DFL Senate candidate forum, 11/27/07
Nov. 28th, 2007 11:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
naomikritzerIn the fall of 2002, less than two weeks before the election, Paul Wellstone was killed in a plane crash. Walter Mondale stepped in to run in his place, but was defeated by the utterly loathesome hypocritical slime-weasel Norm Coleman. If there is one politician in the country I loathe more than George W. Bush, it's Coleman; just seeing his face or hearing his voice make me feel ill. So you can imagine that I am eager to see a Democratic opponent that will annihilate him in the election.
All four of the candidates (and by "candidate" here I mean "people who have at least a snowball's chance in hell of being the guy who run against Coleman" -- I don't know about the perennial fruitcake brigade) have pledged to abide by the party endorsement, which means that in order to have a say, I have to turn up both for my precinct caucus and my Senate District Convention, and participate in the walking caucuses to send candidates to the State Convention, and then attempt to elect delegates that will battle it out in the way I would like to see. So honestly, my opinion here doesn't matter ALL that much unless we manage to send Ed to the convention this year, in which case I can always threaten to shrink all his t-shirts or something if he endorses someone I don't like.
Nonetheless, I did take the opportunity to go to the candidate forum last night. Ed stayed home with the girls but requested a report, and so I took all sorts of detailed notes. LJ-cut, of course, because really, if you don't live in Minnesota, and maybe even if you DO live in Minnesota, this is really not all that interesting.
The executive summary: this is Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer territory, but I wasn't blown away by him. Ciresi was incredibly smart and actually made an attempt to grapple with the issues in a non-soundbyte-y way, but in a few cases wound up being totally confusing. Al Franken took several stands that I really like but he also sounds kind of like a disgruntled cynical college kid, and I'm not sure how that'll play statewide. Al kept his inner commedian on a leash for much of the night but did slip twice, to the obvious delight of the crowd (even the passionate Jack supporters).
The moderator, Brian Melendez, started off by saying that this whole event had been so organized it was hard to believe it was run by Democrats. He clearly jinxed things, because the sound-system problems started with the first opening statement and continued for the whole two hours. They did figure out how to get the microphones to quit making sonic booms (seriously, it sounded like someone was shooting off fireworks) but they never did figure out why the mike kept cutting out randomly on Mike Ciresi. I wondered after a while if some Al supporter backstage was sabotaging the sound system, because Ciresi and Cohen shared a microphone and it worked much better when Cohen was using it. But, Ciresi had a tendency to walk around while Cohen would actually stay put, and that might have been what it was. The mike shared by Franken and Nelson-Pallmeyer worked a lot better.
I'm going to switch to calling them all by their first name, just because "Jack" is a lot easier to type than "Nelson-Pallmeyer." The four candidates:
Al Franken. Former Saturday Night Live comedian, author of "Why Not Me?" -- a fictional pseudo-memoir in which he gets elected to the presidency and then removed due to mental illness. Weirdly, no one's talked about this book so far. They've all focused on his more recent books bashing Limbaugh and O'Reilly.
Mike Ciresi. Very successful trial lawyer, he's best known for the tobacco settlement of the late 1990s, which he brought up at some point on about 50% of the questions asked at the forum.
Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer. A professor at St. Thomas who has good taste in names (his daughter is named Naomi), he ran for the 5th District Congrssional seat and attracted lots of enthusiasm but few delegates.
Jim Cohen. An environmentalist, I guess. I don't really know who this guy is. He was as nerdy as Al Franken but without the star power.
Jim got the first opening statement, and he had lots of applause lines (after which he'd pause expectantly) but we'd just been told to hold our applause until the end and he didn't have enough supporters in the audience to convince everyone else to ignore the moderator.
Mike spoke second. His money-shot line: "The Republicans believe we shouldn't have a death tax. I believe we shouldn't have a birth tax." (By which he meant, deficits.)
Al spoke third and I didn't make any notes on what he said. He has a very deadpan style and a slouchy body language -- he had his hand in his pocket and was fidgety in his folding chair.
Jack got a huge round of applause just for standing up -- his supporters had turned out. He told a rather strange story about a nasty cop who ticketed him for having an equals-sign bumper sticker on his car, and this story led somehow into Norm Coleman and what a nasty guy he is, and how he wants to impeach Bush. He and Jim both brought up impeaching Bush repeatedly, but even if they're elected, Bush is going to be leaving office just as they're taking it so how they're planning to impeach him isn't clear. (Oh, also, Senate doesn't vote to impeach, Congress does. Senate votes on whether to remove. That was clearly beside the point to Jim and Jack and much of the audience.)
The first actual question was whether they would abide by the party endorsement. They all said yes.
The next question was about health care. I don't actually remember how the question was phrased, but nearly all of them took more or less the form of, "So. Here's a pressing issue. Whaddya think?"
Al spoke first. Like everyone else, he blamed the high cost of health care on Ed. 34% of health care costs, he said, go to overhead. Ed works at an HMO and does not personally provide health care -- therefore, he's the overhead they're talking about. OK, a teeny tiny part, but still. I'm pretty sure the 34% Al quoted or the 37% Jim quoted includes more than just the people who are there to collect your money -- I'm guessing that it also includes the the IT people who maintain the computer system that sends an antibiotic scrip from the exam room to the pharmacy. It probably also includes the people who mop the clinic floor, stock throat swabs, launder those humiliating gowns they make you wear, and so on. Mike later said that 70% of health care money goes either to preventable disease, or the last month of life, which left me wondering if 4% or 7% of each health care dollar goes to cover the costs of chronically ill or dying paper-pushing bureaucrats or where, exactly, I'd lost the thread of the statistical argument here.
Al's health care plan is to mandate that every state have universal health care, and leave it up to them how to do it. Also, everyone will have to provide single payer for all kids. He noted that kids are cheap and no one blames them for not having insurance. He'd like single-payer for all as an ultimate goal, but doesn't think it's feasible right now. He noted that despite all our problems, 70% of Americans are happy with their health care. He used a line I like, which is, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." That sums up my political philosophy pretty well.
Jack wants to go for single payer. He said that we're going to take back the White House and both the House and the Senate in 2008, therefore it should be possible. (Because, after all, having the House, Senate, and White House helped tons in 1992.) He talked about using "cost mechanisms" to hold down costs but made no elaboration, which is the sort of thing that always makes me twitch. It's really easy to say "we have to hold down costs" and really hard to figure out exactly how you're going to do it, which is why no one's done it already. He said that Al's plan will result in a Mississippi/Minnesota divide, and that we shouldn't compromise before we'd tried to fight.
Jim wants publically funded single payer health care and he wants it now.
Ciresi would not accept the health care Congress gets until universal health care is available, which is an easy stand to take when you're a zillionaire. He wants to focus on creating a universal buy-in coverage option that would truly be available to everyone, even if they have a pre-existing condition. He actually had some very intelligent things to say but he wasn't quite able to cram it all into 2 minutes and stay intelligible.
Next question. Foreclosures? Do they suck, or what, and who should we blame?
Jack blamed the evil predatory lendors and talked about how the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and this sucks.
Jim wants to send predatory lenders to jail.
Mike said that the real question here is how to help the people who are getting foreclosed on. Which is absolutely true, except that then he got really incomprehensible. He used the word "securitized" twice and honestly, I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person but I had no idea what he was talking about. He also talked about how we should be establishing principles for renegotiating mortgages so that the people in North Minneapolis (that is, from the poor side of town) aren't discriminated against while the people in Wayzata and Edina (that is, the rich white suburbs) are unfairly advantaged.
Al wants to have the FHA and Fannie Mae renegotiate mortgages, he wants to change the law so that the predatory lenders CAN be sent to jail, and he wanted to talk about how people would be able to pay their mortgages if they weren't being squeezed financially in other ways. He talked about income inequality, like Jack had, and then segued into reducing the demand on oil.
Next question. The Democratic presidential candidates think we're going to be in Iraq until 2013. Sound good to you?
Jim wants the troops out by April of 2008. He also wants us to renounce our claim on Iraqi oil. He talked about an aggressive program of training the Iraqi military, a multi-national peace conference, and counterterrorism. If we're pulling ALL our troops out by six months from now, who the hell is going to be training the Iraqi military and doing the counterterrorism is not clear to me, frankly, but maybe the counterterrorism/training stuff is based on the correct assumption that our troops are still going to be there next April.
Mike wants to redeploy the troops and convene a peace conference under the auspices of the U.N. Security Council. He then said that the real question here is whether he would oppose a Democratic President. (Which is a good point, although in some ways, the real question here was, 'so, Iraq. Sucks, huh?') He said that he absolutely would be willing to oppose a Democratic President; after all, he opposed Big Tobacco. If this debate is on YouTube, someone could do a drinking game that involved a swig of booze every time Mike mentioned the tobacco lawsuit. If anyone does that, let me know how drunk you are by the end, OK?
Al said, "Heh. Two minutes on Iraq, huh?" He wants to start withdrawing but not precipitously; he thinks we have a moral obligation not to provoke a humanitarian crisis and not to create a wider regional conflict. He noted that the threat to pull out is the only leverage we have right now, both with Maliki and with the larger world community, which is perfectly happy to let our troops get shot in the mess we created, but might step in and help out if they seriously thought we were just going to get the hell out. He said that a regional conference wasn't a plan, it was a goal. That line in particular sounded really snarky. He finished up by saying that Iraq really requires more than two minutes.
Jack started by taking credit for Wellstone's vote against the war. (Apparently Wellstone used to consult with Jack on foreign policy issues. Jack told him the war was a bad idea.) He said that the humanitarian crisis there was created by us. At this point, I got slightly distracted: there was a guy with three restless kids sitting in front of me. One of the kids had hopped up, clutching his crotch and demanding a trip to the bathroom, and the guy had to hustle all three plus all their stuff out of the auditorium. When I tuned back in Jack was saying that we have a moral, ethical, and financial responsibility for the refugees.
Next question: "How strongly would you support a new 9/11 commission?" The moderator then added that they now knew as much about the question as he did, and that they should feel free to answer whatever they thought was being asked here.
Mike went back to talking about the Iraq war, agreeing that two minutes wasn't enough. He said that we need to look at the lessons of the war-- it's further destabilized the middle east, and meanwhile we've withdrawn from decades of multilateral diplomacy. He noted that Bush ignored the situation in Israel for most of his presidency -- seven years in, we have peace talks going in Annapolis, and this shows how much more Bush COULD have done. He also said that we couldn't just get out of Iraq, it takes months to withdraw. This was not a crowd-pleasing comment.
Al actually understood the question and explained that there are people who think 9/11 was an inside job. One of them was the guy sitting to my right, who yelled, "IT WAS!" at the top of his lungs. Al clearly begs to differ, but did say that he wanted a permanent ongoing 9/11 commission. (I was explaining this to Ed after I got home and he said, "Wait, PERMANENT? I mean, how long does he really think we'll need one?") Al noted that neither the 9/11 Commission nor the FBI was allowed to interview Khalid Sheikh Muhammed -- they had to submit questions to the CIA and got answers back from the CIA.
Jack said that we could withdraw our troops in six months, waffled on the commission issue, and said that we should impeach Bush based on what we already know from existing documents and the original 9/11 Commission. He noted that the Iraq war was planned well in advance (by people who called it "America's Grand Strategy") and Bush used 9/11 shamefully to lie us into a pre-planned war.
Jim said that we should find a way to leave Iraq and we should implement the 9/11 committee recommendations.
Next question. Global warming: naturally occuring, or man-made?
Al started by saying that he thought everyone would be in agreement on this one -- it was man-made and we need to do something about it. He wants to build wind turbines and electric cars at the Ford Plant that's closing. He actually had lots of ideas for things we should do, many of them involving the creation of jobs in Minnesota, and he finished off by saying, "this is exciting," in an utterly deadpan tone.
Jack said that this was the single most important issue. He read a report on climate last year and cried for an hour; this is the greatest security threat that we face as a nation. He emphasized that the candidates were NOT all alike here -- for example, Al and Mike won't sign on to the One-Sky Initiative, and he will. He added that not every candidate was for nuclear power. The way he said this implied that he was, which surprised me; you will find the occasional pro-nuclear-power environmentalist but they're a rare breed and he really didn't seem like the type.
Jim talked about founding Will Steiger's foundation with Will Steiger and you know, this was around the time I mostly quit listening to him and my notes get really sketchy. My apologies to his fans who are reading this, if there are any. The sad fact is that your guy has all the dorkiness of Al Franken without the star power, and Al Franken is SERIOUSLY dorky.
Ciresi talked about how his law firm created a green plan to improve their carbon footprint, and he talked about educating people. He also said that the environment is a national security issue and also a jobs issue. He used the word "incentivize." Unlike "securitize," I know what this means, but I still consider it at least a venial sin to actually use it. (Prioritize is OK, though, and of course scrutinize is fine, but incentivize, no. I have to draw the line somewhere.)
Next question. Domestic industrial growth. How are we going to compete with China?
Jack started by clarifying that he DOESN'T support nuclear power. He was clearly a little rattled by his realization that he kind of implied that he did, and tried to clarify who he was talking about but didn't, really. I think he might have been snarking on Amy Klobochar, our other Senator. He wants a domestic Marshall Plan to create industrial jobs doing things like building the solar panels everyone should be sticking on their roof. Also, he wants to pull out of "all so-called free trade agreements."
Jim agrees with Jack about free-trade agreements and it sounds like he'd like to impose tarriffs on imported goods, or maybe just ban them completely. You know, it occurs to me transcribing this that they all missed an opportunity here to rag on China for putting lead in the paint they're putting on children's toys.
Mike believes in informed trade -- during negotiations, there should be people at the table representing environmental and labor interests. He wants to see enforceable environmental standards being put in as part of these trade agreements, so that steel that will be used in the U.S. must be made to American environmental standards, even if the Chinese are making it. He talked about seeing what Indian environmental standards were like during the Bhopal case.
Al said that they all agree that there should be environmental and labor regulation in trade agreements. He went on to blame India and China for global warming -- well, OK, not exactly, but he noted that even if we did EVERYTHING we are supposed to do we will still be screwed unless China and India start using cleaner energy. He wants a Minnesotan to find clean-coal technology and sell it to China and India. I'm not sure they'll be interested in buying it, personally, but if someone comes up with the technology they might be able to persuade the western governments to buy it as a form of foreign aid.
Next question. No Child Left Behind: so, does it suck, or what?
Jim: Yup. It sucks.
Mike: Totally, and incidentally I love early learning.
Al: Sucks so bad, it drove my teacher kid out of teaching!
Jack: Sucks beyond words, and we should cut the military budget by 10% and use the money to fund universal preschool and to make college affordable.
Next question -- oh, this is an actual quote, not a summing-up, just so you know. "Iran. Force, or Diplomacy?" See, they really were pretty general in a "hey, here's an invitation to yack about the following topic in two minutes without even having to go to the trouble of avoiding answering my question" sort of way, but that's OK, it was still interesting to hear them do it.
Mike went back to talk about educaiton a little more and how much NCLB really, truly sucks, and then said that we should go with diplomacy, and noted that Iran is really young. Most Iranian college students are not fans of the mullahs, at all, but the one way we can drive them into fundamentalism would be to start bombing the place.
Al said that Iran was a thorny problem. He said that it would be totally insane to start bombing Iraq. Someone yelled, "You mean Iran." He paused, realized he'd misspoken, and said, "Yes. We already did the insane thing in Iraq, didn't we?" But, Iran with nukes is a really scary idea. He thinks the best solution is sanctions, but those require cooperation. We're getting cooperation from the EU, but not from the Soviet Union -- oops, I mean, Russia. (He was off his game on this answer. The flub on Iraq/Iran was funny, but calling Russia the Soviet Union really cracked me up.) Russia, he noted, was an oil exporter, and they like instability in the Middle East because it drives up prices.
Jack said that just because it was crazy doesn't mean it won't happen. This line would have sounded better if he hadn't said it with such deadly seriousness. He then went on to say that if Iran got the bomb, so what? it wasn't a security threat to US, so who cares. He also noted that Iran learned from Iraq that you're safer with WMDs, which is precisely what I remember predicting via e-mail to a pro-war friend back in 2003 or thereabouts, sigh. And he said that bellicose talk threatens the pro-democracy movement there.
Jim went back to talking about education and wants teachers to get a minimum starting salary of $40K/year. He didn't say who was going to pay for this or how. Regarding Iran, we need "a surge in diplomacy."
Next question was multiple choice. "Which best expresses your stance on gay marriage. (a) They should have full marriage rights. (b) They should have civil unions. (c) They should have domestic partnerships. (c) They shouldn't have anything."
Al's answer on this one was really lovely. He said, "They should have the right to marry. I've been married for 32 years and it's the best thing that's ever happened to me." He had his wife stand up briefly and be recognized and talked a little about how awesome she was and how glad he was to be married to her. He compared this issue to interracial marriage and said that he hoped that in 40 years we'd look at it as a non-issue. Then he said that a few weeks back he ran into Newt Gingrich and he said, "Newt, come on. Don't you want gay couples to have the joy you had back in your first marriage? ...or the fidelity you had in your second? ...or the lifelong commitment you maybe have in your third?" Then he said, "Do you know who has the lowest divorce rate in the country? Massachusetts. Gay marriage is not a threat."
Go, Al.
Jack said he supported the right to marry and would fight for that right. He added that he was worried about the upcoming election and whether the right-wing would start stirring up hatred against gays, and also against immigrants. And then he talked about immigrants.
Jim said, "Love is love is love." But he considers marriage "a divisional word." He said this in a convoluted way, but he wants civil unions with the rights of marriage. And honestly, most of my gay friends are sort of with him on this -- they don't give a shit what it's called so long as it accomplishes the same legal things. But I still liked Al's answer better.
Mike said that he supports whatever the state wants to call it, and that he doesn't support a constitutional amendment either way. Which is probably a much more electable stance but I still like Al's answer better. He noted his early support for ENDA but forgot to say what it stood for (Employment Non-Discrimination Act, if you're wondering -- two of the people sitting near me had no clue) and then followed Jack's lead to segue into immigration.
Next question. Are you pro-choice? Do you support any restrictions on abortion?
Jack said he supported no restrictions beyond the current law, and said that he lived in Nicaragua in the 1980s and one of the biggest killers of women was illegal abortion. (Ed heard this and wanted the details on the Nicaragua thing, but I didn't know any more than that.) He also wants to make adoption easier and promote global family planning and the empowerment of women.
Jim said he was absolutely pro-choice with absolutely no restrictions whatsoever.
Mike is pro-choice and is tired of Republicans who want to get government out of our lives except that they want government interfering with abortion, and marriage, and education...
Al wants abortion to be safe, legal, and rare, and talked about the things that Clinton did that actually reduced the abortion rate. He talked about reducing poverty (because some women have abortions because they don't believe they can support a baby) and offering universal health care. Somewhere in here he talked about educating girls, and someone yelled, "Boys too!" and he looked chagrined and agreed that yes, we should be educating girls and boys and men and women.
Closing statements. I didn't make any notes on Jack, but he got lots of applause that went on well after he'd handed off the microphone to Al and sat down. Al was then standing there with the microphone as people were still applauding, and he caved to the temptation (seriously, you could see it happen) and said "thank you!" and then turned and grinned at Jack with this "yeah, I'm a comedian and I couldn't resist" grin. And then he gave a closing statement about talking to college students who've had George Bush as president since they were 11 years old and can't imagine a government that's competent. He used the line, "We're a great nation!...when we're a good nation." (i.e., when we're not starting wars, waterboarding prisoners, leaving hurricane victims to drown, etc.) Which is the sort of thing I'll say, but not if I'm running for senate and trying to win in a general election, and it's a good illustration of what makes me nervous about Al as a candidate. He sounded pessimistic and cynical and dark and negative, and while he's exactly the sort of person I'd invite to a party at my house, I think the conventional wisdom -- that the population as a whole wants perky optimists who think it's Morning in America in the Town Called Hope -- is pretty accurate.
Ciresi went after Al on that, kind of, saying that when HE talks to college students they're hopeful and optimistic, and then he pandered to me and my nervous-nelly ilk by being all hopefully and optimistic and morning-in-the-town-called-hope-esque for the rest of his speech. He does a good job with it.
Then Jim blew the limit so thoroughly the timekeeper started just dinging the bell over and over and over. I don't remember anything he said, just that he talked for too damn long.
All four of the candidates (and by "candidate" here I mean "people who have at least a snowball's chance in hell of being the guy who run against Coleman" -- I don't know about the perennial fruitcake brigade) have pledged to abide by the party endorsement, which means that in order to have a say, I have to turn up both for my precinct caucus and my Senate District Convention, and participate in the walking caucuses to send candidates to the State Convention, and then attempt to elect delegates that will battle it out in the way I would like to see. So honestly, my opinion here doesn't matter ALL that much unless we manage to send Ed to the convention this year, in which case I can always threaten to shrink all his t-shirts or something if he endorses someone I don't like.
Nonetheless, I did take the opportunity to go to the candidate forum last night. Ed stayed home with the girls but requested a report, and so I took all sorts of detailed notes. LJ-cut, of course, because really, if you don't live in Minnesota, and maybe even if you DO live in Minnesota, this is really not all that interesting.
The executive summary: this is Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer territory, but I wasn't blown away by him. Ciresi was incredibly smart and actually made an attempt to grapple with the issues in a non-soundbyte-y way, but in a few cases wound up being totally confusing. Al Franken took several stands that I really like but he also sounds kind of like a disgruntled cynical college kid, and I'm not sure how that'll play statewide. Al kept his inner commedian on a leash for much of the night but did slip twice, to the obvious delight of the crowd (even the passionate Jack supporters).
The moderator, Brian Melendez, started off by saying that this whole event had been so organized it was hard to believe it was run by Democrats. He clearly jinxed things, because the sound-system problems started with the first opening statement and continued for the whole two hours. They did figure out how to get the microphones to quit making sonic booms (seriously, it sounded like someone was shooting off fireworks) but they never did figure out why the mike kept cutting out randomly on Mike Ciresi. I wondered after a while if some Al supporter backstage was sabotaging the sound system, because Ciresi and Cohen shared a microphone and it worked much better when Cohen was using it. But, Ciresi had a tendency to walk around while Cohen would actually stay put, and that might have been what it was. The mike shared by Franken and Nelson-Pallmeyer worked a lot better.
I'm going to switch to calling them all by their first name, just because "Jack" is a lot easier to type than "Nelson-Pallmeyer." The four candidates:
Al Franken. Former Saturday Night Live comedian, author of "Why Not Me?" -- a fictional pseudo-memoir in which he gets elected to the presidency and then removed due to mental illness. Weirdly, no one's talked about this book so far. They've all focused on his more recent books bashing Limbaugh and O'Reilly.
Mike Ciresi. Very successful trial lawyer, he's best known for the tobacco settlement of the late 1990s, which he brought up at some point on about 50% of the questions asked at the forum.
Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer. A professor at St. Thomas who has good taste in names (his daughter is named Naomi), he ran for the 5th District Congrssional seat and attracted lots of enthusiasm but few delegates.
Jim Cohen. An environmentalist, I guess. I don't really know who this guy is. He was as nerdy as Al Franken but without the star power.
Jim got the first opening statement, and he had lots of applause lines (after which he'd pause expectantly) but we'd just been told to hold our applause until the end and he didn't have enough supporters in the audience to convince everyone else to ignore the moderator.
Mike spoke second. His money-shot line: "The Republicans believe we shouldn't have a death tax. I believe we shouldn't have a birth tax." (By which he meant, deficits.)
Al spoke third and I didn't make any notes on what he said. He has a very deadpan style and a slouchy body language -- he had his hand in his pocket and was fidgety in his folding chair.
Jack got a huge round of applause just for standing up -- his supporters had turned out. He told a rather strange story about a nasty cop who ticketed him for having an equals-sign bumper sticker on his car, and this story led somehow into Norm Coleman and what a nasty guy he is, and how he wants to impeach Bush. He and Jim both brought up impeaching Bush repeatedly, but even if they're elected, Bush is going to be leaving office just as they're taking it so how they're planning to impeach him isn't clear. (Oh, also, Senate doesn't vote to impeach, Congress does. Senate votes on whether to remove. That was clearly beside the point to Jim and Jack and much of the audience.)
The first actual question was whether they would abide by the party endorsement. They all said yes.
The next question was about health care. I don't actually remember how the question was phrased, but nearly all of them took more or less the form of, "So. Here's a pressing issue. Whaddya think?"
Al spoke first. Like everyone else, he blamed the high cost of health care on Ed. 34% of health care costs, he said, go to overhead. Ed works at an HMO and does not personally provide health care -- therefore, he's the overhead they're talking about. OK, a teeny tiny part, but still. I'm pretty sure the 34% Al quoted or the 37% Jim quoted includes more than just the people who are there to collect your money -- I'm guessing that it also includes the the IT people who maintain the computer system that sends an antibiotic scrip from the exam room to the pharmacy. It probably also includes the people who mop the clinic floor, stock throat swabs, launder those humiliating gowns they make you wear, and so on. Mike later said that 70% of health care money goes either to preventable disease, or the last month of life, which left me wondering if 4% or 7% of each health care dollar goes to cover the costs of chronically ill or dying paper-pushing bureaucrats or where, exactly, I'd lost the thread of the statistical argument here.
Al's health care plan is to mandate that every state have universal health care, and leave it up to them how to do it. Also, everyone will have to provide single payer for all kids. He noted that kids are cheap and no one blames them for not having insurance. He'd like single-payer for all as an ultimate goal, but doesn't think it's feasible right now. He noted that despite all our problems, 70% of Americans are happy with their health care. He used a line I like, which is, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." That sums up my political philosophy pretty well.
Jack wants to go for single payer. He said that we're going to take back the White House and both the House and the Senate in 2008, therefore it should be possible. (Because, after all, having the House, Senate, and White House helped tons in 1992.) He talked about using "cost mechanisms" to hold down costs but made no elaboration, which is the sort of thing that always makes me twitch. It's really easy to say "we have to hold down costs" and really hard to figure out exactly how you're going to do it, which is why no one's done it already. He said that Al's plan will result in a Mississippi/Minnesota divide, and that we shouldn't compromise before we'd tried to fight.
Jim wants publically funded single payer health care and he wants it now.
Ciresi would not accept the health care Congress gets until universal health care is available, which is an easy stand to take when you're a zillionaire. He wants to focus on creating a universal buy-in coverage option that would truly be available to everyone, even if they have a pre-existing condition. He actually had some very intelligent things to say but he wasn't quite able to cram it all into 2 minutes and stay intelligible.
Next question. Foreclosures? Do they suck, or what, and who should we blame?
Jack blamed the evil predatory lendors and talked about how the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and this sucks.
Jim wants to send predatory lenders to jail.
Mike said that the real question here is how to help the people who are getting foreclosed on. Which is absolutely true, except that then he got really incomprehensible. He used the word "securitized" twice and honestly, I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person but I had no idea what he was talking about. He also talked about how we should be establishing principles for renegotiating mortgages so that the people in North Minneapolis (that is, from the poor side of town) aren't discriminated against while the people in Wayzata and Edina (that is, the rich white suburbs) are unfairly advantaged.
Al wants to have the FHA and Fannie Mae renegotiate mortgages, he wants to change the law so that the predatory lenders CAN be sent to jail, and he wanted to talk about how people would be able to pay their mortgages if they weren't being squeezed financially in other ways. He talked about income inequality, like Jack had, and then segued into reducing the demand on oil.
Next question. The Democratic presidential candidates think we're going to be in Iraq until 2013. Sound good to you?
Jim wants the troops out by April of 2008. He also wants us to renounce our claim on Iraqi oil. He talked about an aggressive program of training the Iraqi military, a multi-national peace conference, and counterterrorism. If we're pulling ALL our troops out by six months from now, who the hell is going to be training the Iraqi military and doing the counterterrorism is not clear to me, frankly, but maybe the counterterrorism/training stuff is based on the correct assumption that our troops are still going to be there next April.
Mike wants to redeploy the troops and convene a peace conference under the auspices of the U.N. Security Council. He then said that the real question here is whether he would oppose a Democratic President. (Which is a good point, although in some ways, the real question here was, 'so, Iraq. Sucks, huh?') He said that he absolutely would be willing to oppose a Democratic President; after all, he opposed Big Tobacco. If this debate is on YouTube, someone could do a drinking game that involved a swig of booze every time Mike mentioned the tobacco lawsuit. If anyone does that, let me know how drunk you are by the end, OK?
Al said, "Heh. Two minutes on Iraq, huh?" He wants to start withdrawing but not precipitously; he thinks we have a moral obligation not to provoke a humanitarian crisis and not to create a wider regional conflict. He noted that the threat to pull out is the only leverage we have right now, both with Maliki and with the larger world community, which is perfectly happy to let our troops get shot in the mess we created, but might step in and help out if they seriously thought we were just going to get the hell out. He said that a regional conference wasn't a plan, it was a goal. That line in particular sounded really snarky. He finished up by saying that Iraq really requires more than two minutes.
Jack started by taking credit for Wellstone's vote against the war. (Apparently Wellstone used to consult with Jack on foreign policy issues. Jack told him the war was a bad idea.) He said that the humanitarian crisis there was created by us. At this point, I got slightly distracted: there was a guy with three restless kids sitting in front of me. One of the kids had hopped up, clutching his crotch and demanding a trip to the bathroom, and the guy had to hustle all three plus all their stuff out of the auditorium. When I tuned back in Jack was saying that we have a moral, ethical, and financial responsibility for the refugees.
Next question: "How strongly would you support a new 9/11 commission?" The moderator then added that they now knew as much about the question as he did, and that they should feel free to answer whatever they thought was being asked here.
Mike went back to talking about the Iraq war, agreeing that two minutes wasn't enough. He said that we need to look at the lessons of the war-- it's further destabilized the middle east, and meanwhile we've withdrawn from decades of multilateral diplomacy. He noted that Bush ignored the situation in Israel for most of his presidency -- seven years in, we have peace talks going in Annapolis, and this shows how much more Bush COULD have done. He also said that we couldn't just get out of Iraq, it takes months to withdraw. This was not a crowd-pleasing comment.
Al actually understood the question and explained that there are people who think 9/11 was an inside job. One of them was the guy sitting to my right, who yelled, "IT WAS!" at the top of his lungs. Al clearly begs to differ, but did say that he wanted a permanent ongoing 9/11 commission. (I was explaining this to Ed after I got home and he said, "Wait, PERMANENT? I mean, how long does he really think we'll need one?") Al noted that neither the 9/11 Commission nor the FBI was allowed to interview Khalid Sheikh Muhammed -- they had to submit questions to the CIA and got answers back from the CIA.
Jack said that we could withdraw our troops in six months, waffled on the commission issue, and said that we should impeach Bush based on what we already know from existing documents and the original 9/11 Commission. He noted that the Iraq war was planned well in advance (by people who called it "America's Grand Strategy") and Bush used 9/11 shamefully to lie us into a pre-planned war.
Jim said that we should find a way to leave Iraq and we should implement the 9/11 committee recommendations.
Next question. Global warming: naturally occuring, or man-made?
Al started by saying that he thought everyone would be in agreement on this one -- it was man-made and we need to do something about it. He wants to build wind turbines and electric cars at the Ford Plant that's closing. He actually had lots of ideas for things we should do, many of them involving the creation of jobs in Minnesota, and he finished off by saying, "this is exciting," in an utterly deadpan tone.
Jack said that this was the single most important issue. He read a report on climate last year and cried for an hour; this is the greatest security threat that we face as a nation. He emphasized that the candidates were NOT all alike here -- for example, Al and Mike won't sign on to the One-Sky Initiative, and he will. He added that not every candidate was for nuclear power. The way he said this implied that he was, which surprised me; you will find the occasional pro-nuclear-power environmentalist but they're a rare breed and he really didn't seem like the type.
Jim talked about founding Will Steiger's foundation with Will Steiger and you know, this was around the time I mostly quit listening to him and my notes get really sketchy. My apologies to his fans who are reading this, if there are any. The sad fact is that your guy has all the dorkiness of Al Franken without the star power, and Al Franken is SERIOUSLY dorky.
Ciresi talked about how his law firm created a green plan to improve their carbon footprint, and he talked about educating people. He also said that the environment is a national security issue and also a jobs issue. He used the word "incentivize." Unlike "securitize," I know what this means, but I still consider it at least a venial sin to actually use it. (Prioritize is OK, though, and of course scrutinize is fine, but incentivize, no. I have to draw the line somewhere.)
Next question. Domestic industrial growth. How are we going to compete with China?
Jack started by clarifying that he DOESN'T support nuclear power. He was clearly a little rattled by his realization that he kind of implied that he did, and tried to clarify who he was talking about but didn't, really. I think he might have been snarking on Amy Klobochar, our other Senator. He wants a domestic Marshall Plan to create industrial jobs doing things like building the solar panels everyone should be sticking on their roof. Also, he wants to pull out of "all so-called free trade agreements."
Jim agrees with Jack about free-trade agreements and it sounds like he'd like to impose tarriffs on imported goods, or maybe just ban them completely. You know, it occurs to me transcribing this that they all missed an opportunity here to rag on China for putting lead in the paint they're putting on children's toys.
Mike believes in informed trade -- during negotiations, there should be people at the table representing environmental and labor interests. He wants to see enforceable environmental standards being put in as part of these trade agreements, so that steel that will be used in the U.S. must be made to American environmental standards, even if the Chinese are making it. He talked about seeing what Indian environmental standards were like during the Bhopal case.
Al said that they all agree that there should be environmental and labor regulation in trade agreements. He went on to blame India and China for global warming -- well, OK, not exactly, but he noted that even if we did EVERYTHING we are supposed to do we will still be screwed unless China and India start using cleaner energy. He wants a Minnesotan to find clean-coal technology and sell it to China and India. I'm not sure they'll be interested in buying it, personally, but if someone comes up with the technology they might be able to persuade the western governments to buy it as a form of foreign aid.
Next question. No Child Left Behind: so, does it suck, or what?
Jim: Yup. It sucks.
Mike: Totally, and incidentally I love early learning.
Al: Sucks so bad, it drove my teacher kid out of teaching!
Jack: Sucks beyond words, and we should cut the military budget by 10% and use the money to fund universal preschool and to make college affordable.
Next question -- oh, this is an actual quote, not a summing-up, just so you know. "Iran. Force, or Diplomacy?" See, they really were pretty general in a "hey, here's an invitation to yack about the following topic in two minutes without even having to go to the trouble of avoiding answering my question" sort of way, but that's OK, it was still interesting to hear them do it.
Mike went back to talk about educaiton a little more and how much NCLB really, truly sucks, and then said that we should go with diplomacy, and noted that Iran is really young. Most Iranian college students are not fans of the mullahs, at all, but the one way we can drive them into fundamentalism would be to start bombing the place.
Al said that Iran was a thorny problem. He said that it would be totally insane to start bombing Iraq. Someone yelled, "You mean Iran." He paused, realized he'd misspoken, and said, "Yes. We already did the insane thing in Iraq, didn't we?" But, Iran with nukes is a really scary idea. He thinks the best solution is sanctions, but those require cooperation. We're getting cooperation from the EU, but not from the Soviet Union -- oops, I mean, Russia. (He was off his game on this answer. The flub on Iraq/Iran was funny, but calling Russia the Soviet Union really cracked me up.) Russia, he noted, was an oil exporter, and they like instability in the Middle East because it drives up prices.
Jack said that just because it was crazy doesn't mean it won't happen. This line would have sounded better if he hadn't said it with such deadly seriousness. He then went on to say that if Iran got the bomb, so what? it wasn't a security threat to US, so who cares. He also noted that Iran learned from Iraq that you're safer with WMDs, which is precisely what I remember predicting via e-mail to a pro-war friend back in 2003 or thereabouts, sigh. And he said that bellicose talk threatens the pro-democracy movement there.
Jim went back to talking about education and wants teachers to get a minimum starting salary of $40K/year. He didn't say who was going to pay for this or how. Regarding Iran, we need "a surge in diplomacy."
Next question was multiple choice. "Which best expresses your stance on gay marriage. (a) They should have full marriage rights. (b) They should have civil unions. (c) They should have domestic partnerships. (c) They shouldn't have anything."
Al's answer on this one was really lovely. He said, "They should have the right to marry. I've been married for 32 years and it's the best thing that's ever happened to me." He had his wife stand up briefly and be recognized and talked a little about how awesome she was and how glad he was to be married to her. He compared this issue to interracial marriage and said that he hoped that in 40 years we'd look at it as a non-issue. Then he said that a few weeks back he ran into Newt Gingrich and he said, "Newt, come on. Don't you want gay couples to have the joy you had back in your first marriage? ...or the fidelity you had in your second? ...or the lifelong commitment you maybe have in your third?" Then he said, "Do you know who has the lowest divorce rate in the country? Massachusetts. Gay marriage is not a threat."
Go, Al.
Jack said he supported the right to marry and would fight for that right. He added that he was worried about the upcoming election and whether the right-wing would start stirring up hatred against gays, and also against immigrants. And then he talked about immigrants.
Jim said, "Love is love is love." But he considers marriage "a divisional word." He said this in a convoluted way, but he wants civil unions with the rights of marriage. And honestly, most of my gay friends are sort of with him on this -- they don't give a shit what it's called so long as it accomplishes the same legal things. But I still liked Al's answer better.
Mike said that he supports whatever the state wants to call it, and that he doesn't support a constitutional amendment either way. Which is probably a much more electable stance but I still like Al's answer better. He noted his early support for ENDA but forgot to say what it stood for (Employment Non-Discrimination Act, if you're wondering -- two of the people sitting near me had no clue) and then followed Jack's lead to segue into immigration.
Next question. Are you pro-choice? Do you support any restrictions on abortion?
Jack said he supported no restrictions beyond the current law, and said that he lived in Nicaragua in the 1980s and one of the biggest killers of women was illegal abortion. (Ed heard this and wanted the details on the Nicaragua thing, but I didn't know any more than that.) He also wants to make adoption easier and promote global family planning and the empowerment of women.
Jim said he was absolutely pro-choice with absolutely no restrictions whatsoever.
Mike is pro-choice and is tired of Republicans who want to get government out of our lives except that they want government interfering with abortion, and marriage, and education...
Al wants abortion to be safe, legal, and rare, and talked about the things that Clinton did that actually reduced the abortion rate. He talked about reducing poverty (because some women have abortions because they don't believe they can support a baby) and offering universal health care. Somewhere in here he talked about educating girls, and someone yelled, "Boys too!" and he looked chagrined and agreed that yes, we should be educating girls and boys and men and women.
Closing statements. I didn't make any notes on Jack, but he got lots of applause that went on well after he'd handed off the microphone to Al and sat down. Al was then standing there with the microphone as people were still applauding, and he caved to the temptation (seriously, you could see it happen) and said "thank you!" and then turned and grinned at Jack with this "yeah, I'm a comedian and I couldn't resist" grin. And then he gave a closing statement about talking to college students who've had George Bush as president since they were 11 years old and can't imagine a government that's competent. He used the line, "We're a great nation!...when we're a good nation." (i.e., when we're not starting wars, waterboarding prisoners, leaving hurricane victims to drown, etc.) Which is the sort of thing I'll say, but not if I'm running for senate and trying to win in a general election, and it's a good illustration of what makes me nervous about Al as a candidate. He sounded pessimistic and cynical and dark and negative, and while he's exactly the sort of person I'd invite to a party at my house, I think the conventional wisdom -- that the population as a whole wants perky optimists who think it's Morning in America in the Town Called Hope -- is pretty accurate.
Ciresi went after Al on that, kind of, saying that when HE talks to college students they're hopeful and optimistic, and then he pandered to me and my nervous-nelly ilk by being all hopefully and optimistic and morning-in-the-town-called-hope-esque for the rest of his speech. He does a good job with it.
Then Jim blew the limit so thoroughly the timekeeper started just dinging the bell over and over and over. I don't remember anything he said, just that he talked for too damn long.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-29 02:41 pm (UTC)I like Franken, but his personal style works for a comedian and writer, but not a politican. I suspect Ciresi will get the nomination, as the most experienced and acceptable to the party bigwigs. And I really, really hope whoever gets it can get Coleman the f**k out. Anyone his home town won't vote for....(he lost St Paul by a wide margin)
no subject
Date: 2007-11-29 04:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-29 03:51 pm (UTC)a;obrgwergqaw.km,sadf fngrs num
srsly I wish this guy would shut up about his various lawsuits again. Last I knew those were hardly pro bono crusades. OMG I "took on" the tobacco companies. Like he risked assassination or something?
On the up side, I loved his answer on NCLB and abortion rights.
Al wants abortion to be safe, legal, and rare, and talked about the things that Clinton did that actually reduced the abortion rate. He talked about reducing poverty (because some women have abortions because they don't believe they can support a baby) and offering universal health care. Somewhere in here he talked about educating girls, and someone yelled, "Boys too!" and he looked chagrined and agreed that yes, we should be educating girls and boys and men and women.
I hate this answer so, so much. He said the exact same thing the last place I heard him speak. This guy may have the best answer on gay marriage but he has the worst on abortion.
Sometimes I like Franken, he'll have me nodding, and then he'll open his mouth about abortion, which he CLEARLY knows NOTHING about, and I want to kick him in the face. I talked at length to his head staffer about how and why this position was offensive and it was totally in one ear and out the other, apparently.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-30 03:22 am (UTC)(btw, I'm pro-choice, so this is just a self-education question)
Naomi, if you'd prefer I ask this elsewhere, please let me know, and feel free to delete this.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-30 01:54 pm (UTC)1) "Safe, legal, rare" implies that abortion is a bad thing that really should be gotten rid of, and/or that a woman having an abortion has somehow failed. It plays right into the arguments of the pro-life side.
2) His profession that women get abortions because they can't afford to have the children not only plays into pro-life stereotypes (women all want to have every child because we are squishy earth-mothers destroyed by circumstances) but also again plays into pro-life arguments, because it implies that if we just fund pregnancy, women won't have to get these evil abortions they don't really want.
It also angers me because it's so obviously not true to anyone who works with women who have abortions. There are millions of reasons why women get abortions and most of the time they have several reasons. My experience is that no matter how much money they may have, often women just aren't ready for a child at the time they get pregnant, and that's the primary reason they get the abortion.
Other factors play in too, but the sanctimonious attitude that women who have abortions are all pitiful victims of poverty and fate is really offensive.
I am concerned primarily with abortion access and female empowerment to make free decisions. Both of these are reduced by this kind of rhetoric from "pro-choice" activists/politicians. They focus on reducing abortion as their platform plank instead of ensuring abortion access (and other choice access). They do this to get votes by piously condemning abortion as a necessary evil. But in fact, this tacitly supports the pro-life groups' contention that abortion is evil and should be gotten rid of. I mean, if it's so bad that reducing it is our main goal, shouldn't we just pass lots of restrictions and/or plain outlaw it?
The rhetoric he uses also makes it completely plain that he has never spoken to women who have had abortions, nor will he ever bother. He's got a white-man's-burden kind of attitude: 1) it's poor women who have abortions (obviously women with money wouldn't, right!), 2) WE privileged folk can lift them out of poverty; 3) then they won't have those naughty abortions, huzzah! In reality, it's just as likely that his daughter has had/will have an abortion as any "impoverished woman" he patronizes.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-30 03:47 pm (UTC)(*and goes off to think*)
no subject
Date: 2007-11-30 04:17 pm (UTC)6) he completely overlooks abortion access as a concern. He's all about how women are too poor to have kids - it doesn't even OCCUR to him that some women are too poor to have abortions, and in most states there is no abortion funding even for the poorest women. It's obvious he doesn't understand how for some women scraping together $350 is impossible.
What would I LIKE to hear? something like this:
no subject
Date: 2007-11-30 06:46 pm (UTC)* The fact that the number of abortions falls as poverty falls and as access to health care rises is a pretty good evidence that some women are having them primarily for economic reasons. If a woman wants an abortion for the straightforward reason that she's pregnant and doesn't want a kid, then fine, but if she is having an abortion because she feels that she has no other option, then -- as a pro-choice woman -- I have a huge problem with that situation, and I think this indicates a societal problem that we need to address.
* An abortion is surgery. Or, if you have a chemical abortion, it's more or less a prematurely induced labor. I haven't had an abortion, but I've had surgery, and surgery is really no fun at all. Neither, for that matter, is labor. I mean, really, this is something that is worth avoiding when possible for the same reason that you'd avoid an appendectomy or a root canal or a colonoscopy or any other unpleasant medical procedure. Again, if people are getting pregnant when they don't want to be because of a lack of access to contraception and/or the morning after pill -- and they are -- this is a societal problem that needs to be addressed.
* There are millions and millions of Americans who support legal access to abortion but who are uncomfortable with the morality of abortion, particularly late-term abortion, not because they're all about controlling women or punishing people for having sex, but because they've looked at pictures of developing fetuses (or ultrasounds of their own developing uterine occupant) and thought, "you know, that really does look like a baby." These people are not the enemy. Defining these people as the enemy or as profoundly misguided dupses of the religious right is counterproductive.
* The idea that "if it's so bad that reducing it is our main goal, shouldn't we just pass lots of restrictions and/or plain outlaw it?" is IMO falling into the trap of the right wing's absolutist rhetoric. This is making their case for them with the millions of people who are never going to NOT be uncomfortable with the morality of abortion. The pro-choice movement spent decades convincing people that it's OK to support access to safe, legal abortion even if you're not 100% sold on abortions as a fully moral act; that you can be both uncomfortable with abortion AND uncomfortable with the idea of making this choice for other people. The, "you can be personally pro-life but politically pro-choice" concept is a GREAT position and stakes out territory in the mainstream and it makes me sad that the pro-choice movement seems to have made the decision to abandon it.
* Confession time: I am personally uncomfortable with abortion, because I looked at the ultrasound of my own personal uterine occupant -- well before she was viable, and at a point when it was still fully legal in this state to abort her -- playing with her feet and doing somersaults in there, and thought, You know, that really does look and act a lot like a baby. But I was also just coming off of several months of garden-variety and not-terribly-severe but really misery-inducing morning sickness. Pregnancy is not a lot of fun, even when you WANT a baby. It's not something anyone should have to go through against their will. Ditto labor. So yes, I suppose abortion rights, because no one should be forced to be pregnant and give birth. And yes, I think abortion should be rare -- at the very least, I think that women should not be forced by circumstance to choose abortion. And I think this is the position of the majority of Americans, and I really don't have a problem with Al Franken embracing it.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-30 07:55 pm (UTC)From the tone of your comment, I doubt you work much with women who have had abortions. How many have you spoken to about it? Is this an issue you have any personal connection with?
The fact that the number of abortions falls as poverty falls and as access to health care rises is a pretty good evidence that some women are having them primarily for economic reasons.
First, I have no evidence of those numbers. Second, even if there are such numbers, obviously correlation does not equal causation. Glaringly missing are any numbers regarding, e.g., the pregnancy rates; the reasons for abortion; whether the women in the higher income bracket had different circumstances (later-in-life pregnancies, supportive partners, higher desire for children, number of existing children, access to birth control). You're making assumptions that are not scientifically justified.
Personally I am sure that there are at least some women out there having abortions PURELY for economic reasons. I am also sure that this is a small minority. I personally know about a dozen people IRL, not to mention my extensive experience online, who have had abortions, including myself, and for none of them was money a significant concern.
There are millions and millions of Americans who support legal access to abortion but who are uncomfortable with the morality of abortion, * * * these people are not the enemy
I never said (or implied) that anyone was the enemy. You're putting words in my mouth.
As for what other Americans are comfortable with, I personally am extremely uncomfortable with many practices and ideas involved in Catholicism. How my discomfort should apply to your right to religious freedom, I've no idea. I do not know why other Americans need to be comfortable with what I do with my own body.
is IMO falling into the trap of the right wing's absolutist rhetoric. This is making their case for them
Why yes it is! My point exactly! The pro-choice movement and politicians have made the suicidal decision to brand abortion as terrible and bad. That will necessarily lead people to the conclusion that it should be gotten rid of, just like when something is branded as desireable and good, people are lead to the conclusion that it should be obtained.
An abortion is surgery.
Really? How much do you know about "surgical" abortion?
I mean, really, this is something that is worth avoiding when possible for the same reason that you'd avoid an appendectomy
Mr. Franken's position is that we should avoid having abortions by making it financially possible for women to go into labor. Not only is labor even more unpleasant than abortion (and yes, I've done both), it's also over ten times more likely to result in a woman's death.
No one is against birth control here, but that's about reducing unwanted pregnancy, not about reducing abortion. To say that "reducing abortion" is the goal again plays right into right-wing hands.
The, "you can be personally pro-life but politically pro-choice" concept is a GREAT position * * * it makes me sad that the pro-choice movement seems to have made the decision to abandon it.
I have no idea what on earth makes you think that "the pro-choice movement has decided to abandon" that position. there is not a pro-choice movement on the face of the earth that does not take that position, and that is exactly why I am uncomfortable with the modern pro-choice movement.
because I looked at the ultrasound of my own personal uterine occupant
I had an ultrasound last week. I wonder if you have ever considered that an ultrasound is a picture of the inside of A WOMAN'S BODY.
You know, that really does look and act a lot like a baby.
It could BE a 22-yr-old MAN and I would still say the woman would be justified in using whatever means necessary to stop him from using her body without her consent.
I am personally uncomfortable with abortion
And how should that affect another woman's rights?
no subject
Date: 2007-11-30 09:39 pm (UTC)My intent was not to put words into your mouth, but rather to address the argument as a whole, which I've heard many times now from a number of sources. (Most frequently at the Pandagon blog, which I read regularly.)
And how should that affect another woman's rights?
It shouldn't. I think I said that. But it does mean that I think that it's a good thing that the number of abortions fell during the Clinton presidency.
I'm not going to address the rest of this comment. As it happens, abortion in general is an issue I've mostly tried to avoid discussing on my blog, because it's contentious and emotional, and I have no interest in pissing off my friends, my sisters' friends, my readers, my in-laws, etc., etc., etc. Or in getting them pissed off at each other, for that matter.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-30 10:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-30 07:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-30 07:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-29 04:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-30 03:19 am (UTC)Wow, this is one of the scariest things I've ever read:
"And then he gave a closing statement about talking to college students who've had George Bush as president since they were 11 years old and can't imagine a government that's competent."