Debate, the final chapter

Debate, the final chapter

: I’m pissed we’re not getting more debates. This is damned near the only time we’ve been discussing issues in this campaign.

: The first question is a right one: Will our children and grandchildren ever live in a world as safe as the one we have known. (Read: Or will we try to convince ourselves that terrorism is a ‘nuisance’?)

Rather than giving an answer to how he will accomplish that, Kerry starts by attacking Bush on Iraq. Same Iraq line. Same cargo line. Same bin Laden line. Same, same, same.

Bush says spreading democracy is a solution. “The Afghan people had an election this weekend, and the first voter was a 19-year-old woman.” I agree with that

Domestic debate? It’s the same as the international debate. It’s about safety and terrorism. That is the issue.

: Trivial observations: Kerry looks anemic; Bush looks sunburned. At least this time, one of them isn’t standing at a kiddie podium. But by trying to equalize their heights, Bush looks as if he has a huge head, which ain’t easy next to big-head Kerry.

: Next question, a good one: How the f did we end up with this mess on flu vaccine. Bush says we cut off the contaminated supply. Actually, the Brits cut it off. “I haven’t gotten a flu shot and I don’t intend to.” Well, I wish I could. He turns this into a trial-lawyer issue. No, it’s an issue of bureaucrats f’ing up, big time.

Bush downplays it. Kerry blows it up into the issue of health insurance. That’s wrong, too.

Bureacrats f’ed up. That’s the story, boys. Take responsibility. Figure out how to fix it. Don’t blather and blame. Manage. That’s your only job as president. Management.

: Kerry drinking game: “I have a plan.” Mmmmm. Good merlot.

Bush: “I want to remind everyone listening tonight [that is to say, wussies not watching baseball] that a plan is not a litany of complaints.”

: In the first debate, Bush scowled. In the second debate, he looked as if he’d been shot full of botox. In this debate, he looks like a dog ready to run sniff a butt.

Kerry looks right now as if he is being goosed — by a short-haired terrier’s snout in his butt.

: Kerry argues for pay-as-you-go budgeting. Well, amen…. if we believed that Kerry meant it.

: Kerry: “Being the president talking about fiscal responsibility is a little about Tony Soprano talking about law and order.” Trying too hard. Just the kind of nastiness we’re fed up with out here.

: I don’t buy the only-president-to-lose-jobs jab, by the way. We had 9/11 in this administration. I blame job loss on that first.

: Question to Kerry: “It is fair to blame this administration entirely for this loss of jobs.” Right.

: “There’s a mainstream in American politics and you sit on the far-left bank,” says Bush. That dog don’t hunt for me, of course. Treating “liberal” as an insult is ridiculous; it’s not something a president of the center does.

: “Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?” That may sound like a good way to frame the question but it’s not. This is a matter of human rights, not religous philosophy or sociological speculation.

Bush: “I don’t know.” Kerry: “We’re all God’s children.”

The right answer: It doesn’t matter, Bob. Gay people have rights, too.

: On abortion, we repeat the exact same turf with Kerry: Altar boy… not legislate his religion… And Bush: Partial-birth abortion… culture of life… Same, same, same.

: Health care: Bush says the consumer is not involved in the choice and that’s the problem. Oh, no, it’s far more fundamental and revolutionary than that.

Kerry turns it into Canadian drugs. You know, I still don’t understand how we can export drugs and then reimport them at lower costs. Makes no sense.

Bush tries to say that Kerry will have government-run health care (read: Hillary alert!). Kerry says it’s not government run.

: MSNBC’s Keith Olberman is live-blogging the debate.

He tries too hard with a motif of scoring a fight. He should rely on substance, not gimmicks.

: Weird moment as Bush says something about quoting media not being credible and then cutting himself off with an “oh, nevermind.” Wacky.

: I refuse to get into the Social Security debate. I’m denying that I’m eligible for AARP. I’m glazing, too, on immigration and the minimum wage. Sorry.

: Bush says he will not have a litmus test for judges on Roe v. Wade. But he will (from the earlier debate) on “under God” in the pledge. Then he says that Kerry has a litmus test.

Well, of course, they have litmus tests. The question is: which tests?

: Now gun control. Now affirmative action. It’s as if he has a presidential punchlist: Got to hit every basic issue quickly and without new turf. The citizens last week did a better job with their questions.

: Now God. “Frankly, I think we have a lot more loving of our neighbors to do,” says Kerry. Huh?

: Nick Gillespie says (via Glenn) that both these guys are losing.

No, we’re losing.

That’s the bottom line of this debate so far: Damn, it’s a bad choice.

: I’ll see your Republican and raise you a Democrat: Kerry brags about working with McCain, Bush about working with Kennedy. Divided, hell, we’re not divided.

Bush turns it around: “My opponent keeps mentioning John McCain.” John McCain is for Bush, says Bush.

: Bob does a weird riff on being surrounded by strong women with two daughters each. Each of these news anchors has to ask a bullshit question. Again, the citizens were better.

Bush turns it into a joke about his language skills. Kerry turns it into a joke about “marrying up” and then into a sappy moment about his dying mom: “Remember: ‘Integrity, integrity, integrity.'” Oh, man.

: I expected Kerry to win this debate hands-down, given my views on domestic issues. I hoped it would shift the needle. But I still focused on the bad choice we have.

: You want a score? Zero-zero in extra innings.

: The only real conclusion from this debate is that we should have more debates — for they are the only opportunities we have had to dwell on issues rather than mud and they have had big impact on the election — and they should all be run by the citizens, not the journalists.

: Three weeks now. Just three weeks.

  • Charlie (Colorado)

    All right, Jeff, tell me how bureaucrats in the US are responsible for contaminated flu vaccine in Britain?
    Do you have the foggiest notion? Do you have any rationale behind this notion besides “Daddy should make it better”?
    Do you know how much the insurance cost per dose of vaccine is, versus the cost of manufacture?
    Can you tell me what the limiting factors are in vaccine manufacture?
    Can you even tell me why flu vaccines can’t be pre-manufactured, unlike, say, smallpox?
    Being able to write pretty sentences doesn’t make your opinion valuable if you’re ignorant.

  • http://www.joelblain.com Joel

    Kerry brings Cheney’s daughter up on the homosexual question. What a lack of class.

  • billg

    Joel….I agree…wasn’t necessary.

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    Charlie:
    U.S. bureacrats know of the problems in the British facility and did nothing about it and now act as if they are surprised by the British move. They should have warned us and had a plan months and months ago. They f’ed up.
    They further should have a strategy for vaccination policy and they don’t have it.
    Foggy notion? Take a vaccine against snot before entering into the discussion, please.

  • http://blogs.rny.com/sbw/ sbw

    Returned from my son’s soccer game. Listened to the first few questions of the radio. Predictable nasty nonsense. I just decided I’ll read the transcript tomorrow. Both of them are hard to take in their individual pontificating. Boy is it hard to take.
    I was looking for something worth listening to — worth learning. It simply wasn’t there.

  • http://blogs.rny.com/sbw/ sbw

    Vaccine question: And Kerry the candidate was going to be able to offer anything more substantive than carping at the incumbent?
    I didn’t think it was a fair question.

  • Sasm

    I guess worrying about the possibility of nuclear war is too far in the past for many.

  • Charlie (Colorado)

    Jeff:
    U.S. bureacrats know of the problems in the British facility and did nothing about it and now act as if they are surprised by the British move. They should have warned us and had a plan months and months ago. They f’ed up.

    Jeff, it takes four months to make the vaccine, and you can’t start until the last minute, because you have to guess at what strains will be important.
    Thus, you can’t have discovered that there was a problem months ago.
    Ignorance isn’t helpful.
    They further should have a strategy for vaccination policy and they don’t have it.
    Yeah? What should that policy be? Do you have, yes, even a vague and foggy notion?
    As it stands right now, there is exactly one firm in the world with FDA approval to make flu vaccine for the USA. They can make about 80 million doses a year.
    There used to be two firms, and they could make total about 160 million doses.
    It takes about three years — if you’re lucky — to get FDA approval (part of the problem last year was that the approval process wasn’t done in time for the US firm.) Costs a bunch to do it, too.
    So you tell me: do you propose that the bureaucrats should eliminate the certification process that takes that three years? Or what?
    What’s your plan, Jeff? So far, you’re making as much sense as the guy who wants to eliminate Mondays because he’s always hungover on Monday.
    Foggy notion? Take a vaccine against snot before entering into the discussion, please.
    Learn to cope. And get some facts.

  • Charlie (Colorado)

    Looking back, I may not have been perfectly clear:
    Let’s assume that US bureaucrats knew there might be a problem. Let’s assume, just to be gentle to you, that we knew this six months ago — not that we could have, since we couldn’t have started the process six months ago, but let’s assume that.
    Then, at the time the bureaucrats would have known, it was only two and a half years too late to have done something else.

  • http://www.lashawnbarber.com LB

    My cool commenters are doing all the work for me. They’re “live-commenting.”
    Cool Commenters

  • John Thacker

    Furthermore Jeff, around 30 years ago there used to be many manufacturers of flu vaccine. At some point, the US government stepped in and became the single buyer. As a result, prices have been negotiated downwards, and everything is sold at a fixed contract for a low price. Naturally, as a result, the number of suppliers has gone down, and there is no excess capacity.
    Price controls lead to no excess capacity, and to shortages if anything goes wrong. It’s as simple as that. Any economist could tell you that. It also incidentally puts the bureaucrats in charge.
    And Kerry, on prescription drugs, is arguing for more of the same type of policy that led to the flu vaccine shortage– governmentally negotiated lower prices. The rest of the world can free-ride on our paying for research now (though still at long term cost), but if we join in too…

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    Charlie:
    Knowing four-to-six months ago that this problem was coming, these bureaucrats could have had a strategy for an orderly plan regarding allocation of the vaccine to those most in need. Now what we have is a mess.
    And thank you for dropping the snark and actually discussing.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    sorry but I tend to watch what is going on and got my flu shot the first week of October, didn’t mean to kill off any older people
    this administration is dismally predictable
    they wish to be judged as honorable and trustworthy, but they act the opposite
    if you listen to what they say and act the opposite, you are going in the right direction.

  • Kat

    I just make sure I’m going in the opposite direction of you, Ruth. Then I know for sure I’m on the right track.

  • http://lonewacko.com The Lonewacko Blog

    There’s no accounting for personal interests, but I can’t understand how someone couldn’t be very concerned about 25 Chechen terrorists coming over the border. I think we deserve a bit more of an explanation from Bush and less of a pitch for illegal immigration.

  • http://tomwatson.typepad.com Tom Watson

    Jeff, what can
    I say – you missed it, big-time. I believe it was Kerry’s finest performance in public life….and gives him a huge chance to win. My post:
    http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2004/10/three_for_three.html

  • Reid

    ‘I still don’t understand how we can export drugs and then reimport them at lower costs. Makes no sense.’
    It’s because we support the Canadian health care system by paying more for our drugs. If we imported them back again, the drug companies would be forced to raise their costs, too, and the Canadian health care system would collapse. Doesn’t really help us but, it’s OK by me if those ticks up North, such as our own Robert McClellan, are made to pay the same costs we are.
    ‘Weird moment as Bush says something about quoting media not being credible and then cutting himself off with an “oh, nevermind.”‘
    Oh, man, you just let the best riff of the night zoom right over your head. I’ll give you a hint. He was looking right at Bob Schieffer of CBS News when he said it.

  • Reid

    Lonewacko – Gertz, the fella’ who broke that story, is a little notorious for going off the deep end on sensationalistic terrorism stories.
    You know, I’m pretty sure I’ve got something saved from your archives a long time ago in which you were pro-war and pro-Bush. It was a good long link on the Saddam – Al Qaeda connections. Did you get a personality transplant, or what?

  • http://lonewacko.com The Lonewacko Blog

    Lonewacko – Gertz, the fella’ who broke that story, is a little notorious for going off the deep end on sensationalistic terrorism stories.
    Look, even the L.A. Times has noticed the tremendous amount of chatter about terrorists coming over our porous borders. I have a roundup here. If you think the Gertz story is the first time terrorists infiltrating the U.S. has received notice, you’re very far off base. Go check out all those other reports.
    You know, I’m pretty sure I’ve got something saved from your archives a long time ago in which you were pro-war and pro-Bush. It was a good long link on the Saddam – Al Qaeda connections. Did you get a personality transplant, or what?
    I came to the decision that Bush does not have the best interests of the U.S. at heart.
    I was opposed to Kerry. However, I now realize that divided government under Kerry is infinitely better than four more years of Bush. I strongly suggest that others who are right of center join me.

  • Kat

    And Kerry does have the best interests of the USA at heart? He will have to get permission of the UN to make sure he treats illegals the way Koffi would like. He may cancel the Patriot Act because it may offend a terrorist to be profiled. He might have to ask Chirac for permission to finish the job in Iraq. What are the best interests of the US? To treat the terrorists as a ‘nuisance’ and turn our backs and look the other way like Clinton did–“Oh, those naughty terrorists blowing up people again–what a nuisance!”

  • chuck

    these bureaucrats could have had a strategy for an orderly plan regarding allocation of the vaccine to those most in need.
    Jeff, where I live the county health department is making the decisions on priorities. I think that is how it should be. The only question is how the allocation of the vaccines to the local distributors is made.
    I think you really need to take Charlie’s arguments about the manufacture of vaccines seriously. And why are there so few suppliers? One of the strengths of the american economy has been the number of suppliers for various items. How did vaccine manufacture become a monoculture? This gets at basic ideas of health care, and I think your preferred solutions are likely to make things worse.

  • Greifer

    ‘I still don’t understand how we can export drugs and then reimport them at lower costs. Makes no sense.’
    you’re right. As soon as those drugs are allowed to be reimported, they will be sold to those other countries at a price as high as our own. it will do nothing to drive down drug prices.
    re: your last sentence: more debates, and “they should all be run by the citizens, not the journalists”, I think we should think about this wisdom when approaching blogging.
    bloggers shouldn’t want to become journalists. they shouldn’t want to become established, or viewed with “as much respect” by establishment/MSM. if they did that, they’d become as ossified and out of touch as the rest of the MSM. No, bloggers’ strength is in providing a different view, one closer to reality. pull/not push media, local views, micromedia, whatever you want to call it. bloggers should remember that their strength is in their citizenry, not their celebrity.

  • boomer

    Jeff,
    I am surprised that you didn’t mention Kerry’s remark on Cheney’s daughter on your blog. We can all agree to disagree and have heated discussions but I thought it was the slimest and most insulting for him to do that…
    Was that your ‘deliberate’ omission? how fair and balanced of you…

  • Karl

    Three weeks, Jeff?
    Let’s hope so, but if it’s close in states like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, it will be much longer.

  • http://www.tonypierce.com tony

    Greifer,
    how is it slimy and insulting to mention the elephant in the room?
    a topic that has been brought up in the vp debates and the presidential debates before this?
    true, it’s a sensitive subject, but when you’re the most identifiable supporter of a constitutional ammendment which would try to limit the freedoms of millions, including the vice president’s daughter, i would say its naive to think it’s not going to come up.
    interesting how conservatives have no problem rationalizing bush’s panderings to his base
    but when kerry reminds his base (some of whom include gay/lesbian/transgendered) of what being a democrat is about, suddenly he’s slimy?
    the question posed was “do you think that homosexuality is a choice.”
    the president answered well.
    sen kerry answered perfectly.
    the vice president has a lesbian daughter and he and the president tried to get a constitutional ammendment passed that would have limited her freedoms.
    you’ve got your insults wrong, pal, what bush/cheney tried to do was slimy and insulting.

  • http://healthy-elements.com Lynn

    “integrity,integrity,integrity”
    If it had been a story from when Kerry was a child..it would have been a story about an admirable parental moment in his upbringing.
    Thought it kind of odd among the first thoughts his Mom had after hearing his plans was to so strongly remind Kerry of the need for integrity.

  • http://lonewacko.com The Lonewacko Blog

    And Kerry does have the best interests of the USA at heart? [...distortions of Kerry's positions deleted...]
    Look, some people buy Bush’s shtick. Others can see it for what it is and look at his actions. His actions are not consistent with protecting the sovereignty of the U.S. Sure Kerry has ties to people like Soros. However, like I said and like you failed to respond to, the government under Kerry would be divided. Sure, he might be able to do some wacky things. However, the wacky things he might be able to do are far less damaging to the U.S. than those Bush would be able to do by having GOP control of the rest of government.
    And, yes, I think Kerry – pandering Democrat that he is – has the interests of the U.S. at heart more than Bush.

  • Reid

    There’s where you’re wrong, LW. John Kerry has the interests of John Kerry at heart and nobody else. He’s been angling for this job since he was a kid.
    Kerry would cut and run from Iraq. Kerry would give nuclear fuel to the mullahs in Iran (but, hey, at least he can say it right, as in, “Here’s your nyoo-clee-ur fuel Mr. Ayatollah – you will give it back when you’re done, won’t ya’?”). Kerry would kick China out of the loop in negotiations with North Korea, the only nation actually capable of controlling them, and reinstitute the failed Clinton policy of paying the NorKs off to pretend that they aren’t building nukes.
    Kerry would raise taxes and regulate business until the economy choked.
    Kerry would be an unmitigated disaster. Jimmy Carter redux. You should’ve stuck with your first instincts.

  • http://www.tonypierce.com tony

    reid,
    1. Dubya hasn’t proved that he has the interests of Dubya (and the other top 1%ers at heart and nobody else?
    2. “Kerry would give nuclear fuel to the mullahs in Iran.” You mean like how reagan/bush/rummy gave saddam weapons that he in part used to gas his own people in the late 70s?
    3. “Kerry would kick China out of the loop in negotiations with North Korea.” The one guy up there who has said over and over that America needs to become a global partner again, and (re)build our alliances with the rest of the world, would turn his back on our most favored nation? Clearly you have been up to late tonight.
    4. “Kerry would raise taxes and regulate business until the economy choked.” You say this because Clinton raised taxes, regulated business till the economy choked? Or you say this because Bush’s economics is something you think ought to continue? What part of biggest surplus to biggest deficit do you not understand?
    are you even paying attention to anything going on?

  • http://ari.typepad.com Steve Rhodes

    I can’t understand why some conservatives are so upset that Kerry mentioned Mary Cheney.
    Dick Cheney said he had a lesbian daughter at a town hall meeting where he disagreed with Bush on the marriage ammendment.
    And she wasn’t in the closet before – she was the liason to the gay and lesbian community for Coors (Harvey Milk launched a boycott against them which ended because of efforts like that – now they’ve even taken ads out saying they disagree with Pete Coors on the marriage ammendment).

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    Thank you, reid and kat, for pointing out once again the kind of base that the shrub can count on. When you start acknowledging the facts, he’s history. For now, we know that there is a vote out there for him no matter what the facts are.

  • syn

    Steve Rhodes
    There is a reason why Kerry specifically identified Cheney’s daughter as a lesbian. Kerry is a proven opportunist who uses anyone and everyone as a means to an end. His use of Cheney’s daughter means Kerry lacks integrity.
    Jeff
    Sometimes you really scare me. Try to grasp the concept the Utopian Liberalism is a MYTH.
    The Flu Shot quaqmire should be a wake-up call to all who wish to place health care entirely into the governments hands.
    What good is free health care if we haven’t qualified doctors or sufficient amounts of effective medicines because bureaucrats, like Kerry and Edwards, are regulating and suing our doctors and drug manufactures out of business?
    Why is it the Utopian Liberals believe that quality health care can suddenly appear out of nowhere, without any cost?
    Here’s a novel idea Jeff. You are affilated with Hollywood, why not insist that the people stop spending billions entertaining themselves into your utophian state of slumber.
    I suppose this is out of the quwestion since you are part of the Collective Entertainment Industry and must promote your cause inorder to function in the Collective. Good Boy.
    Snarky comments, I know, but my health care is at risk. Utopian Liberals have already stolen so much from me, this time I will not let them steal my health care.

  • Rance

    My jaw nearly hit the floor when I heard Bush start of the debate by denying he made a well documented quote (see whitehouse.gov Duh) and then trying to pass it off as and exageration by Kerry. After that you kind of wonder about the veracity of anything else he said.

  • Matthew Goggins

    I thought President Bush was better in the first debate than he was in the second debate, so just ignore what I’m going to say.
    I thought Bush did extremely well last night, and Kerry did pretty poorly. President Bush was focused, responsive, and well-informed. Senator Kerry was over-intellectualizing, negative, and insincere. W cleaned Kerry’s clock.

  • Tom

    Matt G –
    Ummmm.. which debate were you watching?

  • http://nj.com/weblogs/jersey Shabe

    It seems like we don’t need more debates Jeff, but more actual debating.

  • Kat

    Steve Rhodes–Mrs. Cheney disagrees with you–she sees it as cheap and tawdry.
    http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=2428171

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    What a surprise! If she brings it up, Ms. Cheney’s sexual choice is okay; if some one else mentions it, it’s cheap and tawdry.
    Excuse me, my sexual orientation happens to be my busines until I want to make it an issue. (according to Kat: I need a shave!) If some one else makes it an issue then there’s a problem. For the record, I am a woman of 60 years of age. I have two children, three grandchildren.
    Shame on anyone who makes an issue of anyone’s sexuality who hasn’t brought it up her/him self. I happen to be heterosexual, but I am not prejudiced.
    And I have been quoted to that effect on On The Record, PBS, Sundays on KERA Dallas.

  • Matthew Goggins

    Tom:
    Bush didn’t do perfectly. He stepped on some of his best lines, and he dismissed the minimum-wage and assault-weapons questions a little too quickly. But he was focused, responsive, and well-informed on every question. And he hit a home-run in the eighth inning with his answer to the strong wives question.
    Kerry was solid and un-ruffled. But he came across as Giuliani-lite: a prosecutor without the passion and humility to know when he’s just being arrogant instead of clever. And his mother’s last words to him were “Integrity”? I’d rather have Citizen Kane as president then this weirdo!

  • Mike

    “Kerry would kick China out of the loop in negotiations with North Korea.” The one guy up there who has said over and over that America needs to become a global partner again, and (re)build our alliances with the rest of the world, would turn his back on our most favored nation? Clearly you have been up to late tonight.
    tony, so when Kerry says that he would go ahead with unilateral talks and/or approach to North Korea that means including China? That must another aspect of his nuance.
    “Kerry would give nuclear fuel to the mullahs in Iran.” You mean like how reagan/bush/rummy gave saddam weapons that he in part used to gas his own people in the late 70s?
    It’s more like how Clinton handled the whole deal with North Korea on removing their nuclear rods. That turned out well didn’t it?
    Kerry is not who we want dealing with foreign countries with aspirations of obtaining nuclear technology.

  • Reid

    Tony repeats a shallow calumny he picked up from the democratic underground.
    The US did NOT provide chemical weapons to Saddam. You can thank, once again, the Germans and the French for that. The German firm Karl Kolb and the French firm Protec were major suppliers of plant and equipment.
    Overall, the US provided dual use items under standard commercial contracts that amounted to less than 1% of Saddam’s arsenal. Saddam’s planes were French and Russian. Saddam’s tanks were Russian. Saddam’s missiles were North Korean and Chinese. No, the US did not arm Saddam. Do a little reading.
    Besides which, of course, Tony never justified Kerry’s idea of giving nuclear fuel to the Mullahs in Iran.

  • Jesse

    There was one domestic issue that I wish Bush/Kerry were questioned on:
    What’s to be done about the obesity epidemic in this country. Yes I did use the word “epidemic.” To me this if a far weightier issue (sorry, couldn’t resist) than any flu shot.

  • Andy Freeman

    > What’s to be done about the obesity epidemic in this country.
    We could try actual poverty instead of the “must make do with 30″ color TV” stuff that we’ve got now.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    Funny thing, Iraq is only a country because we invented it after WWII. The Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis are their own entities. Maybe we should let them determine their own goals, their own country, their own place in the scheme of things. Maybe even we should get out of there and let them make their own peace?

  • http://www.advicegoddess.com Amy Alkon

    “There is a reason why Kerry specifically identified Cheney’s daughter as a lesbian. Kerry is a proven opportunist who uses anyone and everyone as a means to an end. His use of Cheney’s daughter means Kerry lacks integrity.”
    I’m sorry, but can anyone name any politicians who DON’T lack integrity?
    Regarding mention of Mary Cheney being a lesbian: 1. Dick Cheney made that campaign fodder the moment he talked about her sexual orientation while campaigning.
    And the main point everyone’s missing: The indignation Lynne Cheney and others are expressing speaks loud and clear — it’s obvious they feel being a lesbian is somehow shameful and not to be talked about!
    The pervs in this country are the people who care about how other adults have sex, and with which other consenting adults, and seek to deny them rights because they don’t do it in the freako fundamentalist-approved way.
    Moreover, regarding all the “slippery slope” arguments — if three people wish to marry each other, why shouldn’t they be allowed to. Again, read between the lines. Marriage being “between a man and a woman” is tacit kowtowing to religion. Remember “separation of church and state”? I wish we actually had it.