this has been beat to death, but
i haven't taken any whacks at it yet. i'll at least keep it brief. beginning with a paraphrase:
"i believe life begins and conception but i support abortion anyway!"
the century is young, but this has got to be a strong contender for its dumbest statement. say what you want about the atrocities bush has wrought upon the english language, at least there's a coherent ideology down there somewhere. but this...this is madness.
when a catholic--pretender or otherwise--talks about "life at conception," he's talking about personhood, about ensoulment, about the moment where God Himself imprints upon biology that miraculous energy which makes what would otherwise be a humble mass of cells uniquely human, and, more than that, an image of the Divine. what kerry effectively said was "yeah, i believe all of that. kill it anyway."
now i want you all to consider that for a moment, especially you pro-choicers. here is a presidential candidate who claims he believes--really, truly, deeply believes--that millions of persons are being deprived of their constitutional right to life without even the pretext of due process, and he supports it. "I oppose abortion...[but] I can't take my Catholic belief..and legislate it," kerry says. well then what beliefs can you legislate? an aborted fetus is no less person and no less dead, by kerry's logic, than the sudanese Christians who are being butchered by rampaging islamic hordes hell bent for genocide. does he have a right to force his quaint morality on them? why would such a man even want to lead? why would anyone want to let him?
you don't have to be a political mastermind to see what's going on here. kerry is caught between catholic voters and a south he refuses to cede on the one side, and one of the most radically pro-choice voting records on the other. and so john kerry does what john kerry always does when he comes to a fork in the road, he takes it.
the good news for kerry is that his constituency is either too stupid or too enraged at bush (usually both) to care. were that not the case, he would have done himself far, far more damage voting for the 40 million dead babies before he voted against them than were he to have had the courage to take a stand and be wrong.
locdog isn't prepared to say that the courage to be wrong is all you need to be a leader, but he will say that you cannot lead without it
how many americas are there now?
here's my obligatory john edwards post.
i think that john kerry is already slightly to the left of karl marx, and the addition of edwards has pushed him further still. that's really the only part of this topic that holds any interest for me, because, honestly...what else is there to talk about?
edwards will overshadow kerry? kerry could be overshadowed by a piece of navel lint.
edwards will trounce cheney when the veeps square off? well duh, but so what? people don't vote for vice presidents.
edwards has breathed new wind into kerry's flagging sails? doubtless so, but doesn't that just underscore the absurdity of the whole thing? after failing to land the circus-stunt kerry/mccain ticket which would have really been mccain/kerry, we now have a kerry/edwards ticket that's really edwards/kerry. once more, kerry's problem...well, see the aforementioned lint, navel.
what the addition of comrade edwards really says to me is that kerry figures he's got the national security thing locked up, and wants someone to help him on the domestic side, especially in the south. so kerry is unwilling to concede the south, eh?
good. that means he's going to be wasting valuable time and money in a region he can't possibly win while bush need only make a cursory effort, then move on to battlegrounds like pennsylvania. what, kerry's now competitive in the Bible Belt because he's picked up the breck girl? what makes kerry think a mere veep can do for him what mr. tennessee himself, al gore, failed to do in 2000?
getting back to comrade edwards, he of the "two americas," with whom, exactly, is his message expected to resonate? transplanted soviet hardliners? latin american guerillas? according to edwards, america is a land of a handful of nobles and millions of serfs. except the "serfs" he calls "middle class," because, i suppose, "proletariat" bombed in the focus groups. i won't make too much of the staggering idiocy involved in calling one of two classes "middle," except to say that the average edwards man must be the sort who thinks that when mcdonald's says "medium, large, and extra-large," they’re giving you a bargain and that spinal tap's amps really go to 11. i guess it's no worse than trying to convince a nation full of the wealthiest human beings who have ever lived that they're stuck back in czarist russia.
but if edwards has got you convinced then--guess what!--you're already a kerry voter! if you think that the rich are evil and have everything they have because they stole it off of you, it's because you're in the AARP, you're in a union, or you're on welfare. if you work for a living, you don't buy the whole class warfare thing. americans never have, and they never will.
apparently kerry's political instincts are on par with his animal magnetism, because he's adopted edwards' worker's uprising spiel along with his jimmy-johnson-helmet-hair. it's now kerry's goal to invent a third america, not a fair, free america where hard working people are rewarded while the lazy starve, but one where everyone is treated exactly the same, hard workers and lazy alike. so if you're lazy, you'll be delighted with the addition of john edwards and vote for the third america. but you were going to do that anyway.
really, locdog doesn't see what's changed