...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

November 05, 2004

Who Was Really Responsible?

Two things are inevitable after a Democratic loss. One, the liberals will call the American people stupid. Two, they will call their own candidate inept. Newsweek hits hard on the latter point in this fascinating story, which manages to slam their candidate while simultaneously reinforcing the "evil Republican" stereotype with subtle editorializations.

Many voters, i'm sure, were swayed by the Swift Vet ads, but just as many thought that Vietnam was irrelevant. Kerry could not escape his own words, though. In my opinion, while the Swift Vets had their effect, nothing was more devastating to Kerry's chances than his infamous "87 billion" quote. The Newsweek piece reveals the key moment of the 2004 campaign, and its true heroes (or villains, depending on your point of view).

[W]hen Kerry addressed a veterans group in West Virginia, a heckler kept demanding to know why he had voted against more funding for the troops. In his considered but long-winded fashion, Kerry tried to explain that he had wanted to vote for the funding, but only if the Senate passed an amendment that would whittle down President Bush's earlier tax cut for the rich. Kerry voted for the amendment, but when it failed, he voted against the funding. The heckler pressed, and Kerry, losing patience, fell into senatorial procedural shorthand. 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,' he said.

At Bush-Cheney headquarters, Joe Kildae, a 25-year-old campaign intern who monitored the war room (and never seemed to sleep), was watching. In his cubicle he kept three televisions and a battery of TiVos and VCRs. As soon as he saw Kerry make his remark on Fox News, he stood up in his cubicle and caught the eye of his boss, Steve Schmidt. Schmidt had seen the clip, too. The two men nodded at each other. Kildae thought to himself: 'We're going to be seeing this a lot.' He immediately hit pause on his digital recorder, wound the clip back and copied it to tape. Using a program called TVEyes, he pulled up an instant rough transcript. He e-mailed the transcript of Kerry's 'flip-flopping' to an 'alert list' of top aides, who could then click on a link to see the video.

'You gotta see this,' Kildae told campaign communications adviser Terry Holt. 'Oh, my God,' Holt replied. 'You have to send that to me on my BlackBerry.' The video of Kerry's shooting himself in the foot flew around Bush-Cheney headquarters and, very soon, into the hungry ether beyond.

McKinnon and his ad team wasted no time. 'The second we saw it, we knew we had a new ad,' McKinnon later recalled. 'The greatest gifts in politics are the gifts the other side gives you.' It was so simple. All they had to do was drop the footage of Kerry saying 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it' into the ad that was already running, chastising Kerry for cutting funding. McKinnon called the new ad 'Troops-Fog.' Much of its airing was free: news shows picked up the clip of the 'flip-flop' and plastered it on screens like wallpaper.

It took a while for the Kerry campaign to even realize that its candidate had been badly wounded. Kerry himself realized he had made a mistake, but at his headquarters, most of the chatter was about the 'weird heckler' who had asked him the question. The Kerry campaign would later insist that the Bush campaign had spent millions that spring to smear its candidate without much effect, but in fact Kerry's 'negatives' climbed in some key swing states. Just as important, perhaps, he had missed an opportunity to define himself in a positive or memorable way. The Bush 'Troops-Fog' act blew enough fog to unsettle voters, to make them wonder about Kerry's consistency and the depth of his conviction.

From there, talk radio and the blogosphere picked up the ball and ran with it. But i wonder how much closer the election would have been if Kerry himself had not provided the Republicans with their greatest weapon in the campaign.

Kerry once remarked to an aide "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot." Well, who's the idiot now, Senator?

Posted by annika, Nov. 5, 2004 |
Rubric: annikapunditry


In your new poll, I wanted to say that Ronald Reagan was the reason Bush won, but I ended up voting for the Evangelical Christians.

I don't think they voted for Bush in such overwhelming numbers in 2000 because he didn't effectively reach out to them, but ever since the partial-birth abortion ban and gay marriage amendment proposal they came out in droves to put him over the top.

I originally wanted to say Reagan since his death reminded everyone that he pulled us through tough times. I think people started to notice the parallels between him and Bush.

Posted by: reagan80 on Nov. 5, 2004


I don't think the Kerry 87 b. situation made a bit of difference. I do see the harping on this point, however, as the Bush people recognizing thet the AMerican public is stupid and that they would not notice that Kerry had a legimate reason to vote against it the second time it came up, since amendments concerning the tax cut had been added. But telling Americans something subtle is laughable. Even though EVERYTHING the Swift Boat hacks said was proved wrong, Americans believed them because they don't read past the headlines.

I was just listening to a few choice clips from the campaine. Dr Rice saying when pressed how many al quiada there were to help clarify the the 75% figure of al Quaida honchos prosecuited, waffeled and said there could be 10's or hundreds! What a deception the 75% number was. Some would call it a lie.

Or Kerry plainly said he would NOT be bound by ANY country or world body when it came to committing American troops. It was not ambiguous. It did offer the idea that it would be nice if there were some international consenus but no veto. No veto. How many times did we hear Bush lie, and say that Kerry will submit to a veto from the UN or other countries before he "protects" America. That I call a lie.

Bush won the election because no body cared that he was lying. They had a wish, as I have said many times, to see the world through this lens and the issues of "culture" i.e. baning gay marrige, abortion were of paramount concern.

When Renquist got sick they freaked thinking about all those 5-4's that went their way.

I heard a figure that 1/3 of all votes cast were by evangelical types. Could this be true?

JK may have made many mistakes, but the biggest mistake he made was thinking the American public cared that Bush was a liar. they did not.

Posted by: mike on Nov. 5, 2004

"Kerry once remarked to an aide 'I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot.'"

Hmmmm...wait a second. I think you may actually be thinking of Jon Lovitz's immortal SNL impersonation of Mike Dukakis during the 1988 debate, where of course Dana Carvey as Bush Sr. can only speak in clipped soundbites, e.g., "not gonna' do it; wouldn't be prudent at this juncture" and he responds, "I can't believe I'm losing to THIS GUY."

Same difference, of course, although it still strikes me as strange that the overwhelming majority of voters on both sides on Tuesday would still never have known that Kerry was Dukakis's Lt. Governor for two years.

Posted by: Dave J on Nov. 5, 2004

well if i am stupid, what does that make you.

That line should really be used more by republicans

Posted by: cubicle on Nov. 5, 2004


The right answer is missing from the "who'se most responsible for Kerry's defeat" portion of your poll. The right answer is, "John Kerry."

Posted by: Matt on Nov. 5, 2004


That's it. Keep calling 51% of the American people stupid, artless, bigoted rubes. You'll definitely win in '08 that way! Has it ever entered your mind that maybe, just maybe, you missed something they didn't? I'm reminded of Cromwell's plea: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Posted by: Matt on Nov. 5, 2004


No I don't.

Given the lies, waffling, deceptions, death and dying, artless speech, nasty rhetoric, willful character assassination, did I mention lies?, pandering to religious zombies, pandering to school yard bullies, that was tossed at the 51% who said "ya know, that guys on the right track", I do not think I was missing anything, to the contrary I saw it all, I do not doubt, not deep in my bowels or at the tip of my cerebrum, that this man is an evil force, and that America will require years if not decades to recover from the direction he taking us. The world policy, the christianization at home, all are contrary to the stated precepts of the founding documents of this nation.

Posted by: mike on Nov. 5, 2004

Want the REALLY BAD NEWS? LMAO, actually good news for us. The fucking Dems have held on by the skin of their teeth by stuffing ballot boxes in the major metro areas for 30 years. Computerized registration takes hold in a little over a year, and then, they're not going to be able steal votes the way they can now. Now all we need is a senesence test, and we'll have a twenty year run before the opportunists take over and totally corrupt the party. The bad news is that the end of the world is probably VERY near.

Posted by: Casca on Nov. 5, 2004


Gee, until you got to the "religious zombies" part, I thought you were talking about the Dems. My bad.

But that aside, why don't you quote those founding documents you refer to? I'd like to see the one that mentions Christianization. And the one that codifies an immutable "world policy," too. (Especially if, coincidentally, it happens to perfectly correspond to your own policy preferences. Wouldn't that be neat!)

Posted by: Matt on Nov. 5, 2004

Dave J, i got the "idiot" quote from the Newsweek article. But, i do vaguely remember the SNL skit you mentioned.

Posted by: annika! on Nov. 5, 2004

Mike, even if the Swift boaters were debunked:

1) How in heck does a man get more medals than Audie Murphy in 4 months, including three Purple Hearts, with no serious injuries and apparently no combat action that lasted for more than a few minutes? Kerry never released the records to clear this up.

2) Why would 200 Viet vets lie about Kerry? Oh, he lied about them and called them all babykillers. NO WAY CAN THIS MAN EVER COMMAND AMERICAN TROOPS!!!

Posted by: markm on Nov. 6, 2004

Actually, in the professional military culture, and amongst Naval Officers. This no good cocksucker was in the parlance, "All show and no go", and quite literally a bounder. The kind of guy looking for a woman to support him.

Posted by: Casca on Nov. 6, 2004

I think I am about blogged out on this election. I have read every pundit's vision of who was responsible for winning, who for losing, and who benefits and who doesn't. I have finally reached a conclusion that is obvious enough. The buck stops with the candidate, and Kerry lost it for himself by listening to Shrum.

Bob Schrum is yesterday's politics. His idea was to portray Kerry as the war hero, thus assuring the American People that he could easily be Commander-in-Chief of a wartime nation. He almost got away with it.

Enter the Swiftvets. With $200,000 they got out a so-so ad, and got it on a few stations in a few small states where they could afford the rates. The mainstream press, thinking it was a floperoo and a joke, picked it up to ridicule it, but (don't you love the law of unintended consequences?) lo and behold, many of us took it seriously, and it caught the attention of the blog world. It got really big, really fast, and Shrum was asleep. They ignored it for days, and when they went to respond, it was just too late. They never recovered, and Kerry spent the rest of the campaign explaining...when you have to explain, you are already lost.

So, big winner, The Swifties - Heroes twice over in my book; big loser, Shrum. It is time to retire him and and put him out to pasture with Cronkite, Rather and Brokaw.

One more big loser, Hillary. The Democrats now know that they cannot win with a liberal Senator, and they must go to the South or Southwest to have a chance of taking back the White House in 2008. I think her chances just went down the drain. So, biggest winner of all - United States of America.

God Bless America.

Posted by: shelly on Nov. 6, 2004


God blesses no one or everyone. Take your pick. There is no middle. Thinking that it picks America only renders you fit for the asylum. That is why Bush is president; Americans live in a fantasy world, a world of a god looking down on them, a world where the deaths of 1125 soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians seem like an acceptable reality. Well it is not. Not if you cherish life, not if you cherish the unborn, not if have a wit of humanity, and not if you believe in god.

Try reading this complete editorial; I included the first and last para. And don't come back at me with some stupid bullshit about not caring what the rest of the world thinks, or what does some faggot Limey know. Just try and remember that we comprise 3-5% of the world's population. What are the chances that we will stay the dominant power for 50 years? 25 years?

"Yanks had the chance to show the world a better way this week; instead they made a thuggish cowboy ride off into the sunset bathed in glory..........................................

And in doing so it brought Armageddon that little bit closer and re-christened their beloved nation The Home of The Knave and the Land Of The Freak.

God Help America."


Posted by: mike on Nov. 6, 2004

Mike, personally, I'm going to discount that editorial not because it's written by "some faggot Limey" as you so eloquently put it, but because the Mirror is the house tabloid of the British left, i.e., people who would read the Guardian if only they were more literate. Its basic editorial stance tends to be roughly "America is the root of all evil."

But then, I suppose I'm just an ignorant, moronic, evil Yank who would know nothing about such things except "them furriners is stoopid." Never mind that I worked for the Tories when I lived in London.

Posted by: Dave J on Nov. 6, 2004

Dave J,

David Brooks says it very well in today's NYT:

"[T]he same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?

"What we are seeing is a diverse but stable Republican coalition gradually eclipsing a diverse and stable Democratic coalition. Social issues are important, but they don't come close to telling the whole story. Some of the liberal reaction reminds me of a phrase I came across recently: The rage of the drowning man."

Posted by: Matt on Nov. 6, 2004

"What are the chances that we will stay the dominant power for 50 years? 25 years?"

You seem to almost root for your own country's failure, Mike. i repeat my suggestion that you seriously consider emigration.

"God blesses no one or everyone. Take your pick. There is no middle."

Interesting theology. It's not supported by a reading of the Bible, but it's interesting. Anyways, you've already indicated your anti-christian bigotry in other comments, so i'm not surprised that you'd be unfamiliar with the Bible.

Posted by: annika! on Nov. 6, 2004

Hey DaveJ,

Discount it all you like. Whatever that means. I guess it means that a "left" leaning journalist cannot possibly see clearly the state of our presidency? That's an easy dodge if ever I saw one.

Posted by: mike on Nov. 6, 2004


My bigotry is not limited to Christendom, it is just that Christians are enjoined to proselytize and hence make an easy target. I find organized religion an execration. The bible is similar to the I Ching or Tarot Cards; inasmuch as the bigoted, the pious, the needy, and the ignorant all find what they need to further their agenda's. All straw grasping and looking for answers in a book written 1000 years ago by men elaborating on events of 1000 years earlier. I think that there are better choices one can make to help them come to a clearer view of the reality they inhabit.

As to wishing for the downfall of our empire I truly do not but I try to stay aware of the possibility and asses the policies of our government that may bring us closer faster. Rome also believed it was eternal and the darling of their gods.

David Brooks, who I watch every night and as a reader of the dreaded NYT, I read what he writes, is a smirking ass. I find his assessments of what makes America tick troubling and shallow. He has also passed the acid test for me, in that he never once has been offended by the constant lying of Bush and his horde as they softened America for the invasion of Iraq. He would shrug, give his little twisted smirk and excuse the lies as the product of bad intelligence and how unfortunate that Condi or Colin had these bad reports shoved into their hands. "Well what is she supposed to know about aluminum?" He is an apologist and a fraud for thinking of himself a journalist.

Posted by: mike on Nov. 6, 2004

I liked the story in the Mirror this week; "Woman Gives Birth To Walrus With Elvis' Head".

Posted by: d-rod on Nov. 6, 2004


I'm just curious: Why do you come here? What's in it for you? You're angry, bitter, condescending and -- probably worst of all -- conclusory, so no one's likely to be persuaded by you, and I think you realize it. You're either mocked or ignored, or both, by most if not all of Annika's readers. Surely you've noticed this. So what draws you here? Is it just that you need a place to vent your anger, and you either don't know anyone in the real world who doesn't think like you, or aren't willing to make them the targets of your rage? Or are you really trying to persuade people to your view, and just blithely unaware that your tactics make that unlikely? It doesn't seem possible that you come here just for exposure to different views, because you don't seem at all open to different views except inside a very narrow ideological range. Even if you are, I don't recall ever having seen a comment by you that indicated you'd found something worthwhile here. So I'd think you'd have written off this little corner of the blogosphere by now. But you keep coming back for more.


Posted by: Matt on Nov. 6, 2004

I have to agree - the Lovitz line is classic.

What a difference a few days makes. Just before the election, someone would gaze at Kerry all teary-eyed, thinking of him as the hope for the future and all that. Three days later, he's the jerk that broke the same person's heart. Politics is like a love affair.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor on Nov. 6, 2004

Mike keeps coming back cuz liberals are sadists, anyone who is a progressive has to be. I suppose that's why I keep dating them...


Posted by: Scof on Nov. 7, 2004


I have learned a lot here. I am able to report back to liberal headquarters on my observations which find the positions you proffer to be enlightening and frightening. So, you see, I am not looking for affirmation nor do I believe I will change you into a person of good character and compassion. I am not offended by the cold shoulder or the school yard invective. It is all revealing and helps me in my quest to find out how 59 million Americans can be, as the headlines in other countries have put it, so dumb. You voted against your best interests because you wish to be safe or against those who would kill babies for reasons of vanity, or those who chose not to work so they may have babies and enrich themselves on the dole with your money, or those who think the ten commandments have nothing to offer modern civilization, or those who think the idea of an American hegemony is a blight on the land, or those who find the deaths of 100,000 to secure democracy in Iraq an Orwellian bargain, and on and on.

I am deeply interested in the rationalizations each of you (sorry for the collective you) uses to suspend or constrict your view of reality in the pursuit of your yearnings for revenge and keeping a veil over you weakness. America's weakness. This is a great and wonderful country, bountiful and full of promise but it is not perfect and it has room to grow and mature into a state that can offer far more to the world and its own people. I hope for that and you probably do as well, we differ considerably on how that will be achieved and what it will look like when accomplished.

If you wish to sit around with a bunch of people who share you vision and pat each other on the backs maybe you should go some where else. Out here in public, life is more complicated and diverse.

Here is a story that I think illustrates why I participate.

I went to see Silence of the Lambs when it opened in a Brooklyn theater with some friends. I noticed a couple with two small children in tow and went up to them and as nicely as I could ask if they new what the movie was about. They started synopsizing for me missing the irony of my question. I said in fact I did know and was wondering why, if they knew as well, had they taken small children to see it. The kids were 1 and 6 years old. The mom seemed nonplused and said the little one would sleep and the 6 year old would too. I left for my seat. After the picture I asked if the kids did sleep and was informed the little one had but the older one just put his hands in front of his face at the scary parts. I was angry and lectured her about child rearing and how this was a form of abuse far more affecting that hitting a child and basically what rotten people they were. (I could have done better no doubt) I was told to go back to Russia where people had no freedom whilst here in America we could do as we pleased so go fuck yourself.

The point is that a seed was placed in her mind in spite of her angry dismissal. My goal was achieved. If she mentions the incident to a friend or her mother-in-law, etc. she may hear an opinion supporting my, correct (call me conclusive, its no sin) position and she may be able to hear from a friend or priest, or rabbi, the same thing I told her and her abuse will stop. It is tough sometimes to lose the defensive postures were have been clinging to our entire lives. I may not change your mind, but you do hear what I say as I do you. I was not being factious when I said I have learned things here. I think I am much older than you Matt and have lived though periods in American history that you have not, and I may have some perspective that is worthwhile, even though "liberal" which BTW was a dirty word when I was active in politics as an SDS member in the 60's.

I hope you can tolerate another point of view, and if you think I have been condescending I apologize and will try, as I hope you will too, to keep the conversations tempered and cogent

Posted by: mike on Nov. 7, 2004

Mike I read the entire piece of drivel. All I could think of is that the author surely believes all the Kerry rhetoric to be true. Probably bought Michael Moore's junk non-documentary lock, stock and barrel besides.

There is no accounting for people who are blinded by hate, what they say and what they do is not logical.

And, there is only one way to deal with illogical people; you don't.

Anyone who seriously believes that one vote in the U.N. would have changed if Kerry asked does not understand where France has gone; 29% Muslim says it all. They will never be our friend again; it wouldn't matter if you elected Kerry, Clinton or Mrs. Chirac President of the United States.

God (with a capital "G" for those who believe), has indeed blessed the United States; after all, a person like you can assail our President with impunity. Not too many other countries have these kinds of liberties. We're doing what we can to extend the numbers. It is worth dying for.

Posted by: shelly on Nov. 7, 2004


Why aren't you fighting then or at least providing support ? I think the people who send others off to war for causes they are sure are worth dying for should have to be nurses, doctors, engineers or truckdrivers in the war zone if they can't carry a rifle. Otherwise they should zip it.

The Kerry rehetoric was not made up by JK. He simply talked about what he saw, and that is for the most part what I see as well, I did not need JK to show me Iraq is a disaster, or that the economy sucks, or that health care coverage has gone down as the debt has become the largest ever, or that OBL is still on the lose threating us, or that Bush can't deliver a complete thought without a script, or that ALL of the bush advisors and cabinet members lied throught their teeth to develop reasons to go to war, or that Iraq was no threat but an excellent location for the US to make its beachhead in the ME. The fact that you overlook these things seems to me to be an indication of simplemindedness.

Shelly, if you stopped thinking that the only opposition to the president and his policies is based on mimicry you might hear what they are saying. Leave god out of it, leave your unfounded fear of "terrorists" outof it and start lookin at the facts and thinking about waht the death of one son or daughter means then 100,000.

As for god having something to do with the freedoms I enjoy I like to see your source material.

Posted by: mike on Nov. 7, 2004

Mike, you do realize that the Lancet's 100,000 figure has been discredited, don't you?

Also, theres no need to apologize for being condescending, you poor misguided ignorant man. i too am am deeply interested in the rationalizations silly people like you use to suspend or constrict your view of reality in the pursuit of your anti-tradition, anti-religion, anti-American agenda.

; )

Posted by: annika on Nov. 7, 2004


Let me get this straight. Since I have chosen a different path by not entering the military then I can not comment on it? By that reasoning neither can anyone on the left who has not served in the military. It just doesn't wash. Are you trying to suppress free speach?

You gravely miss the point of why people say God Bless Amerca. It is for future blessings. Why does it bother you that a God you do not believe in would bless America?

Posted by: Michael C on Nov. 8, 2004

Michael C-

I can ask why a person who thinks America is in a life and death fight why they are not participating, if they feel the stakes are so high. I can ask that the assurity they feel in sending someone elses son/daughter off to war be backed up by a more serious committment than lip service. How you view that as a suppression of free speech is decidedly odd since only the government can interfere with your rights in that regard. Your employer can certainly limit your speech and tell you not to put political banners on the wall of your cubical, as can your neighborhood association, or your coop/condo board, or the college you attend if they receive no federal funding.

It always bothers me when otherwise intelligent people participate in faith based ventures, like read the astrology column in the paper, buying lotto tickets, praying to god, getting their palm read, and generally think there are forces at work in the universe that effect their lives but are unknowable.

The problem is not that they have these beliefs but that they act as if they are true, tell others to believe the same, and expect that there is a decernable effect.


I did not hear any follow up on the Lancet article and if it was an over statement so be it. I really don't make a distinction in this matter between 5000, 15,000, 100,000. It is a tragic waste of human life, in support of a polcy woven from lies, deceit and in service of an unstated goal.

My "agenda" as you so sinisterly put it, is in fact quite pro America, just not your idea of what America is or should be. Not unpatriotic, not seditious, not hoping for America's downfall. I think America can do much better than it is doing.

Posted by: mike on Nov. 8, 2004


[His] support for Ralph Nader helped lose Florida for Al Gore. This time, he boosted President Bush by outraging Middle America. Take a bow, Mike: you've done it again.

Oops, wrong mike.

Posted by: d-rod on Nov. 8, 2004

War is a necessary evil. How can I justify sending troops to fight for our freedom without going myself? Simply I can't go. I injured my right knee in seventh grade rendering me ineligible for duty. Thus many others are going in my stead.

When is a war necessary to you Mike? Is there ever a time when you can justify it? What proof do you need? It is proven that Saddam Hussein harbored terrorists. Tenent 2 of the Bush doctrine.

I feel sorry for you for not seeing the power of God or never feeling it yourself. I like how you right-off those of us who believe in a higher power as being intellectually inept for believing so. I act on my beliefs because they are true to me.

Many on the right are evangelical but if you think that is the only reason the election turned out the way it did you are gravely mistaken. I never vote because of my religion, but I could never vote for a party that holds such contempt for me because of it.

Posted by: Michael C on Nov. 8, 2004

Michael C.

I don't believe the election turned on the evangelical vote, I have not said so, so please don't assume facts no in evidence. I don't "write-off" those that believe in god, but I do think it is a belief that is counter productive in many and neutral in others. I don't discriminate and think they can and should have all the rights granted to everyone in this country, I only wish they felt the same way. I know it is wrong to generalize but you would admit that it is religious belief that fuels the anti-gay marriage movement and the movement to strip women of their right to reproductive freedom.

Here is a description of a recent Bush appointee:

President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to
head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health
Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two
years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush
Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new
members. This position does not require Congressional approval. The
FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial
decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of
obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone
therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical
alternatives to surgical procedures for
sterilization and pregnancy termination.
Dr. Hager, the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women
Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing
Women with case studies from Hager's practice. His views of
reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for
productive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes
himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to
unmarried women. In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled
"Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from
premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and
praying. As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction
Revolution: A Christian Appraisal"...........

Does this make you proud to be an American, a member of a secular country?

Posted by: mike on Nov. 8, 2004

What you call reproductive "freedom" i call murder. And religion did not lead me to that conclusion, logic did. i have always been a practicing Catholic, but i was not always pro-life. Actually i was strongly pro-choice at one time. What happened? i used my head, instead of blindly agreeing with the "feminist" orthodoxy. The more i thought about the issue, the more i realized that the pro-choice position simply does not make logical sense. And that's true whether one is religious or not.

Posted by: annika! on Nov. 8, 2004

"The committee has not met for more than two
years, during which time its charter lapsed."

I would consider that another step toward the elimination of an unnecessary government bureaucracy and reduction of government waste of tax dollars.

Posted by: reagan80 on Nov. 8, 2004

Mike, please do not stereotype the religious right. What you call discrimination by the religious right is actually your projection of discrimination upon them. Yes there are some far right wing religius fanatics that want their religion thrust upon others. I discount them as you do.

But you are lunping all christians into that mold. You are discriminating against them by saying they should have no place in government.

They are only expresiing their views like everyone else. We do not want to get into the habit of supressing free speech.

Posted by: Michael C on Nov. 8, 2004