Klavan on Sex Scandals
I love it any time I see a new piece by Andrew Klavan in the L.A. Times. Today’s is about sex scandals. Here’s a taste:
My fellow Republicans urge me to high dudgeon . . . . Moral standards have to be maintained. Family values are a linchpin of our society. All of which I suppose is true. Still, I can’t help thinking: How about reducing this tumor of a government that’s eating away our liberties? How about enforcing the law of the land at our borders? How about fighting our enemies with rules of engagement that weren’t written by Miss Manners? Then maybe we can talk about the whole rumpty-tumpty of it all.
Then there are the Democrats. It’s not about the sex, they say, it’s about the hypocrisy, the gall of high-sounding conservatives caught out in low shenanigans. And, you know, nice try, guys, but that’s just a little too self-serving to really play. I mean, this is the party of Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. What’s your argument exactly? “We may be drunks and adulterers and liars — but at least we’re not hypocrites”? You’re going to have to do better than that.
Read it all here.
lol, dead funny. i have never heard of andrew but i am buying his book
james conrad (7cd809) — 9/9/2007 @ 8:35 amAh, where hand signals become a denominator; even when you’re not deaf.
Women know so little about men’s bathrooms. Maybe, that’s why they’re called “John’s?” So I guy in a hurry can go into one and look for a date?
Besides. If a man were to voice to another guy; who’d be a stranger; if he wouldn’t mind diddling with his pecker. I’d assume the verbals could lead to confrontations. Where hand signals would not.
GOP has a problem! It seems all the leadership in congress can show up in prom dresses. Of course, the Bonkeys can go out and shop. But the GOPster’s would need their moms to sew something up.
Carol Herman (6c58cc) — 9/9/2007 @ 8:45 am“Possibly I’m missing something. The media tell me sex scandals are important. Sex is a character issue, they say. But I don’t know. Stories about sex sell, and this “character issue” business seems like an awfully convenient way of attaching a serious-sounding rationale to what’s really voyeurism.”
Politicos and the Media are co-dependent. Suppress, or sublimate the story vs. SELL the story. Is that a big secret? The public, in spite of protestations to the contrary, are voyeuristic.
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 9/9/2007 @ 9:22 amIs this breaking news?
Damn, that’s brilliant writing. If I could express myself like that, I’d, well I suppose I’d be a columnist for a major newspaper rather than an occasional blogger…
Doc Rampage (ebfd7a) — 9/9/2007 @ 10:04 amWell, he does seem pretty much like an equal-opportunity basher.
However, I think he’s a little disingenuous when he says, “What’s your argument exactly? ‘We may be drunks and adulterers and liars — but at least we’re not hypocrites’?
I think the main difference is that one party seems intent on legislating their idea of personal morality – commonly referred to as “forcing their beliefs on the rest of us” – while the other party doesn’t.
Just my opinion.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 10:10 amIf I weren’t alreay in love, I’d be in love.
Smart, witty, spot-on and neatly served with a big dose of humility. Just doesn’t get any better.
Dana (40062c) — 9/9/2007 @ 10:13 amThe vast majority of Democrats are not drunks or adulterers. Heck, I’m sure that there are other Irish teetotalers but Chicago’s Mayor Daley is the only one I’m sure of and his family life is also impeccable. On the other hand he’s hand in glove with both the Kennedys and the Clintons. Go figure. I think my mother had it down best. She would vote for the woman candidate regardless of party or policy.
nk (a6ecc6) — 9/9/2007 @ 10:32 amI like the way your mom thinks, nk.
lc (1401be) — 9/9/2007 @ 10:56 amI’ll join the almost-unanimous chorus of approval by saying that I liked Klavan’s writing and his substance. However, it’s difficult to reconcile these sections:
How is society to engage in occasional public exposure without ever mentioning one person’s peccadilloes? Public exposures may get heavy media coverage but they aren’t daily, weekly or even monthly occurrences – there are only a handful over the course of a year. Is that really too much for a freedom-based society?
It seems Klavan genuinely dislikes moments of public exposure and perhaps as a result he magnifies their frequency, intensity, or importance. I sympathize. It reminds me of being a parent. It’s fairly easy to raise kids until they misbehave, and parents don’t like disciplining their children when that happens. Painful moments can easily overshadow pleasant moments in relationships but that doesn’t give responsible people license to ignore them.
DRJ (2afbca) — 9/9/2007 @ 10:57 amNice to see the judgemental right embracing the “if it feels good, do it” attitude of the lefties.
I think it will make the world a better place.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/9/2007 @ 11:45 amthe main difference is that one party seems intent on legislating their personal morality-commonally referred to as ‘forcing their beliefs on the rest of us’
As I recall it was the party of America’s first black President Clinton who signed into law the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ and the military’s ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy.
Hmmmm and isn’t the wife of America’s first black President Clinton, who is now running for the Oval Office, often campaigning, with Hsu’s dirty money, on the premise to make abortions ‘rare but safe’
I was led to believe that her party stood for morally corrected ‘pro-choice’ all the way to the point of pulling a baby halfway out the birth canal so mommy can stick a tube in the nape of her baby’s neck and suck out it’s brain all for the benefit of saving women’s mental health.
Now that that procedure was banned, although Barack Obama voted for women’s right to suck out babies brains, the preferred pro-choice now is to use the third line of lethal injection without any preparation against the effects.
Whatever the Democrat Party believes in it is never honest.
syn (7faf4d) — 9/9/2007 @ 12:03 pmWow now it only a question of what someone dies of by embracing Alphies principles at the gallows or of the pox by embracing his morality. Some things never change and some idiots just bend over and ask for it. I do love history it shows humanity doesn’t change and we can use the great old sayings with historical illiterates such as Alphie so easily.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 9/9/2007 @ 12:04 pmNice to see the judgemental right embracing the “if it feels good, do it” attitude of the lefties.
I think it will make the world a better place.
You would, Staunch Brayer.
Bill Whittle on “if it feels good, do it”:
That’s you he’s describing, Staunch Brayer.
Paul (5efd01) — 9/9/2007 @ 12:22 pmI think the main difference is that one party seems intent on legislating their idea of personal morality – commonly referred to as “forcing their beliefs on the rest of us” – while the other party doesn’t.
Except that Democrats, too, attempt to legislate their moral beliefs all the time, in a variety of ways. Racial preferences in education and employment, minimum wage hikes, higher taxation, and increases in transfer payments across the board are just some of the areas in which Democrats use (or at least try to use) the machinery of government to impose their own views of what is moral or just.
NYC 3L (b162bd) — 9/9/2007 @ 12:22 pmhaha, Paul,
There’s no philosophy more simplistic and childlike than:
“How about fighting our enemies with rules of engagement that weren’t written by Miss Manners?”
Could “Christians” get any further from the teachings of Jesus?
Please, let us slaughter even more civilians while prosecuting a war a majority of Americans and Iraqs want to end?
alphie (99bc18) — 9/9/2007 @ 12:27 pmI think the main difference is that one party seems intent on legislating their idea of personal morality – commonly referred to as “forcing their beliefs on the rest of us” – while the other party doesn’t.
Would that be the party who is running a candidate that sees nothing wrong with legally requiring every American to have annual “health checkups?” And what party is dominant on the university campuses with “speech codes”? What party succors the guy who screamed that those who don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming are “traiters and should be treated as such”? What putative candidate said “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good”?
Darleen (187edc) — 9/9/2007 @ 12:27 pmCould “Christians” get any further from the teachings of Jesus?
Oh my…alpee as Learned Theologian
BWAHAHAHA
Darleen (187edc) — 9/9/2007 @ 12:28 pmNow, Darleen,
Even us atheists know Jesus wasn’t too big on pre-emptive wars.
Every Larry Craig or Mark Foley must cause the religious right to ponder why they’ve allowed themselves to be led so far astray…and by whom.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/9/2007 @ 12:55 pmgeez, alpee
maybe you can quote me anything Jesus said on war, period.
but then, since you’re an atheist, I see you’ve come to your own logical conclusion that life is meaningless and you’re just out for a trolling good time.
Darleen (187edc) — 9/9/2007 @ 1:06 pmOn the contrary, Darleen,
I think us atheists prize life (anyone’s life) far more than the folks who think this vale of tears is just a pit stop.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/9/2007 @ 1:10 pmI didn’t say you didn’t “prize life” alpee
I said you cannot say that Life has any meaning.
You hold as your religious tenet that Life is an accident. So human life has no more meaning than a rock.
I know some decent atheists, but that doesn’t include you.
Darleen (187edc) — 9/9/2007 @ 1:18 pm“maybe you can quote me anything Jesus said on war, period.”
Does Jesus have to say the word ‘war’?
The christian principle (see Jehovah’s Witnesses or Quakers) is that Christians must not use violence to facilitate their perception of ‘God’s Will’.
When the Prophet was deep in prayer on the eve of his arrest by the RESPECTED RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES via the surrogate Roman authority, he was disturbed by the commotion and rose to find his disciples taking matters into their own hands.
Peter sliced off the ear of a slave carrying out the order to arrest Jesus, he immediately healed the slave’s ear and pronounced; “He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword”.
But he didn’t mean that literally, did he?
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 9/9/2007 @ 1:22 pmNYC 3L #14:
I think the main difference is that one party seems intent on legislating their idea of personal morality – commonly referred to as “forcing their beliefs on the rest of us” – while the other party doesn’t.
Except that Democrats, too, attempt to legislate their moral beliefs all the time, in a variety of ways. Racial preferences in education and employment, minimum wage hikes, higher taxation, and increases in transfer payments across the board are just some of the areas in which Democrats use (or at least try to use) the machinery of government to impose their own views of what is moral or just.
Well my point was in the context of criticizing members of one party or another for hypocrisy. His example, for instance, was Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. While I suppose Clinton can be accused of acting contrary to some of his “pro-family” positions, I don’t think Kennedy fulminated and legislated against drinking.
Comment by NYC 3L — 9/9/2007 @ 12:22 pm
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 1:22 pmDarleen #16:
Would that be the party who is running a candidate that sees nothing wrong with legally requiring every American to have annual “health checkups?” And what party is dominant on the university campuses with “speech codes”? What party succors the guy who screamed that those who don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming are “traiters and should be treated as such”? What putative candidate said “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good”?
“Requiring annual health checkups”? Hadn’t heard of that. Could you please tell me who actually advocates that?
Does the Democratic party try to legislate “speech codes” ?
Could you provide a link for that putative Al Gore quote? Thanks.
Also, please see my post # 23.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 1:28 pmPS to Darleen:
Could you also please provide a link for your last quote by some “putative candidate” ? Thanks.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 1:29 pmWell, Darleen,
I think Christians and atheists both find that certain things give life meaning:
Alleviating the suffering of others, seeing ones children thrive, the general advancement of the human race, etc, are good things.
It’s the judgemental thing where we part company.
Killing non-believers and making people who are “different” suffer hold little appeal to me.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/9/2007 @ 1:31 pmKlavan says: “I think the lax sexual mores we’ve adopted since the 1960s have been a disaster for society at large. . . . divorce hurts our kids deeply and scars them forever . . . ”
Lax sexual mores in the absence of honesty, responsibility, and (best of all) love, certainly have a pernicious effect. But, on the other hand, increased freedom to be open about ones sexuality and ones past mistakes has to be good for the general level of mental health. Although I have no personal experience of divorce, I agree that it must hurt kids deeply and scar them forever. But being raised by parents in an unhappy marriage can’t be good for the kids either. It is hard to come up with hard and fast rules that solve all the problems, the old rules aren’t perfect either. Maybe the best rule is to try to act in the best interests of those who depend on you and look up to you.
Patrick Moran (3d7eeb) — 9/9/2007 @ 1:34 pm“maybe you can quote me anything Jesus said on war, period.”
Somewhere in Luke 14:25-33, Jesus says “. . . Or what king marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king advancing upon him with twenty thousand troops? But if not, while he is still far away, he will send a delegation to ask for peace terms. In the same way, anyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple”
This “battle example” followed a similar one about a man seting out to build a tower. What does this indicate about what Jesus thought about war? Apparently that it was a common occupation of kings – part of the landscape of human activity like building towers or herding sheep.
Patrick Moran (3d7eeb) — 9/9/2007 @ 1:49 pm“Apparently that it was a common occupation of kings”
King David was prohibited from building the Temple in Jerusalem because his hands had blood on them.
That task was given to this son, Solomon.
The parable of the Talents, as are all his parables, is a tangible tool of the Teacher
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 9/9/2007 @ 2:10 pmto prescribe the need to make use of one’s
God given abilities, and does not imply the merits of the love of Gold. Context is everything.
(1) The old “athiests don’t value life” thing is a crock, and anyone who supports it either doesn’t know an athiest or is being dishonest. And I’m not even an athiest saying this.
(2) Right. So we need to keep those inflating the budget while cutting taxes and stretching the military in power, because sex scandals tell us that small government is good, and Clinton got a blowjob 10 years ago. What?
fishbane (1f95eb) — 9/9/2007 @ 2:47 pmListening to semenkkkleo and alfie talk about religion is like trying to explain calculus to my table saw.
itsme – If you wish, look up the John Edwards health plan, and his recent speech on same, where it mandates physicals and preventative car. Algore has repeatedly used the term traitor in the context of the “deniers” of AGW.
JD (f6a000) — 9/9/2007 @ 3:03 pmFishbane
What is so hard that you must misquote me?
I did not say “athiests don’t value life.” NOR did I say that athiests cannot find meaning in their own life.
What I said, which is perfectly logical, is that if one believes Life is an accident, then Life (deliberate capitalization to differentiate from one’s individual life) has no meaning. Man has no more purpose than a rock.
Patrick
Jesus wasn’t talking about war; he was using an analogy on the sacrifices he demanded of his disciples
“In the same way, everyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.” is the following line.
Darleen (187edc) — 9/9/2007 @ 3:07 pmItsme
You’ll find your new 1066 form here
😉
Hillary Clinton said the “take things away from you” quote.
Darleen (187edc) — 9/9/2007 @ 3:15 pmWhat religion gives Life the “meaning” you are talking about, Darleen?
Some supernatural being created Life to…what, exactly?
alphie (99bc18) — 9/9/2007 @ 3:16 pm“How about fighting our enemies with rules of engagement that weren’t written by Miss Manners?”
Could “Christians” get any further from the teachings of Jesus?
Please, let us slaughter even more civilians while prosecuting a war a majority of Americans and Iraqs want to end?
That’s the best you can come up with, Staunch Brayer?
Proven yet again: your writing is its own punishment.
Paul (5efd01) — 9/9/2007 @ 3:19 pmJD
While His AGW Holiness the Gorical has used “traitor” liberally (heh) I was thinking more of Robert Kennedy Jr at LiveEarth screaming
Darleen (187edc) — 9/9/2007 @ 3:21 pmWhat religion gives Life the “meaning” you are talking about, Darleen?
Some supernatural being created Life to…what, exactly?
If you have to ask this question, Staunch Brayer, then I would suggest you not lecture us “Christians” on the teachings of Jesus.
Paul (5efd01) — 9/9/2007 @ 3:24 pmalpee
You’re the one saying Life is an accident.
Explain how an accident holds more meaning for humanity than it does for a piece of quartz.
Darleen (187edc) — 9/9/2007 @ 3:24 pmWhat I said, which is perfectly logical, is that if one believes Life is an accident, then Life (deliberate capitalization to differentiate from one’s individual life) has no meaning.
This is a tired discussion. {L|l}ife is not defined by where it might have come from, be that a big guy in the sky with a flowing beard, the flying spagetti monster, or the consequences of subtle math and physics. To turn this around, if an omnicient sky god made you, you are a machine. Does a lawn mower have “meaning”? (I know, we’re heading into the free will paradox here, St. Augustine tried to resolve it, the debate has been going on since at least 1700 years ago, probably longer, but it becomes more difficult to map understandings over time.)
I see more “meaning” in a self defining person that does good because they want to than a submissive follower of an invisible being. We won’t come to an agreement on this, I know.
fishbane (1f95eb) — 9/9/2007 @ 3:26 pmDarleen,
Life is what you make it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvMoRVrqx_I
You’re the one that implied religion somehow gives Life “meaning.”
How?
alphie (99bc18) — 9/9/2007 @ 3:32 pm#26-alfe. “Alleviating the suffering of others,seeing ones children thrive, the general advancement of the human race, are good things. It`s the judgmemtal thing where we part company.” Alfe, you don`t even know it, but you just made a ” judgment” on the things you think are important in life. I see, it`s ok for you but not for “conservatives.” In typical lib fashion you condem in others what you have no idea you`re doing yourself. If i keep saying ” the advancement of the human race” I`ll remove all of my liberal guilt. I like how specific that statment is.
jim fish (268044) — 9/9/2007 @ 3:33 pmI do not believe that Semanticleo deserves to be lumped in with Alphie. Her comments are provocative and often in extreme opposition but I believe she deserves more respect than she is being shown. Alphie, on the other hand, is just a mechanical noisemaker (or pick any other description he has been given here).
nk (a6ecc6) — 9/9/2007 @ 3:33 pmPeter sliced off the ear of a slave carrying out the order to arrest Jesus, he immediately healed the slave’s ear and pronounced; “He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword”.
But he didn’t mean that literally, did he?
I am inclined to believe that He did. If He didn’t I’m in big trouble because I consider war the greatest of sins. There is also a lesson about soldiers and their relationship to Christ in the Chapter about the centurion’s servant.
nk (a6ecc6) — 9/9/2007 @ 3:38 pmJD #31:
itsme – If you wish, look up the John Edwards health plan, and his recent speech on same, where it mandates physicals and preventative car.
Thanks for the info. I ran a search, and haven’t been able to find anyplace where physicals and preventive care are “mandated.” I do see where incentives would be offered:
Of course I haven’t researched it much, but it doesn’t strike me as very oppressive. Plenty of health insurance companies offer premium incentives to companies who enroll their employees in wellness programs, for instance, or offer “health incentive accounts” to enrollees.
Health incentive accounts
Algore has repeatedly used the term traitor in the context of the “deniers” of AGW.
Well, a Google search for “Gore” and “warming” and “traitor” comes up empty.
I do see that Robert Kennedy Jr. made such a comment at Live Earth. (Of course he wasn’t speaking as a representative of the Democratic Party.)
RFK Jr.
(at 3:20-3:40)
To be fair, it wasn’t “in the context of the ‘deniers’ of AGW” but in the context of “villanous companies that consistently put their private financial interests ahead of American interests and ahead of the interests of humanity.”
Also to be fair, he was willing to speak on air to people he criticized later in that speech. I do credit Beck et al with allowing him on, even though he misquoted RFK Jr. as calling him a traitor.
Beck clip
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 3:59 pmSorry, here’s the link for the bit from the John Edwards site:
“Incentives like lower premiums will reward individuals who schedule free physicals and enroll in healthy living programs.”
Edwards campaign site
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 4:03 pm(under “Promote Preventive Care”)
“Incentives like lower premiums will reward individuals who schedule free physicals and enroll in healthy living programs.”
Zum befehl, Mein Fuhrer!
Look, Silky Pony! My health is my business. My relationship with my doctor is a confidential and consensual one. Or don’t you agree with Roe v. Wade? You’re in the wrong country and seventy years too late for your Gesundheitschutzhaft.
nk (a6ecc6) — 9/9/2007 @ 4:16 pmDarleen #33:
Itsme
Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.
“It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care,” he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. “If you are going to be in the system, you can’t choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.”
He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat “the first trace of problem.”
Darleen, thanks for the quote. However, while I have found many sites that post this quote in this context, I have not found the transcript for his actual speech (or remarks).
So part of this is someone’s take on what he said.
However, inartful or ambiguous as his remarks may have been, his campaign site states what we would assume is his official position: that preventive care must be offered under the plan, and that there can be incentives for those who take advantage of it.
It sounds like you could end up paying more if you don’t take advantage of it (just as with other premium incentives), but nobody throws you in the paddy wagon and hauls you down to the doctor’s office.
Edwards campaign site
Hillary Clinton said the “take things away from you” quote.
Thanks. It looks like she was talking in terms of people losing tax cuts:
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 4:30 pmnk #46:
Hey, you can agree or disagree with his position, I couldn’t care less.
I am not an Edwards supporter particularly. I just don’t see the point of misstating his position.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 4:35 pmitsme at 23: Well my point was in the context of criticizing members of one party or another for hypocrisy.
I think that the whole “who’s more hypocritical” game is largely a waste of time, but if you want to go there, there’s no shortage of examples on the Democratic side. Ted Kennedy supports government-backed imposition of a lower-carbon lifestyle, except where that might obstruct the view from his Massachusetts compound. John Edwards regularly inveighs against the harm caused by SUV’s, while owning several himself. Many Democrats rail against the evils of “the rich,” while themselves earning and owning far more than the average citizen (Edwards and Kerry would be just two prominent examples, though there are certainly more). Many Democratic officeholders sing the praises of public schools, while sending their own children to tony private schools that their constituents can only hope to afford. &c., &c.
The claim that only one party has a monopoly on hypocrisy seems, to me, fairly indefensible. But as I said, the hypocrisy game is largely a waste of time, and often seems to be a diversion from the far more productive exercise of actually arguing the merits a given policy.
NYC 3L (b162bd) — 9/9/2007 @ 4:42 pmDemocratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.
I do not see how that can be construed as anything other than mandatory. These quotes were quotes, not interpretations of a quote.
JD (f6a000) — 9/9/2007 @ 4:48 pmItsme, there are several direct quotes from Edwards that indicate that the mandate is upon individuals to comply with required “preventative care” and screening or be punished by removal of coverage.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/9/2007 @ 4:56 pmNYC 3L # 49:
You give some good examples. While few of them qualify as “legislating morality” in the sense of gay rights, etc., an example of personal failings in contradiction of a public position is fair game for criticism.
I agree completely with your last statement.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 5:06 pmJD and Robin Roberts:
I haven’t seen any other quote except the one posted here. If you can provide links to others, I’d be interested in seeing them.
I think the parts of the reports that said Edwards said physicals would be “mandatory” or that his “proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care” are people’s take on what he said. Not his actual words.
I agree that his statement to the folks in the lawn chairs sounds weird: I mean, the first two sentences seem pretty clear that provision of coverage and preventive care would be required, but the second part … huh?
Candidates say squirrelly things all the time. It seems most logical to go by what their official campaign literature says, and all I see there are incentives for preventive care.
Maybe you have seen something at his official site that says more?
Again, I’m not a big Edwards booster. I just don’t see the value of misstating his actual position – if it is a misstatement.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 5:16 pmRobin Roberts:
Removal of coverage? Interesting. Can you provide links?
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 5:17 pmItsme, the AP reporter presents them as direct quotes of Edwards.
From this report:
‘”It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care,” he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. “If you are going to be in the system, you can’t choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.”
He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat “the first trace of problem.”‘
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/9/2007 @ 5:20 pmIf its a misstatement of Edwards position, its his own misstatement.
Unless AP is fabricating quotes again, but they don’t attribute them to Jamil Hussein this time.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/9/2007 @ 5:22 pmI disagree with the concept of government-controlled health care to begin with. I was only being mildly sarcastic with my Roe v. Wade allusion — I do believe that the doctor-patient relationship is uniquely individual, confidential and consensual. As simply as possible, the exclusive power to give is the power to withhold. The North Carolina mealy-mouth may not have the guts to post it on his website but even so the reasonable implication of his plan is that once you’re in his health care concentration camp he can do anything he wants to you because your only other choice will be “die”.
nk (a6ecc6) — 9/9/2007 @ 5:23 pmRobin Roberts #a 55, 56:
I meant that the commentary describing it is “mandatory” or “requiring people” to get preventive care is … well, commentary. Not his actual quote.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 5:30 pmNo, Itsme, now you are spinning and not very convincingly. You can’t get away with ignoring Edwards’ own words. His own language as quoted by the AP states quite clearly that individuals can’t avoid preventative care.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/9/2007 @ 5:33 pmRobin –
I am not ignoring his words. I am separating them from the commentary.
I am also giving more weight to his official written position absent any other quotes.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 5:54 pmYou are clearly ignoring his words. “If you are going to be in the system, you can’t choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.”
There is no daylight between those words and mandatory.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/9/2007 @ 5:57 pmSo long as Edwards’ webiste says that his healthcare plan will not require physicals, preventative treatment, and mammograms, then Edwards himself is free to spew whatever he wants out of his pie-hole, and that will not concern you. It is his plan, and his words indicate that you will not be able to choose to NOT go to the doctor, which means that you will be required to go to the doctor. That does not seem too difficult to understand. YOU HAVE TO GO IN AND BE CHECKED … does not seem very voluntary to me.
JD (f6a000) — 9/9/2007 @ 6:00 pmRobin –
I disagree that I am ignoring his words.
Now, could you please show me an official statement from his campaign that his health care proposal will require that people get checkups? That should clear it up pronto.
Thanks.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 6:02 pmItsme, now we are take Edwards’ campaign word over Edwards own statements?
That is hilariously ridiculous. You don’t expect people to take you seriously with that do you?
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/9/2007 @ 6:05 pmI would have to assume that John Edwards is the offical spokesman of the Edwards campaign, as it is his name on the campaign, and his pie-hole that the words came out of. If they were not accurate, it would be reasonable to assume that the campaign would have issued a statement saying that he misspoke, or was misunderstood. To date, I have not seen that.
Now, you would task us with proving from his own campaign literature that he did not mean his own words, words that he has not refuted, or taken back. So, either his plan on his webiste is incomplete, or he was lying and pandering to a group of people about how his system would work.
Either way, it is not our role to prove that he did not mean exactly what he said. He said it, out of his own mouth, and they have not refuted it in several days. Logic would tell you that his words were accurate.
JD (f6a000) — 9/9/2007 @ 6:06 pmIt is safe to assume that John Edwards is the official spokesman for the John Edwards campaign, no? Why would we not take him at his word? Was he grossly exaggerating his plan to a group of people that he thought needed to hear that?
Either his online position is not fully spelled out, or he was stating his position accurately. As his campaign has not refuted or retracted the statement, after several days, it is safe to assume that is the position of the campaign.
JD (f6a000) — 9/9/2007 @ 6:09 pmRobin –
If you want to tell me that a presidential candidate made an incredibly important and controversial change in his official position while talking to people sitting in lawn chairs, but evidently never repeated it, while stating the opposition at his official campaign website, we’ll have to disagree about what is ridiculous.
I am not an Edwards booster. I am perfectly willing to believe he takes a particular position…but would like to see some real evidence of it.
So, if it is truly his official position, it shouldn’t be so hard to find elsewhere. Could you provide some links?
Thanks.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 6:14 pmJD # 65:
See my post #66.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 6:16 pmCorrection #66:
“…while stating the oppositeat his official campaign website…”
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 6:19 pmEdwards’ own statements are not evidence of Edwards’ positions?
That pretty hilarious Itsme. I think at this point, you’ve done a fine job of discrediting yourself.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/9/2007 @ 6:26 pmWho wants to bet that Itsme abandons this silly position of his the first time there is a quotation from a Republican candidate that is not echoed word for word on the candidate’s website?
No one wants to take that bet ?
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/9/2007 @ 6:27 pmRobin –
I am perfectly willing to believe that Edwards might have such a position. It may be a dreadful health plan for all I know.
All I’m asking for is evidence that that is really the official position of his campaign.
Republican candidates? I recall quite a few things that GWB has said over the years that weren’t part of his official campaign position … they came to be known as “Bushisms.”
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 6:30 pmItsme – So, which one was lying – a) John Edwards, or B) John Edwards?
As the architect of the John Edwards Mandatory Doctor Visits Plan, I would assume that John Edwards knows the actual details of the plan.
If he misspoke, I would expect that his campaign would have quickly issued a statement indicating same. He has not, and has in no way refuted his public statement.
JD (f6a000) — 9/9/2007 @ 6:39 pmJD –
I don’t think the absence of a refutation is the same as evidence supporting a position.
Maybe we’ll hear more one way or the other soon enough. Feel free to post anything you find out.
Personally, I think the thread has devolved from the original discussion, and I’m sorry if I’ve helped derail it in any way.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 6:47 pmPersonally, I think the thread has devolved from the original discussion, and I’m sorry if I’ve helped derail it in any way.
It happens all the time, here. As long as we’re reasonably polite to each other and don’t say anything likely to put us in jail Patterico tolerates it.
nk (a6ecc6) — 9/9/2007 @ 6:54 pmItsme – The absence of refutation, coupled with the fact that the candidate himself has been quoted by the AP as saying such a thing, is more than enough evidence for me that he meant it. Should he issue a correction, or a retraction, so be it. Until that point in time, I will take the words of John Edwards more seriously than the webiste of John Edwards, especially given the history of who he has had running that website, ie. Marcotte.
JD (f6a000) — 9/9/2007 @ 7:02 pmJD –
Feel free to post more info when you find it. Thanks.
Itsme (1efa4c) — 9/9/2007 @ 7:05 pmMy, my, is this the same Andrew Kaplan who accused the Democrats of being hypocrites just this past Spring?
“Of course, like everything, this candor has its price. A politics that depends on honesty will be, by nature, often impolite. Good manners and hypocrisy are intimately intertwined, and so conservatives, with their gimlet-eyed view of the world, are always susceptible to charges of incivility. It’s not really nice, you know, to describe things as they are.”
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_diarist.html
Foolish consistancy and all that, I guees.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/9/2007 @ 7:29 pmWhy is it that contorted claims of hypocrisy seem to be the only things that the Leftists can dredge up?
JD (f6a000) — 9/9/2007 @ 8:01 pmLosing two wars and turning a budget surplus into $4 trillion in debt come to mind too, JD.
But the irony of the piece I linked to is off the charts.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/9/2007 @ 8:04 pmDemocrats aren’t so much hypocrites as they are just bold face liars.
“I did not have sex with that Woman…” Billy C.
“When elected we will end the war”
Perfect Sense (6e894f) — 9/9/2007 @ 9:07 pmsuch a simple-minded moron
chas (3385c2) — 9/9/2007 @ 9:45 pmMy, my, is this the same Andrew Kaplan who accused the Democrats of being hypocrites just this past Spring?
My, my, is this the piece Staunch Brayer linked to?
That’s YOU he’s talking about, Staunch Brayer, and your ‘Losing two wars and turning a budget surplus into $4 trillion in debt’ moonbatteryic braying.
But the irony of the piece I linked to is off the charts.
Yes, the irony that you quoted and linked to your own refutation is indeed off the charts.
Your writing, quoting, reasoning and logic is its own punishment, Staunch Brayer.
Paul (5efd01) — 9/10/2007 @ 2:29 pm