I second Twin's welcome messages. I also second (well, first, actually) the sidebar recommendation of Rebecca's article. Probably the best feminist perspective on Sarah Palin and how she's being presented that I've read anywhere. Megan, that argument you made (that the Democrats should be making) on health care was incredible. I find it awfully hard to pay attention to this issue, but the way you put it really brought it into focus.

Don't worry Megan, there is.

Quoting Joel_Cairo: Don't worry Megan,

there is.

LOL! My thought exactly. She should be punished for that gap in her knowledge by being forced to spend five minutes with Mark Cuban.

Talking about how scripted Palin sounded is fair. But do you not realize or just chose to ignore how scripted Bidens "choking up" moment was?

Quoting bjkeefe: Megan, that argument you made (that the Democrats should be making) on health care was incredible. I find it awfully hard to pay attention to this issue, but the way you put it really brought it into focus.

Okay, Michael Bérubé made a pretty good stab at holding my interest on the health care debate, too.

Quoting cacimbo: Talking about how scripted Palin sounded is fair. But do you not realize or just chose to ignore how scripted Bidens "choking up" moment was?

It's a fair point. The difference is that you'd have to comb her performance pretty carefully to find anything that wouldn't qualify as scripted (or even on-topic, I think.) Even if you grant that Biden whipped that out deliberately (and that's only speculation) , does anyone doubt that the underlying emotion is real?

i infer, therefore, i am not necessarily correct! why do i get the impression that megan and rebecca think that, if sarah palin was half as smart as they are,she would be twice as smart as the rest of the U.S.? they remind me, that this cultural war, will trump substance in the next election, just as it has in the last couple of elections. every age is a dark age, after you strip off state-of-the-art technology. wise-man keeps doing stupid stuff as each one stands in a circle, pointing towards the next person as the culprit. i wonder what walt kelly's pogo meant when he said "We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us"?

It's simple with McCain: it's not that he is a liar, exactly. He just does not care about the truth or falsehood of anything he says. His so-called health care plan was completely drafted by Holtz-Eakin. I don't think McCain has much understanding of it, and certainly not about the underlying economic basis. In the last week and today, McCain's campaign has twice completely changed the plan. SHAZAAM! First, they changed it by saying the benefits would not be taxed as they had said. And then today, Holtz-Eakin announced McCain would pay for the $5000 tax credit by cutting Medicare & Medicaid. THERE IS NO PLAN! McCain is purporting to offer a health-insurance reform, but the details change radically whenever anyone asks serious questions. This is possible because the details DON'T MATTER! There is NO PLAN. All there is is an empty box that McCain calls a health-care reform in which is a seemingly generous $5000 tax credit. Whoopee!! What lies behind this is, yet again, the complete cult of personality that is the McCain campaign. What he's saying is, "elect me and I'll straighten it out. Details don't matter. This is our idea now, but that could change. I care. I'll do what's right. I'll get this fixed." This man is

Palin and Biden have the same position on gay marriage (opposed). The only difference is that Palin's position reflects what she actually believes, whereas Biden's is pure political calculation.

There's no necessary contradiction between (1) tolerance for homosexuals, and (2) opposition to homosexual marriage. You can consistently support No. 1 without supporting No. 2.

Quoting JerseyBoy: There's no necessary contradiction between (1) tolerance for homosexuals, and (2) opposition to homosexual marriage. You can consistently support No. 1 without supporting No. 2.

Since the only possible basis for (2) is linguistic, while the effect is identical to oppostion to (1), I'd say that your assertion is false.

My career was not launched with the assistance of an unrepentant terrorist.
My pastor has never said "God damn America."
I don't think our troops are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians."
My spouse doesn't think America is a "downright mean country."
I've never sat on a board with an unrepentant terrorist.
I've never directed millions of dollars to radical organizations.
I've never opposed requiring medical care for babies who are born alive.
I bought my home without assistance from a convicted felon.
I've never taken my kids to a church whose pastor thinks AIDS was created by the government.
If Obama's mainstream, most Americans are extremists.

Quoting Jdennyv: My career was not launched with the assistance of an unrepentant terrorist.
My pastor has never said "God damn America."
I don't think our troops are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians."
My spouse doesn't think America is a "downright mean country."
I've never sat on a board with an unrepentant terrorist.
I've never directed millions of dollars to radical organizations.
I've never opposed requiring medical care for babies who are born alive.
I bought my home without assistance from a convicted felon.
I've never taken my kids to a church whose pastor thinks AIDS was created by the government.
If Obama's mainstream, most Americans are extremists.

You're very good at repeating talking points. Obama gets a minimum of 48% of the vote - worst case. That's pretty mainstream, wouldn't you say?

Quoting bjkeefe: I also second (well, first, actually) the sidebar recommendation of Rebecca's article. Probably the best feminist perspective on Sarah Palin and how she's being presented that I've read anywhere.

I haven't watched the diavlog, but I did read the article and agree that it articulates very well my sentiment about Palin, what she is about, how others treat her and her responsibility as an adult woman. I don't think people realize that this "pity" for Palin is demeaning to her and to the image of a woman as a political leader. Rebecca explains it so well, no need to elaborate.

The "hard road" of demonizing Barack Obama will be an especially hard road for America. There will be consequences. The McCain campaign has ignited and is igniting bitter, damaging fires that will burn long after this election is over. Whatever honor the man had, he has passed it all away in his sewerpipe of a campaign. If this goes on, we shall see just who is going to be made to pay the highest price. I'd urge them to stop if I thought they had an iota of magnanimity.

Palin and Biden have the same position on gay marriage (opposed). The only difference is that Palin's position reflects what she actually believes, whereas Biden's is pure political calculation.

Obama-Biden are not really opposed to same-sex marriage. They just say they are because (today) it's political suicide to support same-sex marriage. They figure that as states like California and Massachusetts come along, prohibitions will erode gradually until we have anti-gay laws only in the old segregation states of the South. Democrats have decided that the best route to gay-lesbian equal rights in the next decade is by letting the states grapple with the concept of marriage while making sure that civil unions provide all the rights of marriage. This is hard to deliver, but Dems. are committed to trying. For example, federal discrimination against gay/lesbian immigration is a terrible injustice that affects gay-lesbian families every day. There is a significant difference between the Repub. position and the Dem. one. Obama and Biden have said they will fight for gay/lesbian rights. McCain and Palin are "tolerant."

Quoting Wonderment: Obama-Biden are not really opposed to same-sex marriage. ..."

Thank god someone knows what they are for or not for. Thanks! I wonder if Obama's Pals actually know what he is for or against.

Quoting AemJeff: You're very good at repeating talking points. Obama gets a minimum of 48% of the vote - worst case. That's pretty mainstream, wouldn't you say?

No, because a big part of that 48% are ignorant or choose to be (like yourself) and the other part would vote for Stalin if it only meant not losing again. Not mainstream at all.

Wow, these guys really do hate Palin. That all by itself is pretty boring, but watching their attempts to make it sound like anything else was sort of fascinating because it reminded me so much watching a couple of Clinton haters have an "agree with each other" contest back in the 90's.

It's funny how people only see what they want to see.

actually being homophobic and racist is constitutionally protected. so it's actually a-okay to be a jerk about gay marriage and whatever racial groups you don't like or have issues with. this is one thing i can't stand about so-called 'progressives'; it's fine if you're bigoted against homophobes and racists (whatever constitutes whatever that is) but it ain't okay to point a finger at gblt and certain racial groups.

Like what exactly?

I don't think McCain/Palin are against states deciding to have gay marriage/civil unions or not. They just won't support a Federal bill allowing same-sex marriage/civil unions.

Quoting Lyle: actually being homophobic and racist is constitutionally protected. so it's actually a-okay to be a jerk about gay marriage and whatever racial groups you don't like or have issues with.

this is one thing i can't stand about so-called 'progressives'; it's fine if you're bigoted against homophobes and racists (whatever constitutes whatever that is) but it ain't okay to point a finger at gblt and certain racial groups.

I'd love to read your explication of the moral equivalence you've just described.

I don't think McCain/Palin are against states deciding to have gay marriage/civil unions or not. They just won't support a Federal bill allowing same-sex marriage/civil unions.

McCain is for states' banning gay marriage. He supports the upcoming California ballot initiative to overturn our state Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.

Quoting Lyle: Like what exactly?

I'd guess something like this.

Quoting Lyle: Like what exactly?

In the era of modern American politics (since WW2), conservatives have had trouble accepting the legitimacy of Democratic leadership. When Bill Clinton was president, there were widespread paranoid delusions on the right about Clinton's plans to hand the country over to the United Nations, and other wacky theories. Right wing militia membership exploded during the 1990s. A federal building was blown up, bombs were detonated at the 1996 Olympics, and conservatives planned attacks on US military installations. If Obama wins, it's going to be much worse, for a number of reasons, including Obama's skin color, and the allegations widely believed on the right about his Muslim heritage. Now, with McCain and Palin openly calling Obama a friend of terrorists, and suggesting that he wants our enemies to win, matters could get much worse than they were in the 1990s. Palin and McCain are playing with fire, and sowing the seeds of social discord that could ultimately lead to widespread violence, and at the worst extreme, civil war. Note: I consider the possibility of civil war to be exceedingly unlikely, but that's the path McCain/Palin are putting us on by encouraging their base voters to believe Obama

but that's the path McCain/Palin are putting us on by encouraging their base voters to believe Obama is an enemy of the Republic without the legitimacy to govern the country.

I'm surprised that more attention isn't paid to how irresponsible (and potentially dangerous) spreading this sort of provocative message is.

Quoting Lyle: actually being homophobic and racist is constitutionally protected. so it's actually a-okay to be a jerk about gay marriage and whatever racial groups you don't like or have issues with.

I disagree. Your constitutional rights protect you from government sanction, but that doesn't mean it's okay to be a jerk. It's also worth pointing out that there are other consequences to insisting on being a jerk, like social shunning and economic reactions, even if you don't accept that it's wrong to be a jerk in your own mind.

Quoting Lyle: actually being homophobic and racist is constitutionally protected. so it's actually a-okay to be a jerk about gay marriage and whatever racial groups you don't like or have issues with.

this is one thing i can't stand about so-called 'progressives'; it's fine if you're bigoted against homophobes and racists (whatever constitutes whatever that is) but it ain't okay to point a finger at gblt and certain racial groups.

You know, it would be just as easy to turn this around, and point out that you're being inconsistent in that you want to be intolerant of some people, but at the same time you demand toleration for your own views. (I assume you are, yourself, homophobic and racist, even though you don't explicitly admit it; the mere fact that you identify with homophobes and racists at an emotional level suggests you are talking about yourself, though I grant it's possible you are speaking hypothetically.) In any event, it would mean very little to be a liberal advocating toleration for others if that meant we ignored intolerance from racists and homophobes. What could it possibly mean to be tolerant if we ignored intolerance?

This just in, stunning and substantive figures from the ignorance metric and polling institute of Whatfurs imagination:

Quoting Whatfur: No, because a big part of that 48% are ignorant or choose to be (like yourself) and the other part would vote for Stalin if it only meant not losing again. Not mainstream at all.

Pace yourself. Still 32 days left and you are already just making stuff up, and right on the heals of you ranting about no substance from your adversaries here. I know I advised you to try to keep it together, and go the distance, but I'm getting worried about you. Had the ticker checked this year? I personally abhor drugs, but I hear Xanax is good for anxiety (has two x's in the name... always a bonus).

No, the constitution guarantees a person's right to be a jerk. If people want to say disgusting things about one another or point fingers at groups of people... they most certainly can. although I agree with the social shunning/economic reations argument and that's the proper way to handle it, 'shunning' can have the consequence of branding sensible folk with a Scarlet Letter which in of itself can have negative consequences. it's just that 'progressives' think it is okay to brand certain people with a scarlet letter. ... and that's what 'progressives' are trying to do with sarah palin, to label her 'extremist', 'fundimentalist', 'christianist', 'ignorant', a 'rube', so on and so forth.

a good example would be not hating bill ayers and hating david duke. david duke is a wretched human being and no one thinks twice about describing him as such. bill ayers and his wife, however, aren't even put up on the same stage alongside david duke... when in fact they are probably much worse. ayers' and dorn's actions led people to murder. david duke as far as i know has never called for the murder of anybody or had friends in fact murder people based upon his world view or his leadership. ayers and dorn are directly connected to the deaths of people; not duke... yet duke is a racist jerk and ayers/dorn are respected human beings. kind of ignorant.

Quoting Lyle: No, the constitution guarantees a person's right to be a jerk. If people want to say disgusting things about one another or point fingers at groups of people... they most certainly can.

i love america.

You started your reply with the word "no," as if you were disagreeing, but you didn't actually contradict anyting Brendan said, did you? What you may not understand is that the 1st Amendment protects you from government sanction, but not social sanction, and it certainly won't prevent your employer from firing you if you go around calling your co-workers "disgusting things." Your problem isn't with the US Constitution. It's with the American people who have social norms you find difficult to live with. Pity for you.

Civil War? What utter nonsense. If Obama tries to make southerners stop global warming by not running their air conditions, than yes, their will be a civil war. Southerners will take their guns, drive north and start killing people. Otherwise, no, especially not with the moderate, bi-partisan John McCain and the conservative progressive Sarah Palin. Obama did associate with William Ayers... who was a terrorist, and a terrorist who abhors what America is all about. That fact, especially in light of Obama's membership in a racist/anti-American church and in light of Michelle Obama's disgust with America in the last 30 years makes Obama's association with a 60's radical who's views led to murder and death is very appropriate to talk about.

Quoting Lyle: Civil War? What utter nonsense. If Obama tries to make southerners stop global warming by not running their air conditions, than yes, their will be a civil war. Southerners will take their guns, drive north and start killing people.

Otherwise, no, especially not with the moderate, bi-partisan John McCain and the conservative progressive Sarah Palin.

Obama did associate with William Ayers... who was a terrorist, and a terrorist who abhors what America is all about. That fact, especially in light of Obama's membership in a racist/anti-American church and in light of Michelle Obama's disgust with America in the last 30 years makes Obama's association with a 60's radical who's views led to murder and death is very appropriate to talk about.

Okay, so it's appropriate to talk about. Go ahead, Lyle, talk about it. What do you have to say? The floor is yours. Say what you have to say on the subject. I'm dying to see how far you can go with it, and where it leads you.

Quoting cacimbo: Talking about how scripted Palin sounded is fair. But do you not realize or just chose to ignore how scripted Bidens "choking up" moment was?

No, Governor Palin being scripted is a commonly held view. Senator Biden choking up speaking about his dead wife and daughter and sons in intensive care is subjective. I thought he was genuine. You may think it is scripted. I really regret Gwen Ifill not having the authority to ask follow up questions to either candidate. Would have made for a better debate.

Quoting Lyle: ... the moderate, bi-partisan John McCain and the conservative progressive Sarah Palin.

Just ... wow.

I think you misunderstand. I mean he supports states rights, i.e., states can choose to have gay marriage or not have gay marriage. He doesn't support it, just like Biden and just like Obama... but he isn't against states choosing to have gay marriage even if he disagrees with it. It is also entirely constitutional for states to ban gay marriage... just like they've always done, since marriage laws are state laws and not federal. My point is that McCain won't be overriding Massachusetts' and Vermont's state laws if he's President.

Sarah Palin, as governor of Alaska, actually has fought for gay rights. Her state, with her as governor, allows for domestic partnership laws, i.e., contract rights between same-sex couples. As the bloggingheads themselves said she and Alaska even beat out some more liberal east coast states in doing so. ... Sarah Palin is progressive and conservative gosh darn't!!!

your logic makes no sense. of course you can love and support gays and lesbians, and not support their right to marry. alan dershowitz is one example of this. he doesn't hate gays/lesbians/bi/trannies, but he doesn't think they should be able to marry... civil unions yes, but not marriage.

Roy Edroso:

At The Corner right now, do a search of "Ayers" and you'll get over 100 matches. Now consider that this outburst of interest in a minor New Left character is prompted by nothing other than the McCain campaign's decision to publicize him as the key to Obama's personal corruption.

These boys and girls are writers and editors at a prestigious magazine, yet they can be dragooned into this service as easily as felons into a road gang. Sic transit gloria Buckley. [...] In the end they're all just low-level employees of the Ministry of Truth.

Oh speaking of which, I did a wrap-up of the week in wingnuttery today. It covers stupidity, racism, and homophobia -- sort of a conservative trifecta.

you do realize John McCain ran against George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries right? like they aren't the same guy. maybe that's what you want to believe and that is what you tell yourself, but they are actually different. john mccain is actually friends with a lot of democrats and votes for their legislation from time to time. that's what is called bi-partisan and moderate, converse to a partisan and an ideologue.

i just did say something about it Chief.

haha... nope, you won't ever find me dishing out a bucket full of scarlet letters. that's for you 'progressives' to do. and thank god for the constitution, cause that means me and my ilk can get away with saying.... f**k you!

Quoting Lyle: you do realize John McCain ran against George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries right? like they aren't the same guy. maybe that's what you want to believe and that is what you tell yourself, but they are actually different. john mccain is actually friends with a lot of democrats and votes for their legislation from time to time.

that's what is called bi-partisan and moderate, converse to a partisan and an ideologue.

I will acknowledge that eight years ago, McCain mouthed some different platitudes during the primary. I will even acknowledge that he had me fooled for a while, until, among other things, I started reading what people from Arizona had to say about him. Since then, though, he has renounced the few generally admirable things he once claimed to stand for, like opposition to the religious right, the early disagreement with Bush's tax plans, a momentary opposition to torture, and a general aura of conducting himself honorably. His recent voting record in the Senate speaks for itself, as do his choices in the senior campaign staff that he hired, as does his choice of running mate, as do all of the stunts and smears that

Quoting Lyle: and thank god for the constitution, cause that means me and my ilk can get away with saying.... f**k you!

You should be aware that the Comment Nanny is not bound by the Constitution. You should also be aware that God is not responsible for the Constitution. The document was created by a bunch of radical secularists.

P.S. And now McCain's mostly just a tragically comic figure.

Quoting Lyle: haha... nope, you won't ever find me dishing out a bucket full of scarlet letters. that's for you 'progressives' to do.

and thank god for the constitution, cause that means me and my ilk can get away with saying.... f**k you!

Damn. Some folks just seem to beg to be ignored. Way to show the rest of us your quality, son!

In the short term, a worldwide financial panic and crisis. Just beyond that, the real economic and social problems that come when large numbers of people lose their jobs, their businesses, their investments, their homes, and even larger numbers become fearful about what might happen to them. And then, when we get a minute to think, profound global energy and environmental challenges, security concerns that range from loose nukes to terrorist organizations, plus a couple of ongoing wars and ever-rising medical costs. Just as starters. The United States is still incredibly rich, powerful, and productive. But the current situation is no joke, for America or the world.

In these circumstances, and with a presidential election four weeks away, is it conceivable that candidates will waste time arguing whether one of them has been in the same room with a guy who had been a violent extremist at a time before most of today's U.S. citizens were even born? (William Ayres was a Weatherman in the late 1960s. Today's median-aged American was born around 1972.) Of course, it's not only conceivable: it's the Republican plan for this final push -- "turning the page" on economic concerns and getting to these

Quoting bjkeefe: P.S. And now McCain's mostly just a tragically comic figure.

Or maybe just tragic.

Quoting bjkeefe: P.S. And now McCain's mostly just a tragically comic figure.

OMG that is too funny. On a serious note, I think McCain's voice is one of the things working against him. He's just annoying to listen to, and honestly, he doesn't sound presidential.

Quoting TwinSwords: OMG that is too funny.

On a serious note, I think McCain's voice is one of the things working against him. He's just annoying to listen to, and honestly, he doesn't sound presidential.

I've long thought that. It's nasal and he often sounds like he's muttering or speaking through clenched teeth. Still not as grating as Bible Spice, though.

Ahhh....the cackling of hens. (This can both refer to the vloggin pair as well as the last few posts.) This vlog made my teeth hurt. But I see it in the work place also. Women are their own worst enemy. Concerning homophobia.... ummm Handle? why do you follow me around? Lyle? I know its frustrating but if you just sit back and imagine your detractors here as ...well...as they are... then you can grin an bare it. Thanks for getting the little shot in. Yeah the comment nanny will probably remove it but at least it will give her/him a laugh first as well as a break from the constant diapering of the club members here. But anyway...

The GOP take on William Ayers. Lets see now...we he have a communist mentor, a racist preacher, and a communist, terrorist teacher as Obama's chosen friends.

Quoting bjkeefe: I've long thought that. It's nasal and he often sounds like he's muttering or speaking through clenched teeth.

Still not as grating as Bible Spice, though.

You mean the Hockey Imam?

Quoting AemJeff: You mean the Hockey Imam?

LOL! No, actually I meant the Embarracuda.

Quoting bjkeefe: LOL! No, actually I meant the Embarracuda.

You win, I'm out of cookies! Klein was pretty tough. I'm far from neutral on the issue of Sarah Palin - and it's getting harder to step back to an nonpartisan POV - but I think that I'd be worried about this sort of thing if I was part of their campaign. It didn't read as a particularly partisan attack to me - though I've a suspicion that it wouldn't be hard to find a long line of folks who disagree.

Quoting AemJeff: You win, I'm out of cookies! Klein was pretty tough. I'm far from neutral on the issue of Sarah Palin - and it's getting harder to step back to an nonpartisan POV - but I think that I'd be worried about this sort of thing if I was part of their campaign. It didn't read as a particularly partisan attack to me - though I've a suspicion that it wouldn't be hard to find a long line of folks who disagree.

Well, of course part of it's partisan -- those of us who dislike a theocracy are against that part of Palin. But a lot of the attacks aren't partisan. They're purely about competence and preparedness. I'm confident about this, given how many big-name conservative commentators have expressed dismay. Ditto the number of erstwhile McCain fanboys in the MSM. It seems to me that by this point, it's only the blind defense of her that's partisan.

Quoting bjkeefe: Well, of course part of it's partisan -- those of us who dislike a theocracy are against that part of Palin. But a lot of the attacks aren't partisan. They're purely about competence and preparedness. I'm confident about this, given how many big-name conservative commentators have expressed dismay. Ditto the number of erstwhile McCain fanboys in the MSM.

It seems to me that by this point, it's only the blind defense of her that's partisan.

We agree, I think. Klein's message seems specific to this campaign rather than generically pro-Democrat. I like to think I'm able to maintain a degree of objectivity, despite obvious preferences. The past two Presidential cycles it's become increasingly difficult; and it's becoming harder (for me) to distinguish the boundary between substantive and partisan arguments, at least partly because it seems to me that most of the substance argues against the particular choices the Right seems increasingly to favor.

Quoting Whatfur: Ahhh....the cackling of hens. (This can both refer to the vloggin pair as well as the last few posts.) This vlog made my teeth hurt. But I see it in the work place also. Women are their own worst enemy.

Concerning homophobia.... ummm Handle? why do you follow me around?

Lyle? I know its frustrating but if you just sit back and imagine your detractors here as ...well...as they are... then you can grin an bare it. Thanks for getting the little shot in. Yeah the comment nanny will probably remove it but at least it will give her/him a laugh first as well as a break from the constant diapering of the club members here.

But anyway...

The GOP take on William Ayers. Lets see now...we he have a communist mentor, a racist preacher, and a communist, terrorist teacher as Obama's chosen friends.

I read almost all the posts here, I'm not following you around, I just found your Bill O'Rielly imitation extra fun and easy to mock. Not gay, but I'm sure you could still find a reason to drag me behind your pickup. Now that you guys are backed into a corner it's fun to watch

Well said, handle.

Quoting AemJeff: We agree, I think. Klein's message seems specific to this campaign rather than generically pro-Democrat. I like to think I'm able to maintain a degree of objectivity, despite obvious preferences. The past two Presidential cycles it's become increasingly difficult; and it's becoming harder (for me) to distinguish the boundary between substantive and partisan arguments, at least partly because it seems to me that most of the substance argues against the particular choices the Right seems increasingly to favor.

I know what you mean, but of course, by agreeing, there are plenty who would say I was just being partisan. So be it. I haven't heard an idea out of the GOP leadership in years that even pretends to be substantive. It's all slogans, appearance, and tossing red meat to the wingnut base to keep themselves in power for power's sake.

"Democrats have decided that the best route to gay-lesbian equal rights in the next decade is by letting the states grapple with the concept of marriage while making sure that civil unions provide all the rights of marriage." This statement is true, so long as the phrase "letting the states grapple with the concept of marriage" means "encouraging courts to foist gay marriage on states which do not recognize gay marriage, including those states in which voters have expressly rejected gay marriage" You can have gay marriage or you can have democratic self rule. You can't have both.

Quoting JerseyBoy: "Democrats have decided that the best route to gay-lesbian equal rights in the next decade is by letting the states grapple with the concept of marriage while making sure that civil unions provide all the rights of marriage."

This statement is true, so long as the phrase "letting the states grapple with the concept of marriage" means "encouraging courts to foist gay marriage on states which do not recognize gay marriage, including those states in which voters have expressly rejected gay marriage"

You can have gay marriage or you can have democratic self rule. You can't have both.

Was it democratic self rule when women were denied the right to vote? Was it democratic self rule when blacks were denied access to public accomodations? What other systemic denial of basic human rights are you willing to dress up as "democratic self rule"?

Quoting JerseyBoy: "Democrats have decided that the best route to gay-lesbian equal rights in the next decade is by letting the states grapple with the concept of marriage while making sure that civil unions provide all the rights of marriage."

This statement is true, so long as the phrase "letting the states grapple with the concept of marriage" means "encouraging courts to foist gay marriage on states which do not recognize gay marriage, including those states in which voters have expressly rejected gay marriage"

You can have gay marriage or you can have democratic self rule. You can't have both.

Here's the problem: How can you "foist" a right? Allowing redheads to sing show tunes has no direct effect on bald Spaniards. The right of to redheads to sing does not impact on bald Spaniards at all unless bald Spaniards have some objection to a thing that really isn't their business.

Yes, even slavery was democratic self-rule. The point is gay marriage proponents need decide do they want the Supreme Court or Congress to make gay marriage the law of the land or do they want states to deal with it.

Oh, I love these guys... makes me feel so much better about myself .

why do you assume i think God created the Constitution? why do you assume I'm even religous? why is it when someone disagrees with you 'progressives' you think you're talking to some fire-breathing, God-fearing right-winger? why o why?

Quoting Lyle: why do you assume i think God created the Constitution?

Oh, I dunno ...

Quoting Lyle: and thank god for the constitution

"Since the only possible basis for (2) is linguistic, while the effect is identical to oppostion to (1), I'd say that your assertion is false." Very untrue.

Quoting JerseyBoy: "Since the only possible basis for (2) is linguistic, while the effect is identical to oppostion to (1), I'd say that your assertion is false."

Very untrue.

Well? What's your argument?

you didn't catch the lower case g did you?