson increased the number to 500,000?

The easily distressed abortion rights groups were distressed when you said that your faith teaches you what elementary biology teaches everyone: life begins at conception. But you say personhood does not. Fine. When does it? What are its defining attributes? Does, say, an elderly person with dementia have it, and hence a right to life?

You oppose, on federalism grounds, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. You say marriage law is traditionally a state responsibility. But so was abortion law for the Republic's first 197 years, until 1973. What is the difference?

When the Pope said Catholic legislators have a duty to oppose gay marriage, you said he had ``crossed the line'' because ``it is important not to have the Church instructing politicians.'' Have you felt that way even when the Church has instructed politicians take liberal positions regarding economic justice, race and other matters?

Your platform says, ``The price of gas is at an all-time high.'' But it isn't as measured in constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, or as a portion of Americans' purchasing power. Do you have some other way of justifying the platform's claim?

You have often said -- e.g., in Algona, Iowa, last year, when your campaign was impoverished -- that ``there's too much money loose in the American political system.'' Now your campaign is awash with money. So are the 527 groups that are supporting your campaign -- but of course without even a smidgen of ``coordination'' with it, because that would be a crime under the new campaign finance law. Do you advocate new laws to discourage the kind of people who are choosing to participate in politics through financial contributions on your behalf?

You and other supporters of increased government regulation of political spending say this does not abridge freedom of speech. What does most of your spending pay for?

Throwing caution to the wind, your platform insists that ``small towns are at the heart of America.'' Your sense of America's small-town heartbeat comes from where -- Sun Valley?
I'll answer for Kerry because I don't have his phone number.

WASHINGTON -- Mr. Kerry, in your convention speech you threw caution to the wind and endorsed what you called ``one of the oldest Commandments: `Honor thy father and thy mother.''' Oldest? Were they not all published together?
Honor came before a couple of cammandments if you look at the Cammandments so he is right in written order. Also Jesus gave a new format of Cammandments that are the same but more clear.

You invoke the Commandment to explain why you ``will not cut'' Social Security benefits. Does that include raising the retirement age, which Congress set at 65 in 1935, when the life expectancy of an American male was 62?
What does that have to do with cutting?

Are you glad that in 1981 Israel set back Iraq's nuclear weapons program with a unilateral pre-emptive attack on the reactor near Baghdad?
That is like saying are you glad the villigante took down the criminals illegally. Sure, you are glad they took them down but they broke the law. So you are not happy about the action.


Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian says, ``We have reached an internal consensus that insists on Taiwan being an independent sovereign country.'' Beijing's military chief recently said Taiwan will be reunified with the mainland by 2020, the first reunification deadline ever set. On an island physically similar to Taiwan, Beijing recently simulated an invasion. Would you respond with force -- unilaterally, if necessary -- to defend Taiwan?
Does Bush? Bush never answered this ever. Its a tough decision, one would need to look at all the possibilities.


The Clinton years were, you say, glorious because ``we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed.'' Did not the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, followed by the attacks on the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and the East African embassies mean we were at war but were uncomprehending? Have not scores of thousands of young Americans been deployed, ashore and on ships, since 1942?
Um, what does terrorism have to do with war? Terrorism isn't a waraction, it is a group action. The rhetoric "War on Terror" is the same as "War on Drugs" we are against it but its not a war.
Not deployed in a war he means.


You supported humanitarian military interventions in Somalia, the Balkans and Haiti. Would you intervene militarily to stop the accelerating genocide in Sudan? Yes he would and France and many countires support this so we don't have to go unilaterily. Because we are all committed to stopping genocide.


You say, ``I stood up and fought against Richard Nixon's war in Vietnam.'' Nixon's war? Did it start after John Kennedy put U.S. combat troops there, and after Lyndon Johnson increased the number to 500,000?
Missing History class haven't you? It was France's war first not those two. He means he was against the war that Nixon said "had a secret plan" of ending.


You oppose, on federalism grounds, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. You say marriage law is traditionally a state responsibility. But so was abortion law for the Republic's first 197 years, until 1973. What is the difference?
The irony is republicans believe that it should be state responsibilities or you are making Big Govt grow.

Well, I see a guy asking questions, I don't see 'contradictions.'

Some of the questions, I'm sure he thinks are smart, but, things like, 'With terrorist things going on, weren't we at war all along but unaware?'

No, we weren't at war. Terrorist attacks were considered *criminal* at the time, and we hadn't declared a 'war on terror.' Bush kinda *redefined* war, ...*after* the 9/11 attacks.

Pretty thin. These things seem mostly to be matters of definition. Definitions that the *conservatives* have taken pains to create.

Anyway, there's a little something, but I often find George Will a bit tedious.

You invoke the Commandment to explain why you ``will not cut'' Social Security benefits. Does that include raising the retirement age, which Congress set at 65 in 1935, when the life expectancy of an American male was 62? The life expectancy's risen. Get over it.

Regarding military action, your platform says ``we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake.'' But the platform's preceding paragraph denounces President Bush's ``doctrine of unilateral pre-emption.'' If unilateralism is wrong, are you not committed to some sort of ``green light from abroad''? There needs to be some kind of censensus that our safety is at stake. Bush had none.

Your platform says: ``A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk.'' But Iran's radical Islamist regime is undeterred by diplomatic hand-wringing about its acquisition of nuclear weapons, which may be imminent. Is pre-emptive military action against Iran feasible, or are its nuclear facilities too dispersed and hardened? What would you do other than accept Iran as a nuclear power? We don't need pre-emptive military action against any country, that much is obvious. Iran would be a lot harder to take out that Iraq, which is proving extremely troublesome. We have non proliferation agreements and if Iran violates them, international organizations will take action. Again... no pre-emptive strikes.

Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian says, ``We have reached an internal consensus that insists on Taiwan being an independent sovereign country.'' Beijing's military chief recently said Taiwan will be reunified with the mainland by 2020, the first reunification deadline ever set. On an island physically similar to Taiwan, Beijing recently simulated an invasion. Would you respond with force -- unilaterally, if necessary -- to defend Taiwan? Taiwan's not our business, but Beijing knows enough not to piss us off (although it's coming really close). Of course we won't attack China.

The Clinton years were, you say, glorious because ``we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed.'' Did not the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, followed by the attacks on the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and the East African embassies mean we were at war but were uncomprehending? Have not scores of thousands of young Americans been deployed, ashore and on ships, since 1942? The "War on Terror" wasn't declared until Bush came along. I don't buy into it; it's a tool to keep terrorists controlled which isn't working.

You supported humanitarian military interventions in Somalia, the Balkans and Haiti. Would you intervene militarily to stop the accelerating genocide in Sudan? No, that would get us into a world war. Let's be diplomatically reasonable here.

You say, ``I stood up and fought against Richard Nixon's war in Vietnam.'' Nixon's war? Did it start after John Kennedy put U.S. combat troops there, and after Lyndon Johnson increased the number to 500,000? Nixon was the one who made it a problem.

The easily distressed abortion rights groups were distressed when you said that your faith teaches you what elementary biology teaches everyone: life begins at conception. But you say personhood does not. Fine. When does it? What are its defining attributes? Does, say, an elderly person with dementia have it, and hence a right to life? Life doesn't begin at conception, but that is a huge issue that forms a base for the democratic platform. If you want to get into a debate on abortion....

You oppose, on federalism grounds, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. You say marriage law is traditionally a state responsibility. But so was abortion law for the Republic's first 197 years, until 1973. What is the difference? Abortion is a serious federal issue because it has to do with health risks and is too important to be left to state law. The controversy around gay rights is a joke and ought to be left out of the political arena.

When the Pope said Catholic legislators have a duty to oppose gay marriage, you said he had ``crossed the line'' because ``it is important not to have the Church instructing politicians.'' Have you felt that way even when the Church has instructed politicians take liberal positions regarding economic justice, race and other matters? Justice and liberties are independent of and do not hang on the consideration of some stupid church body.

Throwing caution to the wind, your platform insists that ``small towns are at the heart of America.'' Your sense of America's small-town heartbeat comes from where -- Sun Valley?
You can sympathise with a portion of the country without having been born and raised there. We all felt for NYC on 9-11 although most of us have never even been to NY.


There, I can't believe I wasted the little time I have online to answer this really annoying and condesending article, but I hope you're happy now.

Arlingtonia, I image you support Bush then. Admittedly I could be wrong. If you do support Bush, are you claiming that he doesn't contradict himself?

WASHINGTON -- Mr. Kerry, in your convention speech you threw caution to the wind and endorsed what you called ``one of the oldest Commandments: `Honor thy father and thy mother.''' Oldest? Were they not all published together?

See above.

Regarding military action, your platform says ``we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake.'' But the platform's preceding paragraph denounces President Bush's ``doctrine of unilateral pre-emption.'' If unilateralism is wrong, are you not committed to some sort of ``green light from abroad''?
Again. emphasis mine.

Iraq was no threat to America's security.

Are you glad that in 1981 Israel set back Iraq's nuclear weapons program with a unilateral pre-emptive attack on the reactor near Baghdad?

Isreal's security was threatened


Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian says, ``We have reached an internal consensus that insists on Taiwan being an independent sovereign country.'' Beijing's military chief recently said Taiwan will be reunified with the mainland by 2020, the first reunification deadline ever set. On an island physically similar to Taiwan, Beijing recently simulated an invasion. Would you respond with force -- unilaterally, if necessary -- to defend Taiwan?

I am not brilliant with East Asian politics, but there is a difference between attacking another nation because it poses a risk to yours (when it doesn't), and attacking a nation which attacks a friendly nation.

The easily distressed abortion rights groups were distressed when you said that your faith teaches you what elementary biology teaches everyone: life begins at conception. But you say personhood does not. Fine. When does it? What are its defining attributes? Does, say, an elderly person with dementia have it, and hence a right to life?

Well, the Bible says eight day (iirc). But for a States case, it could be when a birth certificate is issued.

You oppose, on federalism grounds, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. You say marriage law is traditionally a state responsibility. But so was abortion law for the Republic's first 197 years, until 1973. What is the difference?

Do you really expect him to be able to answer for every 'liberal' decision made over the last 30 years or whatever?

When the Pope said Catholic legislators have a duty to oppose gay marriage, you said he had ``crossed the line'' because ``it is important not to have the Church instructing politicians.'' Have you felt that way even when the Church has instructed politicians take liberal positions regarding economic justice, race and other matters?

Views against Homosexuality tend to come from moral viewpoints. Economic justice, race and "other matters" don't.

You and other supporters of increased government regulation of political spending say this does not abridge freedom of speech. What does most of your spending pay for?

Regulations regarding campaign funding = bad.
Regulations regarding who can marry = good

The following is a column by George Will that I found at www.townhall.com . Before you denounce it as being conservative, why don't you read it and take into consideration the many valid points he raises.

Ok, here goes.

Someone already mentioned that the article is "sloppy." It's true... Does anyone else remember when George Will could write?

WASHINGTON -- Mr. Kerry, in your convention speech you threw caution to the wind and endorsed what you called ``one of the oldest Commandments: `Honor thy father and thy mother.''' Oldest? Were they not all published together?

Not much to respond to... he's attacking style, not substance. I suppose the force of Kerry's statement was meant to convey that honoring one's parents is a more central, universal, and in that sense "older" rule than worrying about abortion or gays... guess he didn't say that very well, however, so I'll just concede the point to Will: someone needs a better speechwriter.

Here are some other questions:

You invoke the Commandment to explain why you ``will not cut'' Social Security benefits. Does that include raising the retirement age, which Congress set at 65 in 1935, when the life expectancy of an American male was 62?

Ummm.... What this has to do with Kerry, I can't see. So Congress originally set retirement so high as to be practically pointless. Ok. They were trying to make people work themselves to death. Since then, however, most of the political spectrum -- left and right -- seems to have agreed that people deserve a rest in their "golden years" -- or at least that they're not capable of doing much to support themselves, and it might be nice if we did it. Is Will suggesting that retirement should be "adjusted" to -- what? -- 80?!

Regarding military action, your platform says ``we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake.'' But the platform's preceding paragraph denounces President Bush's ``doctrine of unilateral pre-emption.'' If unilateralism is wrong, are you not committed to some sort of ``green light from abroad''?

Here Will is being inconsistent, not Kerry. Kerry qualified his approval of unilateral action ("never wait for a green light") with the important phrase "WHEN OUR SAFETY IS AT STAKE." What he condemns is unilateral PRE-EMPTION. Now, this makes a lot of sense. He's saying that if we are directly threatened, he will not wait for broad international approval. Well, if we've been directly threatened, then it's not really pre-emption, is it? Of course, his phrasing implies that pre-emption is OK as long as it's not unilateral... this makes sense as a safety against the sort of irresponsible pre-emption practiced by the Bush administration. If the international community supports pre-emption, they probably have a good reason. If they don't, we should think twice.

Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian says, ``We have reached an internal consensus that insists on Taiwan being an independent sovereign country.'' Beijing's military chief recently said Taiwan will be reunified with the mainland by 2020, the first reunification deadline ever set. On an island physically similar to Taiwan, Beijing recently simulated an invasion. Would you respond with force -- unilaterally, if necessary -- to defend Taiwan?

What does this have to do with Kerry's speech? How important is it to us whether or not Taiwan remains independent? Do we have to pick sides in every regional conflict? What, do we just miss the good ol' Cold War years? Really, what is Will's point here?

The Clinton years were, you say, glorious because ``we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed.'' Did not the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, followed by the attacks on the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and the East African embassies mean we were at war but were uncomprehending? Have not scores of thousands of young Americans been deployed, ashore and on ships, since 1942?

Ok, here I'll cede a point to Will, although not exactly the one he was looking for. I detest the glorification of the Clinton years for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that we WERE bombing the hell out of Yugoslavia -- we were at war, as Will says, it's just that there weren't exactly a lot of US deaths involved. However, I do not think that a full-scale mobilization is the correct response to the sort of terrorist attacks listed here. Where the US practices a variety of unpopular policies in the world, a terrorist reaction is in some sense the natural "cost" to be paid -- and refusing to respond at least leaves the world in a much more stable situation, with LESS loss of political and human capital than going to "war" against such a diffuse opponent. Security measures are appropriate, aggression is not. (Of course, perhaps the MOST appropriate response would be to scale-down those unpopular policies that started it all.)

You supported humanitarian military interventions in Somalia, the Balkans and Haiti. Would you intervene militarily to stop the accelerating genocide in Sudan?

Who cares?? Really, anyone who knows the first thing about politics understands that "humanitarian" intervention is just that -- politics. Whether or not Kerry, or any US president intervenes to stop any particular genocide -- and there are plenty to choose from -- is not a very INTERESTING issue, since they ALL play politics with it. If Kerry is inconsistent on this, he's no worse than the rest of them.

You say, ``I stood up and fought against Richard Nixon's war in Vietnam.'' Nixon's war? Did it start after John Kennedy put U.S. combat troops there, and after Lyndon Johnson increased the number to 500,000?

No reason to pick on Kerry here. By the time he was busily opposing the war, EVERYONE saw it as "Nixon's" war. Read some of the news from the period, and you'll see what I mean. So, all the baby-boomers (and older) understood perfectly well what he was talking about.

The easily distressed abortion rights groups were distressed when you said that your faith teaches you what elementary biology teaches everyone: life begins at conception. But you say personhood does not. Fine. When does it? What are its defining attributes? Does, say, an elderly person with dementia have it, and hence a right to life?

This is a straw-man, and Will knows it. Kerry is TRYING to make sense of a distinction that doesn't make a lot of sense -- but one that any supporter of a woman's right to choose is FORCED to make because of the equally non-sensical rhetoric of anti-abortionists. Moreover, Kerry's distinction -- that "life" begins before "personhood" -- is not a half-bad way to go about it. But as long as we're all obsessed with defining the non-existent MOMENT when a foetus gains the full protection of the law AGAINST the woman who carries it, we're ALL going to sound either inconsistent (pro-choicers) or nonsensical (pro-lifers).

You oppose, on federalism grounds, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. You say marriage law is traditionally a state responsibility. But so was abortion law for the Republic's first 197 years, until 1973. What is the difference?

Here I cede the point to Will -- in a sense at least. I hate Kerry's waffling on the issue of gay marriage. And we all know that opposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage "as a states' rights issue" is just his way of trying to please everyone. On the other hand, he's a politician with a very broad constituency that happens to include most gay Americans, so we can understand why he would do so. So, he IS contradicting himself. What he should say is that he SUPPORTS an Equal Rights Amendment that includes language banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. RIGHTS are not a "states rights issue."

When the Pope said Catholic legislators have a duty to oppose gay marriage, you said he had ``crossed the line'' because ``it is important not to have the Church instructing politicians.'' Have you felt that way even when the Church has instructed politicians take liberal positions regarding economic justice, race and other matters?

Will is muddling the issue here. On the one hand, Kerry says "it is important not to have the Church instructing politicians." Good, he's right. But then Will supposes that because church leaders HAPPENED to agree with Kerry on issues of "economic justice, race and other matters," that they were "instructing" him, and he was OK with that. But I am sure Kerry would respond by saying he made his own decisions about such matters, and while he would congratulate the Church on its advanced positions, he would not take those positions simply because the Church told him to (unlike, perhaps, Bush).

Your platform says, ``The price of gas is at an all-time high.'' But it isn't as measured in constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, or as a portion of Americans' purchasing power. Do you have some other way of justifying the platform's claim?

While Will may be right (I'd actually like to see his source), I can say that increasing gas prices have certainly hurt MY budget... and if enough other Americans feel the same way, it doesn't really matter what the numbers say, does it? What matters is that subjectively, it seems like we're paying out the ass for gasoline, and if Kerry can honestly promise to do something about it, that makes for some serious political capital in my book.

You have often said -- e.g., in Algona, Iowa, last year, when your campaign was impoverished -- that ``there's too much money loose in the American political system.'' Now your campaign is awash with money. So are the 527 groups that are supporting your campaign -- but of course without even a smidgen of ``coordination'' with it, because that would be a crime under the new campaign finance law. Do you advocate new laws to discourage the kind of people who are choosing to participate in politics through financial contributions on your behalf?

Unless Kerry has some brilliant answer to this one, point ceded. I think most politicians are inconsistent (or just plain lying) about campaign finance reform. (Actually, it's a much more complicated issue than at first glance. Some campaign finance reform actually IMPROVES the hold of major contributors over the electoral process, because of issues in how small individual contributions are raised (they often require a large donation to a PAC, for instance, just to get them started organizationally).

You and other supporters of increased government regulation of political spending say this does not abridge freedom of speech. What does most of your spending pay for?

This is a complex issue that Will aggressively condenses. In regulating political spending, some people say the government limits the speech of the individual or organization that MAKES the donation, not the political party or candidate who USES it. So the argument has absolutely nothing to do with what Kerry uses his money for -- it has entirely to do with whether "less money" = "less speech" for the contributor... and I will admit that this is an issue that would take a long discussion... and this is ALREADY a long discussion!!

Throwing caution to the wind, your platform insists that ``small towns are at the heart of America.'' Your sense of America's small-town heartbeat comes from where -- Sun Valley?

I'll half cede the point. I'm suspicious of any presidential candidate's claim to understand "small-town America." But I'm SURE Kerry can do better for it than Bush!!

--Elric

Anyone care to mention the initial flaw of this whole thread? John Kerry's speech is not the Democratic platform. That's his presidential agenda.

Get it? Platform....agenda....two different things.

So, by logic, isn't this entire thread fatally flawed as a result?

WASHINGTON -- Mr. Kerry, in your convention speech you threw caution to the wind and endorsed what you called ``one of the oldest Commandments: `Honor thy father and thy mother.''' Oldest? Were they not all published together?

Okay, so he doesn't have the bible memorized, what's you point? Secondly, the bible was not published all at the same time, it was borught together in pieces and assembled by the hand of man, so, it is likely that there is an 'oldest' commandment.

You invoke the Commandment to explain why you ``will not cut'' Social Security benefits. Does that include raising the retirement age, which Congress set at 65 in 1935, when the life expectancy of an American male was 62?

Was Kerry voting age is 1935?

Regarding military action, your platform says ``we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake.'' But the platform's preceding paragraph denounces President Bush's ``doctrine of unilateral pre-emption.'' If unilateralism is wrong, are you not committed to some sort of ``green light from abroad''?

Bush used shakey evidence of WMDs to launch his attack campaign. There really wasn't a clear and present danger to the U.S. from Iraq. So, no, it is not contradictory. Kerry supports unilateralism when ther is a clear and present threat, not when the intelligence suggest otherwise from the presented message as we saw with Iraq.

Are you glad that in 1981 Israel set back Iraq's nuclear weapons program with a unilateral pre-emptive attack on the reactor near Baghdad?

Simply a trap question

Your platform says: ``A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk.'' But Iran's radical Islamist regime is undeterred by diplomatic hand-wringing about its acquisition of nuclear weapons, which may be imminent. Is pre-emptive military action against Iran feasible, or are its nuclear facilities too dispersed and hardened? What would you do other than accept Iran as a nuclear power?

The answer: No an attack is not feasible because our military is spread too thinly thanks to Bush's military campaigns. Iran can be a nuclear power only with full cooperation to the Non-proliferation act. Which, I might add, the U.S. has paid no attention to.

Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian says, ``We have reached an internal consensus that insists on Taiwan being an independent sovereign country.'' Beijing's military chief recently said Taiwan will be reunified with the mainland by 2020, the first reunification deadline ever set. On an island physically similar to Taiwan, Beijing recently simulated an invasion. Would you respond with force -- unilaterally, if necessary -- to defend Taiwan?

There is a standing order from the 1940s that the United States 7th fleet is to protect Taiwan. That has not changed. Kerry will do nothing to change it, and China will be faced with launching an attack on the U.S. in order to invade Taiwan.

The Clinton years were, you say, glorious because ``we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed.'' Did not the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, followed by the attacks on the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and the East African embassies mean we were at war but were uncomprehending? Have not scores of thousands of young Americans been deployed, ashore and on ships, since 1942?

He's nitpicking. And, compared to the Bush years, they were.

You supported humanitarian military interventions in Somalia, the Balkans and Haiti. Would you intervene militarily to stop the accelerating genocide in Sudan?

Yes, with an international force.

You say, ``I stood up and fought against Richard Nixon's war in Vietnam.'' Nixon's war? Did it start after John Kennedy put U.S. combat troops there, and after Lyndon Johnson increased the number to 500,000?

Kennedy put troops there to train the Vietnamese military to our standards. Nixion put them there to fight. Johnson did the same thing with more troops to speed to process. Nixion sent them there to fight and die. Then he pulled them out.

The easily distressed abortion rights groups were distressed when you said that your faith teaches you what elementary biology teaches everyone: life begins at conception. But you say personhood does not. Fine. When does it? What are its defining attributes? Does, say, an elderly person with dementia have it, and hence a right to life?

Yuck. Poor grammar, poor choice of words. I won't go into the easily distressed right to life groups here. He's asking Kerry to define an individual belief, not a national one. That really won't affect a policy.

You oppose, on federalism grounds, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. You say marriage law is traditionally a state responsibility. But so was abortion law for the Republic's first 197 years, until 1973. What is the difference?

There are no laws saying an abortion has to be recognized in all 50 states if it is preformed in one. Imagine the chaos. You're a mother in one state but not in another state.

When the Pope said Catholic legislators have a duty to oppose gay marriage, you said he had ``crossed the line'' because ``it is important not to have the Church instructing politicians.'' Have you felt that way even when the Church has instructed politicians take liberal positions regarding economic justice, race and other matters?

He probably did. Religion influenced politics are never good. That's how you get theocracy.

Your platform says, ``The price of gas is at an all-time high.'' But it isn't as measured in constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, or as a portion of Americans' purchasing power. Do you have some other way of justifying the platform's claim?

It was higher than the shortage of the 1970's which was the previous high point. Gas is relative to its own price because it is a commodity. So, as the price goes up, its raises its own price being relative to itself. Gas is not measured against inflation adjusted dollars because gas itself is not a constant.

You have often said -- e.g., in Algona, Iowa, last year, when your campaign was impoverished -- that ``there's too much money loose in the American political system.'' Now your campaign is awash with money. So are the 527 groups that are supporting your campaign -- but of course without even a smidgen of ``coordination'' with it, because that would be a crime under the new campaign finance law. Do you advocate new laws to discourage the kind of people who are choosing to participate in politics through financial contributions on your behalf?

Many of the groups operate by themselves. Get over it, it happens on the republican side as well. No one will touch that issue because of all the special interests groups out there. Kerry's not going to change it, neither will Bush.

You and other supporters of increased government regulation of political spending say this does not abridge freedom of speech. What does most of your spending pay for?

It really doesn't the contributors aren't saying anything. Most of the spending pays for travel, food, and advertising.

Throwing caution to the wind, your platform insists that ``small towns are at the heart of America.'' Your sense of America's small-town heartbeat comes from where -- Sun Valley?

That's a flame, pure and simple.