Still Better than Kerry

According to the latest Zogby poll, our president is unpopular. When put in a head to head contest with recent ex-presidents, he loses to every one - even to Jimmy Carter. These of course are hypothetical match ups. The interesting thing is that, according to the poll, HE STILL BEATS JOHN KERRY. It just goes to show that when people have to make real world choices, they are a little more circumspect. After all the beating Bush has taken, opinions really haven’t changed that much.

Posted by Jack at September 15, 2005 11:03 AM
Comments
Comment #80626

J. Anthony Matel,

Correct me if I’m wrong. Your stance is that Bush is viewed, based on his actions, by the American people, as being a lousy President. But what is more important than the poor leadership displayed by our actual President (Reality), we should turn our attention to the fact that 1/2 the country would not vote for a man who is not the president.
Huh?

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at September 15, 2005 11:50 AM
Comment #80631

The margin of error is plus or minus 2.9% How can you say that Bush won? Oh wait, this is fox news, I mean, a republican site.

Posted by: Mark at September 15, 2005 12:17 PM
Comment #80634

I don’t know Mark and Andre-I clicked the link and it looked like the Zogby website to me-not Fox News.

Posted by: Angela at September 15, 2005 12:44 PM
Comment #80635

That Margin of error should about make up for all the dead people and fraudulent votes the Dems usually want counted in every election. LOL

Posted by: Mark at September 15, 2005 12:46 PM
Comment #80638

My point is that the Dems are not supplying any alternatives and that most people would probably vote today as they voted last year. The Dems jump on Bush every opportunity, but don’t have a positive vision. The Republicans in congress are also unpopular, but not as unpopular as the Dems in congress. All this negativity is making everyone unpopular. It is easier to tear down than to build.

I have also seen this same thing in Europe. Chirac’s numbers are lower than Bush’s. Schroeder is generally disliked.

This seems to be a trend. Maybe the better question than why is Bush unpopular is why are most major politicians unpopular?

Posted by: Jack at September 15, 2005 12:57 PM
Comment #80644

I think that the reason that most leaders are unpopular is that not just in America, but world wide, we have all become involved in the blame game. It is always someone elses fault when things are not perfect. No one will accept responsibility and find it easier to just whine about things than do what they can to make them better.

Posted by: Kevin at September 15, 2005 1:17 PM
Comment #80645

Opinions haven’t changed much? Bush’s approval rating has dropped from over 90% to less than 50%! That’s an opinion change if ever there was one. And no matter HOW you try to spin that, it spells trouble for the GOP in the upcoming elections.

And I find it highly hypocritical to claim that the Dems “are not supplying any alternative” because the Republican platform for the last twenty years has consisted of one thing and one thing only - to undo the things accomplished by Democrats.

Posted by: ElliottBay at September 15, 2005 1:18 PM
Comment #80647

I wouldn’t read too much into this, Jack, other than a lesson in psychology. It’s the American way to back a winner, not a loser, and except for a few diehard election-fraud theorists, Kerry is just a guy that lost.

Posted by: William Cohen at September 15, 2005 1:27 PM
Comment #80665

So let me get this right. You’re whole point that on a poll where there’s about a 2% margin of error the president isn’t the most unpopular on the list by about 2%? Umm..yay?

Posted by: chantico at September 15, 2005 2:12 PM
Comment #80677

I’d say it’s sad that you have to turn around and claim “But he’d still win against Kerry!”

I tell you what: If Bush had shown this lack of leadership last summer, he would have joined his father in one-term territory.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 15, 2005 2:33 PM
Comment #80679

Of course, he still hasn’t turned his attention to the vitally important public policy issues, like permanent repeal of the estate tax. That oughta help him!

Posted by: bobo at September 15, 2005 2:37 PM
Comment #80689

Mark:
Can you give me a source for your statements, I’d like to assess the Validity of the charges you have made.
IMHO
I remember in 2000, some 6,000 to 12,000 voters in Florida were taken off the the roles of Eligibility Frauduently at the behest of the FLORIDA GOVERNOR’s head of elections under the direction of your President’s Very own Brother, Jeb. Emperor George II’s, and his posse claimed they knew nothing, but don’t you find it a little blatent that the head of elections for the state of Florida, Wound up a “Bushco” insider? Would you care to explain that. REGISTERED VOTER’S with NO Criminal Records or other disqualifications, showing up to vote, only to be told that they were not registered or had been removed without explanation of why or better yet “HOW” their names had “Mysteriously, under a shroud of secrecy” been removed from the ranks of Registered Voters. Why is it that when it comes to presidential campaigns since 1972, the only complaints of “Irregularities” are usually hurled at the GOP….Watergate, et al.

That Margin of error should about make up for all the dead people and fraudulent votes the Dems usually want counted in every election. LOL Posted by Mark at September 15, 2005 12:46 PM
Posted by: wayne at September 15, 2005 3:06 PM
Comment #80693

Well this could also be explained by the lack of any significant difference between Bush and Kerry. Kerry basically held all the same positions as Bush, and just diffrentiated himself by the claim of competance. This is the same problem the dems have now as a whole. They have been working for the same corporate sponsors that the reps do. At least the reps don’t make bother to hide the fact they are on the corporate payroll. The dems are but try to hide it, and that never works. Most progressives fail to see any difference between the two parties, with the exception of the groups they choose to pay lip service to (minority rights or extremist christians). I don’t see any party actually representing the common everyday people anymore on a national level. Clinton was just a moderate republican after all, and his party only moved further right since he was in office.

Posted by: John at September 15, 2005 3:21 PM
Comment #80694

Those numbers seem to fail to account for the fact that since Bush ran against Kerry, points lost by Bush would likely be gained by Kerry. Thus, any comparison of Bush’s approval rating to the percent of votes earned by Kerry is misleading.

Posted by: Erika at September 15, 2005 3:32 PM
Comment #80700

Oh how I dream of politicans to come along and acutally care about the job and the role of serving the american people. You know how Derek Jeter dreamed of being a baseball player his whole life, regardless of the pay; or Tiger Woods a golfer. Why is it that most times I see a politican (rep. or dem.), I see egotistical, power-hungry creeps with pockets stuffed with special interests. Seems to me that Bush or Kerry, the bottom line is the government is layers on top of layers thick of people who have lost (or never had) the sense of the purpose of their position. Let’s stop relagating ourselves to one side or another. Talking to reps or dems, it seems that once you get past all the chest-out, peacock feathers ideals on either side; most people share a common feeling of what is sensible on any issue. “Bush is still better than Kerry.” Why even post that?

Posted by: James at September 15, 2005 4:01 PM
Comment #80710

I love this!! You guys keep up the whinning and we’ll keep winning the elections. I’m glad we have a President that leads by what he thinks is right and not polls. The previous one lead by sticking his finger in the wind to see what was popular. Is that your example of leadership? Bush has made a lot of mistakes…just like the rest. If you care to check the history books, you would notice a lot of famous leaders (i.e. Churchill) had low approvals at times.

By the way, Elliotbay, if that was all there was to the Republican platform (and it is not), it would be fine by me…there’s plenty of “accomplishments” aka “crap” to undo!

Posted by: KJ at September 15, 2005 4:19 PM
Comment #80714

KJ, we generally try to keep it polite around here. Just because you do not agree that accomplishments of past administrations were good does not mean you should call them crap. Most issues taken on by the government are complex, and while most of us have opinions as to which solutions are better, none of us know what is right or that the other side’s ideas are wrong. If you think that you do, you are just deluding yourself.

Posted by: Erika at September 15, 2005 4:28 PM
Comment #80718

The polls disagree, actually. The most recent CNN/USA today poll puts Bush’s approval rating at 46% and Rasmussen has him at 47%. Just a few points less than where they had him when he won the last election.

It’s undeniable that his ratings have slipped, but surprisingly little considering the unrelenting barrage of negative press. And not at all unusual for a second term administration.

I see the numbers as terrible news for the Democrats, actually, because they show that between 42 and 47 percent of the voting public is going to support a Republican president no matter what and that the middle is a lot smaller than it used to be.

It’s one thing not to like Bush, who is never going to run for office again. It’s another to actually prefer any specific Democratic candidate.

Add that 42-47 percent firm Republican base to a Giuliani or McCain candidacy, and either candidate wins in walk. There are plenty of Republicans who don’t prefer Giuliani or McCain, but that’s a far cry from preffering Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton or any other Democratic candidate you could name.

The pool of Democratic national figures with broad appeal is very shallow compared to what the Republicans can offer, and Bush’s fortunes are largely irrelevant to this equation.

Posted by: sanger at September 15, 2005 4:32 PM
Comment #80732

Erika, thanks for defining “politeness” for me…and thanks for pointing that government decisions are complex…and thanks for pointing out that it’s okay to have an opinion but it’s not okay to think it’s right. I never knew…

Posted by: KJ at September 15, 2005 5:09 PM
Comment #80735

well said sanger

Posted by: Kj at September 15, 2005 5:12 PM
Comment #80737

KJ, you’re welcome. I always try to help those in need.

Posted by: Erika at September 15, 2005 5:15 PM
Comment #80742

KJ, don’t fall for that particular definition of “politeness.” As long as you’re not insulting and name calling posters, you’re perfectly entitled to call the accomplishments of past administrations “crap.”

That’s mild language compared to what the current administration gets accused of dozens a time a day around here. And what’s more, “crap” is such a remarkably accurate description when talking about Clinton that you can hardly be expected to avoid it.

Posted by: sanger at September 15, 2005 5:31 PM
Comment #80743

Erika, most people’s needs are complex and while it’s okay for you to have an opinion and to offer such help, it is somewhat arrogant (if that’s polite enough) to assume that you actually helped.

I am just having a little fun :)…God bless liberals!

Posted by: Kj at September 15, 2005 5:39 PM
Comment #80745

I know sanger…I was being facetious :)

Posted by: Kj at September 15, 2005 5:43 PM
Comment #80748

…and I thought “crap” was dead on but a little mild for the liberal and/or socialist policies of the past (in my delusional opinion)

Posted by: Kj at September 15, 2005 5:48 PM
Comment #80750

Jack,

Unusually, you missed a trick here. The BBC just released a poll about how much people trust politicians (13% apparently). Maybe George Bush scores 15% and John Kerry scores 12%, what a victory for all sides.

Perhaps most worryingly, when North Americans (Canada and the US) were asked “Are your elections free and fair?”, only 55% said yes. When people were asked “Who would you give more power to?”, almost 40% of North Americans answered religious leaders, and when they were asked how they defined themselves, more defined themselves by religion than by nationality. Perhaps something more to worry about than who would win an election tomorrow?

Posted by: Paul at September 15, 2005 5:52 PM
Comment #80756

The word “crap”, in so far as it implies misguided and unacceptable is fine. However, the word also implies a complete inability to see why people might have thought the ideas were good. Such blindness is both juvinile and naive. To indicate policies of past administrations were failures, say they are failures. If you use “crop” for rhetorical effect, you can do better; just try.

Posted by: Erika at September 15, 2005 6:05 PM
Comment #80763

Erika, what does “crop” have to do with this now?

If I were to say that the Clinton administration produced a bumper crop of crap, that would be an accurate statement, but mixing metaphors tends to diminish their rhetorical power.

Posted by: sanger at September 15, 2005 6:27 PM
Comment #80768

“The word crap, in so far as it implies misguided and unacceptable is fine. However, the word also implies a complete inability to see why people might have thought the ideas were good. Such blindness is both juvinile and naive. To indicate policies of past administrations were failures, say they are failures. If you use crop for rhetorical effect, you can do better; just try.

Posted by: Erika at September 15, 2005 06:05 PM”

Are we being graded on this, Teacher?

Posted by: tomd at September 15, 2005 6:42 PM
Comment #80775

ElliottBay
And I find it highly hypocritical to claim that the Dems are not supplying any alternative because the Republican platform for the last twenty years has consisted of one thing and one thing only - to undo the things accomplished by Democrats.

And they’re getting elected on it. Doesn’t say much for the Dems platform.

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 15, 2005 6:55 PM
Comment #80781

If I see Bush with his suite sleeves rolled up, then I’ll be in pressed

Posted by: Layne at September 15, 2005 7:06 PM
Comment #80782

President Bush won re-election for two reasons and two reasons only:

1. If Bush had lost it would have been the first time in this country’s history that we voted out a sitting President in time of war. History was on Bush’s side.
2. The Karl Rove Republican slime machine is by now very well-practiced, and did a great hatchet job on John Kerry.

Posted by: ElliottBay at September 15, 2005 7:13 PM
Comment #80792

Kerry’s current play comes mostly from the fact that Bush actually has a media presence right now, where Kerry has returned to being the Junior senator from Massachussetts.

Still, with the margin of victory as low as it was, I would imagine that if we played events over again with the added disapproval coming from Katrina, it would be more than sufficient to Knock Bush off. This, I’d gather, would come from the backlash adding to Kerry’s only marginal loss.

The sad thing here is that you’re having to compare your president to the man he defeated to distract from the fact that his approval hasn’t carried over from the election.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 15, 2005 7:46 PM
Comment #80804

I have a bottle of nice champagne in the refrigerator…a leftover from last New Year’s Eve. My question is:

Should I hold onto said champagne for this coming New Year’s Eve, or should I crack it open now to toast the “not so bad” goodness of a president with a 39% approval rating?

Remember, this is really good champagne…

Posted by: Mister Magoo at September 15, 2005 8:48 PM
Comment #80806

On the other hand, if this were an election year, the White House would be working harder to get out in front of negative press.

If Bob Dole were given an electoral rematch right after the Lewinsky scandal broke, HE might have won. These what-ifs are pointless. Kerry will not win the Democratic nomination again, so he’s already a living historical footnote.

What’s more interesting is the future, and the obvious fact that Democrats have nobody that could come close to matching the wide appeal of McCain or Giuliani. McCain faces a bigger challenge winning the Republican primary than winning the general election—and Giulani’s personal baggage presents him with the same problem, though the Chrisian right will sooner vote for either of these than allow a second Clinton presidency.

Posted by: sanger at September 15, 2005 8:56 PM
Comment #80875

just remember Ronald Reagans lowest polling was 38%
history has not yet been written

Posted by: scottie at September 16, 2005 7:14 AM
Comment #80879

Has Kerry even come back from France yet?

Posted by: dawn at September 16, 2005 8:43 AM
Comment #80908

I think he is still there sowing another crop of crap. Of course the highly enlightened will think that statement is juvinile (or juvenile, depending on how you want to spell it) I realize that I have no right to think any spelling is actually correct.

Posted by: Kj at September 16, 2005 11:20 AM
Comment #80910

Stephen Daugherty:

These are my Humble opinions.
That Junior Senator, Has served this Nation for some 20 plus years, Something That Your President can’t Lay claim to (8 years x 365 days + 2 days minus in excess of 500 (and increasing) days of vacation thus far) we will be hard pressed to get 6 years of service from your President. Number of days To undo the damage he and his henchman have done, Countless. Remind you of a credit card commercial….If only it were so simple, I know Carl Rove needs to rest Sometimes as well. IMHO

As Always,
Wayne

Oh I forgot the Presidents National Guard Time Okay so forgive …plus 7 days or so, he doesn’t have the Foggiest Recolection.
IMHO

Posted by: wayne at September 16, 2005 11:26 AM
Comment #80915
just remember Ronald Reagans lowest polling was 38% history has not yet been written

Posted by scottie at September 16, 2005 07:14 AM

Scottie:
Thirtyeight percent (38%) you say, wasn’t the tax rate for the poor in America during the Raygun years or was that the interest rate paid to the wealthiest citizens On $100K investments?

To use his (Ray Gun’s) words: “I can’t recall”.

As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: wayne at September 16, 2005 11:46 AM
Comment #80921

Sanger-
The What-Ifs are pointless, especially ones about whether Bush would defeat Kerry today. Kerry isn’t out there able to make speeches about what he would do to reform disaster relief in America, or doing any other kind of campaigning.

In terms of McCain or Giuliani, though I would prefer America turns to a Democrat, competent, trully prepared, trully experienced leaders like them are more appealing to me at the moment than our current president.

I think we got our share of good people, and we have something else on our side: a public wondering whether they can take another four years of Republican leadership.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 16, 2005 12:13 PM
Comment #80945

Are you for real you are proud of the fact that John F. Kerry has bilked his country for 20 plus years in the senate? The problems with our government in my estimation have less to do with any president, Republican or Democrat, than you realize. Our Congress has a pension plan for christ sakes. I don’t believe that our forefathers ever intended for a seat in congress to become a career. To the contrary they intended this to be a citizen government in which congressmen went and served their country for 2, 4, 6, or 8 years and then returned to whatever it was they were doing before. Instead we have congressmen and senators who stay for 20 or more years and make a profession out of it and become beholden to every kind of slimy special interest there is so they can get re-elected. Not a damn one of them has the working mans interest at heart. The Republicans believe in big government and Democrats believe in bigger government.

Posted by: stonecold at September 16, 2005 2:29 PM
Comment #80949

Wayne,
Calling Reagan “Ray Gun” is not very polite. Additionally, in so far as it implies lasers, proper names or weapons, it is fine. However, the word also implies a complete inability to see why people might have thought his ideas were good. Such blindness is both juvinile and naive (and even juvenile). To indicate policies of past administrations were failures, say they are failures. We’re supposed to “just give it a try.”

Posted by: Kj at September 16, 2005 2:50 PM
Comment #80964
The Republicans believe in big government and Democrats believe in bigger government.
Actually you’ve got this backwards, and if you don’t believe me, just look at the Federal financial statements for the last 25 years or so. I do agree that neither party is about small government.
Posted by: Charles Wager at September 16, 2005 3:46 PM
Comment #81000

Lyndon Johnsons great society ring a bell. Or just look no further than Robert Bird. The Republicans have only controlled Congress for 12 of the last 25 years.

Posted by: stonecold at September 16, 2005 5:59 PM
Comment #81035

The Republicans used to be about small government, but no longer, which is why I said to look at the last 25 years or so and not further back. Yes, the Democrats controlled Congress during Reagan and Bush senior’s reign, but a Republican president did have to propose and sign off on the budget so you can’t blame it all on the Democrats. Furthermore, there’s absolutely no excuse for the last five years of Bush junior’s policy of borrow and spend with one hand while giving tax cuts with the other. Republicans can’t even claim that Bush doesn’t represent their interests, because the Republican controlled Congress does nothing to stop it. Big spenders or not, at least the Democrats are fiscally responsible about it whereas Republicans will continue to borrow money forever (rather than raise taxes) to try to hide their excessive spending.

Posted by: Charles Wager at September 16, 2005 7:42 PM
Comment #81057

Utterly amazing article Jack.

“My president sucks….. but not as bad as your president… well uh… presidental candidate… uh…. that lost”

Truly amazing.

Posted by: Taylor at September 16, 2005 9:03 PM
Comment #81093

The Democrats sit on their hands and do nothing. Not proactive at all. The Republicans are doers. It is because of the Democrats that terrorism got to where it is. The administration before Bush sat on their hands and it all got dumped in Bush’s lap. Now he looks like the fall guy in everything he does. Dems are still not capable of doing anything except bash. They are not even able to think of constructive criticism to throw in the pot. Dems unite instead of working against your government and contribute for a change.

Posted by: vivian meredith at September 17, 2005 10:00 AM
Comment #81098
The Dems jump on Bush every opportunity, but don’t have a positive vision.

Jack, that’s utter crap. Democrats have an agenda that makes my heart swell with patriotic American pride!

The American Promise: A Future of Security, Opportunity and Responsibility

Read it and weep a tear of regret for what might have been, then joyously look to the bright future that lies ahead of us under Democratic leadership now that Americans are waking up to the disaster and disgrace Republicans have wraught on our once proud nation.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 17, 2005 10:23 AM
Comment #81123

Sounds vaguely familiar… anyone here remember the GOP “Contract with America”?

It is unfortunate that Democrats are skillful when it comes to basing platforms and agendas on polls… but cannot follow through with the legislation (as has happened in California).

Seems to me the Democrats make clear they know exactly what we want… then refuse to give it to us.

Posted by: jo at September 17, 2005 12:03 PM
Comment #81124

This is an ad populum argument. In other words, you can’t argue that popular opinion says something is right, and it is therefore right. And not only that, but it is your ONLY argument here. You don’t have any actual reasons to say this, other than the fact that you and Bush are Republicans and Kerry is a Democrat!

Posted by: Daniel Pitt at September 17, 2005 12:03 PM
Comment #81130

Daniel,

Using your logic may i ask when Kerry left the Democrats?

i am not a Republican.

Are you further saying that it is the Democratic philosophy to poll and understand the will of the people… then tell them, “Too bad, so sad; We are right and you are wrong?

Posted by: jo at September 17, 2005 12:23 PM
Comment #81147
It is unfortunate that Democrats are skillful when it comes to basing platforms and agendas on polls… but cannot follow through with the legislation (as has happened in California).

I have no idea what you’re talking about, jo.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 17, 2005 1:13 PM
Comment #81149

California had a referendum and the entire population votes to pass a law against same sex marriages. So their Democratic ‘representatives’ in their kidn wisdom drafts a bill to legalize same sex marriages. The DNC’s answer to all our problems. Do it THEIR way or else.

Posted by: jo at September 17, 2005 1:29 PM
Comment #81170

KJ:

If you have ever read any of my previous posts, you will have noticed a consistency to them. Just as your president likes to have “Nicknames” for those Close to him. I have Almost, everytime I have refered to the Following People By my Nickname for them. If it is all well and good with your president, it better be damn good for me:
Title Nickname
President G.W.Bush aka Emporer George II, Bozo, etc
VP Cheney “Trickie Dickie”
SecDef Rumsfeld “Uncle Rummy”
President Reagan “Ronnie Ray-Gun”
Ambassador Bolton “The Buffoon” or “Walrus”

And as for Ronnie Ray-Gun, under whose watch did we first hear about the “Star Wars Missle Defense System”? The biggest money waster the Politicians have ever agreed to, be they Democrats or Repugnicans.
These my fellow posters, are just my humble opinions. Like them or not, I’m entitled to them as you are entitled to yours.

As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: wayne at September 17, 2005 5:23 PM
Comment #81177

I have no idea what you are talking about:

“may i ask when Kerry left the Democrats?”

“Are you further saying that it is the Democratic philosophy to poll and understand the will of the people then tell them, Too bad, so sad; We are right and you are wrong?”“

What are you asking me for? This doesn’t mean anything. I am calling your argument that Bush is still better than Kerry ad populum.

Posted by: Daniel at September 17, 2005 5:57 PM
Comment #81196

Daniel,

If the argument that Bush is still better than Kerry is fallacios…

so too is the argument that Gore should have been president.

As you call democracy ad populum, i take it you are in favor of the DNC oligarchal aristocracy shutting out the voices of ordinary Californians because they are too stupid to know (as the DNC does) what is right.

Posted by: jo at September 17, 2005 9:55 PM
Comment #81212

You said:

These are my Humble opinions.
That Junior Senator, Has served this Nation for some 20 plus years, Something That Your President cant Lay claim to (8 years x 365 days + 2 days minus in excess of 500 (and increasing) days of vacation thus far) we will be hard pressed to get 6 years of service from your President. Number of days To undo the damage he and his henchman have done, Countless. Remind you of a credit card commercial.If only it were so simple, I know Carl Rove needs to rest Sometimes as well. IMHO

My humble opinions:

Opinion 1: You are using the term “serve” quite loosely. Being elected to office should be considered such. Yet Kerry was absent from many commitee meetings and votes over that time.

I will allow those that served with him in Vietnam to make the determination of his cervice there. Unlike you I dont off handedly dismiss military service.

Opinion two: anyone that has to resort to the term “henchman” need not be taken to seriously.

Posted by: Riles at September 18, 2005 12:39 AM
Comment #81233
Title Nickname President G.W.Bush aka Emporer George II, Bozo, etc VP Cheney “Trickie Dickie” SecDef Rumsfeld “Uncle Rummy” President Reagan “Ronnie Ray-Gun” Ambassador Bolton “The Buffoon” or “Walrus”

LOL Wayne! You just about made me laugh coffee out my nose…. hahhahaaa :)

Posted by: Taylor at September 18, 2005 9:32 AM
Comment #81247

Jo,
You don’t make any sense at all. First, you claimed that the Dems had no platform other than criticizing Bush. But when confronted with their platform, you criticized Dems for “basing platforms and agendas on polls”. But then you criticized the Dems in California for NOT doing what was popular. You’re arguing in circles.

And you’ve ignored the fact that just because a majority of people believe something doesn’t make it right, either factually or morally. For example, the majority of Americans believed that Saddam was behind 9-11. Was that factually right? No. In the early 19th century, the majority of Americans believed in slavery. Did that make slavery morally right? No.

Unfortunately for you, the law regarding same sex marriage is based on the US Constitution, not what a majority of people believe. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says that no state can “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Last time I checked, California was a state, and gay people were persons within its jurisdiction. So it should be obvious to everyone (except, perhaps, those blinded by the light of their faiths) that gay people in California are covered by the 14th Amendment.

If you don’t like that, you have only TWO options:
(1) get 35 states to pass a constitutional amendment that nullifies the 14th amendment.
(2) leave.

Posted by: ElliottBay at September 18, 2005 12:22 PM
Comment #81254

I am not criticising the use of polls. I am criticizing your argument. The difference is that the use of polls shows public opinion, whereas you use those statistics to prove a point, assuming that the majority is always right. The problem is that these polls are your entire argument.
I am not saying you are wrong, just that your argument is an informal fallacy, like when conservatives claim that logic proves their point.

Posted by: Daniel at September 18, 2005 12:52 PM
Comment #81275

Jack,

I find it amusing, but predictable, that you and your fellow Republicans still want to use Kerry as a whipping boy. The GOP just doesn’t function well without an enemy. That is the problem with a hurricane. You can’t accuse it of hating Bush, hating America, or being a socialist. Kerry is a pretty lousy proxy. As someone said, he’s just the guy who lost now.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 18, 2005 3:08 PM
Comment #81432

Taylor:
Glad you enjoyed, my remarks so!

Riles:
You are as entitled to your opinions as I am entitled to Mine. For they are just that, OPININIONS. I am sure that we can agree on that, as well as this…Luckily we live in a Free Society and can Voice our Opinions as Loudly, and Proudly as we wish, without fear of retaliation, because others don’t agree with them.
Reminds me of the wise Old Sage, who said this “Opinions are like Buttholes, Everybody has one, and, They all Stink.” He also passed on this age old advice, as true now as when the old sage was told it. The advice, “You can lead a politician to water, but you can not make them THINK”.
These are just my thoughts on the matter.

As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: wayne at September 19, 2005 12:56 PM
Comment #81768

Oh Riles:
Thought I’d let you in on this ….I am a retired US Army Sergeant First Class That just retired this past June, After having served on active duty for more than 20 years. I take Military Service Very Seriously. Before you accuse me of not taking things seriously check MY Past Posts, You’ll find a Consistancy to them that you or no one else can take away from me.

As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: wayne at September 21, 2005 1:25 PM
Post a comment