Link to jump to start of content The Seattle Times Company Jobs Autos Homes Rentals NWsource Classifieds seattletimes.com
The Seattle Times STOP: The Seattle Times Opinion Blog
Traffic | Weather | Your account Movies | Restaurants | Today's events



Welcome to STop, the Seattle Times Opinion blog where our editorial writers and editors share their evolving thoughts on a variety of issues. STop is a place where opinion writers and readers can exchange views and readers can learn more about how editorial positions are formed.

The opinions you read below are those of the individual writers, not necessarily views that will become formal positions of The Seattle Times. Respond to STop
(Please be aware that your name and comments may be published here, unless you specify otherwise).

Currently, STop cannot automatically post readers' comments on the blog. However, the editorial staff will regularly post readers' comments. Your comments are sent directly to the individual editor or writer.

space space space

Jim Vesely
space
Jim Vesely
E-mail | Bio


Lee Moriwaki
space
Lee Moriwaki
E-mail | Bio


Joni Balter
space
Joni Balter
E-mail | Bio


Eric Devericks
space
Eric Devericks
E-mail | Bio


Lance Dickie
space
Lance Dickie
E-mail | Bio


Bruce Ramsey
space
Bruce Ramsey
E-mail | Bio


Kate Riley
space
Kate Riley
E-mail | Bio


Lynne Varner
space
Lynne Varner
E-mail | Bio


Ryan Blethen
space
Ryan Blethen
E-mail | Bio


October 28, 2004

On the right, conflicted

The Right is conflicted about Bush. The social conservatives are mostly for him, though they really don't get much from the Republicans. The flag-wavers are for him. Even Pat Buchanan, who has disagreed vehemently with Bush on the war, on immigration and on trade, has “come home” to Bush.

His magazine, The American Conservative, however, is split. Taki, his back-of-the-book columnist, is for the Constitution Party (“God, Family, Republic”) candidate, Michael Peroutka; Executive Editor Scott McConnell is for Kerry (on account of the war); one of the writers is for the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik; one is for Ralph Nader (the war, again), and one refuses to vote at all.

The largest libertarian magazine is Reason. That magazine did a survey of all its favorite people, and found them divided.

Humorist P.J. O’Rourke and sociologist Charles Murray were for Bush, as was libertarian law blogger Eugene Volokh, but gay right-winger Andrew Sullivan came out for Kerry, as did supply-sider Jude Wanniski and civil libertarian Nat Hentoff.

Bob Barr, the former right-wing congressman from Georgia who joined the American Civil Liberties Union after leaving Congress, has come out for the Libertarian candidate, even though when he was in office the Libertarians targeted him for his support of the war on drugs.

One reliably conservative paper, The Detroit News, was so disgusted with Bush’s volcano of spending and imprudent foreign policy that it refused to endorse anyone, coming out boldly for “none of the above.”

My sentiments are generally libertarian. I voted for Bush in 2000, and recommended him in my column, though one of the two major things I recommended him for (the other was Social Security private accounts) was his espousal of a "humble" foreign policy. What we got was an imperialist foreign policy. Bush has been the president the Left warned us against: the Republican who starts a war.

I don’t have high hopes for a Kerry presidency. I do hope Bush loses, because his defeat will tend to bring about a fight within the Republican Party, which is what it needs. The Rs need to fumigate themseves of warmongery and return to a historic conservatism in support of a bourgeois, mind-your-own-business and peaceful America.

I will vote Libertarian for president, for the first time in many years.

Respond to Bruce

Read his latest column

Posted by Bruce Ramsey at 01:55 PM


October 27, 2004

The real George Bush

From an Edmonds reader:

How best can voters decide how to accurately evaluate the past performance of George W. Bush? Check out what the Texans who know him very well have to say:

His hometown newspaper, Crawford, Texas

Bill Moyers

Molly Ivins

Written by an Edmonds reader

Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 02:53 PM


Racial politics

Depending on the outcome of next Tuesday's election, African Americans as a voting bloc might be claiming victory or ducking blame. In 2000, President Bush received just 9 percent of African-American votes, which according to the Associated Press is the lowest percentage a Republican presidential candidate has received since Barry Goldwater ran against Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.

But a new poll predicts Bush could pick up African American support this time around, possibly garnering as much as 18 percent of the black vote. The reason for the up tick? Black Christian conservatives who support Bush's faith-based initiatives and his opposition to same-sex marriage.

This is all interesting political fodder because while blacks tend to be solidly Democratic, their votes are key in battleground states.

And this headline pointing to the further segmentation of the American electorate: Kerry Leads Among Voters With Disabilities

A mid-August survey of a nationally representative sample of 1,012 adults found likely voters with disabilities say they will vote for Kerry over Bush (50 to 40 percent, with 7 percent for Nader).

In the 2000 election, the Harris Poll found that 56 percent of voters with disabilities cast ballots for Al Gore, and 38 percent for Bush

Respond to Lynne

Read her latest column

Posted by at 02:49 PM


October 22, 2004

Minimum wage rates

A minimum wage law set higher than the market will produce unemployment, and the higher it is, the more the unemployment. So says economic theory, with the usual caveat, “all other things being equal.”

How well does that work in real life?

A glimpse can be had by looking at the states here. Most of them, including big industrial states like New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, use the national rate of $5.15 per hour. So do all the southern and mountain states, including Idaho.

But 13 of the 51 jurisdictions have rates that are higher.

That includes Washington, which has the highest rate in the country: $7.16 per hour now and $7.35 as of Jan. 1, 2005.

Here is a table of unemployment rates, by state.

It’s notable that the three states with the highest unemployment rates are jurisdictions with high minimum wages: Alaska, $7.15 per hour; the District of Columbia, $6.15; and Oregon, $7.05 (going to $7.25 on Jan. 1). Washington is now 7th in unemployment, and Illinois, which has a $6.50 minimum, is eighth.

In all, 5 of the 10 states with the highest unemployment rates have special minimum wages higher than the national average. But so do three of the states with the lowest unemployment rates: Delaware ($6.15), Vermont ($6.75, going to $7.00) and the state with the lowest unemployment of all, Hawaii ($6.25).

Is there a correlation? Yes, but a weak one. Put the minimum wage up to $10 or $12, and I think it would be much stronger.

Respond to Bruce

Read his latest column

Posted by Bruce Ramsey at 06:23 PM


Those elections are smoking

Gov. Gary Locke announced good news yesterday on the smoking front: The number of adult Washington smokers has dropped 12 percent since the state launched an anti tobacco campaign four years ago.

Locke, vigorously supporting Attorney General Christine Gregoire for governor, may have been throwing a smooch of sorts toward Gregoire. She was the lead attorney in the giant lawsuit against the tobacco companies, the source of some of the money for the successful anti smoking campaign.

Politics aside, a major drop in smoking is good news in a season of attack ads and negative campaigning from dawn til dusk.

Respond to Joni

Read her latest column

Posted by Joni Balter at 06:13 PM


October 20, 2004

Re: Democracy, don't you love it?

A reader responds to Kate's blog:

I work as a polling judge here in King County. Every presidential election brings droves of folks in that vote only every 4 years. It's a lot like when the lottery is up to $40 million. For some bizarre reason, they think that the presidential election is of greater importance than the vote for local candidates and initiatives. In fact, some only vote for their presidential candidate and leave the rest blank.

And then they complain that they didn't understand what the Electoral College was about. (I remember studying that in high school, and my immigrant parents remember learning it in their citizenship class.)

I know one gentleman who heard Kerry say that Bush will take away his social security, so he's now taken his money out of the bank and is hiding it in the walls of his house. I really hate saying that voters are stupid, but some appear to have disenfranchized their brains from the process.

Presidential elections, like the state lottery, is driven by emotions -- and this election season is the most emotional one I've experienced. My hope is that it will be over in 2 weeks.

But I fear that it will carry over into December while the lawyers and judges determine the victor. At which point those of us who work at the polls can just throw up our hands and wonder why ANYONE will bother to show up next time.

Written by a reader

Posted by Kate Riley at 12:29 PM


The social security question

In the third presidential debate, George W. Bush stumbled on the same question that tripped up 8th District congressional candidate Dave Reichert in his debate against Dave Ross. The question is asked to any proponent of “privatizing” Social Security: If you allow workers to keep their Social Security taxes for private accounts, how do you pay people on Social Security now?

Neither Republican answered the question.

Reichert didn’t seem to understand it.

Bush counterattacked, saying that Kerry had not considered “the cost of doing nothing.” That was true; Kerry hadn’t. But Bush had not answered the question.

There is an answer. Part of it is that you can’t let younger workers put all, or maybe even half, of their tax contribution in a personal account. The Republicans don’t want to say that. Part of the answer is that you have to deplete the “trust fund” more quickly than otherwise, and then start going into debt for hundreds of billions of dollars. They don’t want to say that, either, but it is dishonest not to say so.

There is still a good case for doing it, because in the long run a switch to private accounts extinguishes the government’s liabilities. That is, there are huge ($7 trillion) liabilities in the current system that aren’t accounted for. Privatization makes much of it go away.

Furthermore, once you get to a system in which each generation pays for itself rather than for its parents, workers can make use of compound interest. They can’t, now. You pay a tax, and 30 years later you get it back at almost no interest. But putting all the transition cost on one generation is making them pay for retirement twice. It has to be spread out.

Also part of the answer is that no one's plan should be compared with the present system. Democrats do this all the time. That, too, is dishonest, because the present system is not sustainable. It has to be changed. Either taxes have to go up, benefits down or the system has to be redesigned to allow for some new source of revenue.

Respond to Bruce

Read his latest column

Posted by Bruce Ramsey at 09:55 AM


October 19, 2004

Democracy, don't you love it?

This election year really has so engaged the public with clear choices between president, U.S. senator, governor and assorted other races that citizens are registering to vote in droves.

Good for them for taking part in a process that will have lasting consequences for our nation and state. Too few citizens exercise their duty and vote.

I pray voting is a habit they keep. But I'm enough of a cynic to predict that this sudden surge in voter interest will wane by when it's time to pick new school board and city council members, who arguably have more direct impact on people's lives.

I hope I'm wrong.

Respond to Kate

Read her latest column

Posted by Kate Riley at 02:57 PM


October 14, 2004

Yo, Canada

President Bush got high centered on the U.S.-Canada border in the presidential debate Wednesday night. Struggling to explain why his administration made it difficult, if not illegal, for Americans to buy cheaper drugs from Canada, he pled safety. Can't be too sure those American-made drugs coming back across the border are what the Canadians say they are.

Struggling to explain how the United States got in a pickle over the supply of flu vaccine, he said not to worry. His administration was looking into buying some from Canada.

Respond to Lance

Read his latest column

Posted by Lance Dickie at 09:34 AM


October 11, 2004

Minor parties and the primary

One reason Gov. Gary Locke gave for his veto of a bill that would have changed Washington's primary to one where the top two vote-getters advance was because he said it would give minor parties short shrift.

I doubted that reasoning, knowing that a green was way more likely to get elected in some parts of Seattle and a Libertarian more likely in some rural areas. After all, there are two avowed Green Party members on the Seattle School Board (although those are nonpartisan seats) and, in 2000, five Seattle City Council members were Greens (two since lost their seats).

Thanks to a recent study by Washington State Grange, I know my suspicions were more or less correct. The Grange is sponsoring Initiative 872 on Washington's Nov. 2 ballot that would do what the governor undid and establish a "top two" primary.

The Grange's election specialist, Don Whiting, looked at the 2000 primary election and found that, had the top two primary been in place, 13 minor-party legislative candidates would have advanced to the general election. In 2002, four minor party candidates for the Legislature would have advanced.

That year, Green party candidates would have appeared on the general election ballot next to Democrats Sen. Tim Sheldon in the 35th Legislative District and next to Sen. Pat Thibaudeau in the 43rd. In Eastern Washington's 9th district, Republican Rep. Mark Schoesler would have appeared only with a Libertarian and Democratic Rep. Sharon Tomiko-Santos would have faced only an independent candidate in the 37th.

In some districts, a Green might be a better representative of his or her district and certainly a Libertarian would be a better fit in others. While that might erode the strength of the Democratic and Republican parties in the Legislature, third party candidates might raise the level of debate and shoo backroom deals out of closed caucuses. That could be a good thing.

Respond to Kate

Read her latest column

Posted by Kate Riley at 05:24 PM


The unconservative war

Will conservatives ever question the war? In the Sunday New York Times, Franklin Foer digs into the history of the Right in America, suggesting that the small group of right-wing antiwar voices, which you can sample here and sample here, reflect an almost-forgotten American tradition.

In 1940-41, when WWII had started but the United States was not officially in it, the conservative America First Committee, run by an executive of Sears, Roebuck, opposed aid to Britain because aid would involve us in a European war. (And they were right about that.)

In 1915-1916, most conservatives opposed involvement in WWI (as did the socialists); it was the fiery progressive Republican, ex-president Theodore Roosevelt, who publicly campaigned for getting into it, and a progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, who finally did it.

Foer is right: From an historical view, Bush's "war on terror" is not a conservative policy at all, either in the sense of conservatism as prudence, conservatism as anti-statism or conservatism as a defense of actual American interests.

Respond to Bruce

Read his latest column

Posted by Bruce Ramsey at 11:29 AM


Second presidential debate

From a reader regarding Friday's 2nd presidential debate:

Kerry showed the intelligence and demeanor needed for the presidency. Bush, just the opposite. A clear win for Kerry.

Written by a reader

Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 09:20 AM


October 07, 2004

Terror in the classrooms

Feds in the Education Department have alerted schools nationwide to be on the lookout for people who pose a terrorist threat.

Department officials want school employees, parents and students to watch out for anyone who seems to be casing school buildings or in the process of planning something similar to the school siege that killed nearly 340 people -- many of them children -- in Russia last month.

Federal law enforcement point out legitimate activities that might be suspicious if seen in another light -- for example, a flower vendor, shoe shiner or street sweeper. Other legitimate/suspicious occurrences are people who quickly look away when you stare at them or who are walking around the campus in the company of others.

After scaring the beejesus out of school leaders who thought it was going to be another ordinary day, law enforcement officials cautioned there was "no specific information indicating that there is a terrorist threat to any schools or universities in the United States."

Then why the out-of-the blue alert? School leaders already know their buildings could be possible terrorist targets. They are plugged into the same public warning systems as other agencies. They already know to check the color chart to see whether America is on high alert or so-so alert. Anything more, without concrete information, heightens fears unjustifiably.

Also, I never know exactly how law enforcement defines suspicious. What would a flower vendor have to be doing to make it onto my suspicious persons list? Hopefully, a lot more than selling flowers, walking in the company of others and not wishing to meet my glances.

I've done the proactive terrorist patrol and it didn't work out. One morning I dropped my son off at pre-school and noticed a tired-looking, unshaven man in an old car that looked like it wouldn't get him past the next block. I stared at him and he looked away. Aha! I called the school director, reported my sightings and waited to hear about the arrest.

Turns out the man was the husband of a teacher. I guess if we had to wake up at the crack of dawn to drive our spouses to work, we all might drive around unshaven and tired, too.

Respond to Lynne

Read her latest column

Posted by at 03:30 PM


Primary calculations

Thursday's Seattle Times analysis of which King County voters took which partisan ballot in the primaries might hint at how the general election will go, but probably is not completely telling.

Because Washington's new primary permitted voters to decide their party as they voted, more than a few voters probably selected their ballots on where the action is.

I wager more people took the Democratic ballot than the Republican ballot because that was where most of the action was for King County voters. The unsuccessful Democratic primary challenge of veteran state Rep. Helen Sommers had more than a few moderates and conservatives choosing to help her and fend off the challenger, backed shamelessly -- and tastelessly -- by big union money in an unfair and inaccurate smear campaign.

Because of the fierce Democratic gubernatorial primary, the Republican party Chairman put out a warning that final figures should not be judged how his Republican pick will do in the general election.

The same holds true for more conservative parts of the state. I was chatting with someone from Spokane recently who said he took a Republican ballot because that was where the action was -- in local legislative races as well as the hotly contested Republican primary race for the 5th Congressional District.

Respond to Kate

Read her latest column

Posted by Kate Riley at 01:19 PM


High prices, on purpose

The price of housing continues to go up. So reports the Northwest Multiple Listing Service and The Seattle Times.

This confirms a couple of things. First, the economy here is not as weak as some people say. We are behind the national recovery, but are participating in it.

Second, we are reaping the fruits of our deliberate social policy to make housing expensive in King County. The policy is called “growth management,” and all right-thinking progressives around here are in favor of it.

But it does make houses more and more expensive, as it is intended to do. It adds to the net worth of people like me, who own, and forces people who don’t own to spend more of their lives in apartments.

Respond to Bruce

Read his latest column

Posted by Bruce Ramsey at 01:13 PM


October 06, 2004

VP debate

From a reader regarding Tuesday's Vice Presidential debate:

John Edwards showed a clear command of the issues and a high level of engagement with the American audience. Cheney mumbled and repeated the same old talking points. John Edwards did a great job hitting the Bush administration on their lies and flip-flops.

Written by a reader

Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 05:50 PM


All about image

The race for the Eighth Congressional District seat seems to be all about image.

Neither Democrat Dave Ross nor Republican Dave Reichert collected many newspaper endorsements and both trailed in money-raising. But their celebrity -- Ross as a popular radio talk show host and Reichert as the King County Sheriff who caught the Green River Killer -- left better candidates behind.

While both are thoughtful, well-intentioned candidates, this is definitely a B-Squad matchup.

Sadly, neither candidate has a record that is easy to track. Weren't most people working when Ross was on the radio between 9 a.m. and noon? And a sheriff doesn't usually grapple with major issues of federal tax policy and health care. Both candidates' Web sites -- a place where voters ought to be able to get a good idea of distinctions -- are appallingly flimsy in terms of their positions on issues.

Under issues, Ross' Web site contains some ideas about health care but nothing else. Reichert's has scant paragraphs devoted to homeland security, transportation and a third category of "jobs, taxes and the economy."

The candidates need to do a better job of distinguishing themselves beyond the image question. They can do that by posting more of their views on the Web site.

Voters should carefully scrutinize both candidates carefully -- or they'll be left with loads of image but not much substance.

Respond to Kate

Read her latest column

Posted by Kate Riley at 04:53 PM


Livable or not?

Is Seattle a livable city? The answers vary among readers, but so far this week, readers have said that Seattle's best days are behind, that the city that was on the cusp of everything new in the 1990s is already out of date. A reader in Portland said Seattle's traffic is so bad that it can't be considered livable anymore.

And, here's the kicker. On one of the channel shows last night, there was a description of a duplex on a shaded lot outside D.C. that needed work, but was 1,700 square feet and for sale for $198,000. In Seattle, that would probably fetch $250,000 or more.

Seattle is a livable city, but I think only for those who already live here.

Respond to Jim

Read his latest column

Posted by Jim Vesely at 04:31 PM


October 04, 2004

Cheney's night

Here's one that is counter-intuitive: Dick Cheney will do far better than anyone expects in Tuesday's vice-presidential debate. The way debates work, it seems, is whoever you expect to win loses. The debaters are always playing against each other -- and expectations.

Charming trial lawyer John Edwards is supposed to win the debate in Ohio because he has had a career getting juries to eat out of his hands. But the debate format is different than speaking to a jury. Cheney, surly as he is, knows the ins and outs of the higher levels of American government better than Edwards does.

That's why folks are billing this event as experience versus exuberance.

Respond to Joni

Read her latest column

Posted by Joni Balter at 04:51 PM


Unconventional voters guide

The 20 freelancers of The Seattle Times NEXT team just put out a four-page special election section called "NEXT Goes to the Polls."

It's an unconventional voters guide of sorts.

These young, local writers -- mostly college students and young professionals -- decided the best way to understand and comment on the election was to break it down by issues of importance to them and their peers: education, the economy, sex, drugs, music and the environment.

As NEXT Editor, clearly I'm biased, and proud of their work. That said, I believe the result is a fresh, smart section that is actually fun to read and informative -- for folks of all ages.

For those who say young people are apathetic and could care less about politics and the future, I encourage you to read this section.

If you would like hard copies of "NEXT Goes to the Polls," please let me know.

You can learn more about the NEXT team here.

Respond to Colleen

Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 12:13 PM


Hazardous endorsements

Last week three of us on the Times editorial staff visited with a group of journalists, one each from Japan, Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Cambodia and the Philippines, traveling America during the election season courtesy of the State Department. We didn’t get a picture of them, but blogger Stefan Sharkansky did, when they visited him.

When talking to us, one of their first questions was, if we had endorsed John Kerry, how could we be objective? (Sharkansky asks that, too, and argues here that we are not.) Our answer was that we are the editorial page, and we’re supposed to take sides. The rest of the paper is separate, and is not supposed to pay attention to us.

Doesn't that confuse the readers? Sometimes it does, we said, but we hoped mostly not.

Their next question was, what if you endorse the candidate, and he does something bad? He’s your candidate, and you can’t criticize him. Our response was, yes, we can and we do.

That seemed odd to them.

"Why do you endorse candidates?" one asked. "What for?"

Well, uh....One of us said it was part of a civic dialogue. We announced for candidate A, and we print op-eds from supporters of candidate B. It was a way of involving the readers, of being interesting, of dealing with things they wanted dealt with. And then there were the minor candidates, like judges. Sometimes readers actually relied on us to make their choice.

They were not convinced.

"It's a very old tradition that goes back to the 19th century," I said.

Tradition they understood, but this was a very exotic one. The reporter from Taiwan said her paper's editorial page didn’t endorse candidates. It endorsed issues, not people.

We replied that surely the reader could figure out what candidate the paper supported from how it discussed the issues.

Probably. But the paper wouldn’t come out and actually say it supported someone.

Why not? we asked.

Here was the real problem. What if you oppose a candidate and he wins? A reporter from the Philippine city of Cebu said her paper had endorsed a candidate for mayor, and he’d lost, and the candidate who won banned the paper’s reporters from city hall. The paper had had to file a lawsuit, arguing that city hall was public property and the reporters had a right to go there. About six months later, she said, the mayor did something for which the paper praised him, and he began treating the reporters O.K.

The rules of democracy may be the same, but the culture different. Americans forget that sometimes.

Respond to Bruce

Read his latest column

Posted by Bruce Ramsey at 11:57 AM


Hanky support

A reader who says he’s “feeling like some kind of Creative Anachronist” responds to my blog about handkerchiefs:

I use a handkerchief daily and “Don’t leave home without it.” My kids think of me as ‘rather odd’ in this regard (I’m used to it). And yet, in our touchy-feely, enviro-friendly Northwest you’d think people would be COERCED (through guilt, of course) to use them: “Save our Trees, Use a Hanky.” “Think of the tons of tissue waste in our landfills!” “Hankies are renewable!”

It would be interesting to correlate the decline of handkerchief use with other social data. What happened?!

Written by a reader

Posted by Bruce Ramsey at 11:51 AM


October 01, 2004

The devil is in the cutaways

I am with the Kerry-did-well-in-the-debate crowd today. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry was forceful and clear as he slashed away at the flip-flopper designation that has haunted him the last few months.

Kerry also won the camera cutaway contest, keeping a straight face, jotting notes and remembering to smile, just in case the camera was watching. George Bush made some of the most hilarious grimaces and looked like he had a stomach ache as Kerry railed at him. Somebody told Kerry how to stand because he rarely made a goofy face while Bush was talking.

People don't like the other candidate to look pained or disrespectful and Bush did.

Respond to Joni

Read her latest column

Posted by Joni Balter at 03:42 PM


Were security moms watching?

If indeed there is something to the "security moms" phenomenon, I hope these women were watching the first debate Thursday. They would have seen a very poised, very presidential John Kerry outthinking and outclassing a very defensive, mumbling George Bush.

They would have seen a man of strength and conviction drill home what the Bush team hoped Americans had forgetten with its spin: That it was Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda that attacked us -- not Saddam. Bush's childish retort -- "Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that." -- was embarassing to watch.

They would have seen a man who coherently ticked off, one by one, nearly every mistake the Bush administration has made with this war. Just about the only thing Bush did, slouching and smirking at the podium, was to stay on message about "mixed messages" and "inconsistencies."

They would have heard Kerry talk about his plan to get us out of Iraq. A quick read of his four-point plan here will fill folks in on what he couldn't elaborate on in two-minute increments. Meanwhile, Bush had zero new plans, confirming Kerry's point that four more years would be four more years of the same.

The most important thing to come out of the debate last night is that we saw a strong, decisive, determined John Kerry address the American people. We saw a man who respects the gravity of war and who could make the decisions necessary as commander in chief in the face of war.

I just hope the so-called "security moms" of America saw all of this, too.

Respond

Posted by Colleen Pohlig at 02:49 PM


The difference is clear

I've been reading my fair share of post-debate spin this morning and I thought I'd share one that I thought hit the nail on the head.

Dan Balz, The Washington Post:

"Bush and Kerry differed on almost every aspect of the war in Iraq and on other major foreign policy issues such as North Korea and Iran. They disagreed over whether former president Saddam Hussein posed a serious threat to the United States at the time Bush took the country to war there. They disagreed on whether it was right to go to war as Bush did. They differed on whether the president has a plan to secure the peace. And they parted company on whether the certitude Bush has displayed as president has advanced U.S. security or weakened it."

If you missed the debate entirely or just want to see it again, here are some links.

Senator Kerry's closing statement

President Bush's closing statement

Transcript of the debate

Respond to Eric

See his latest toons

Posted by Eric Devericks at 12:04 PM




Marketplace

November 2005

S M T W T F S
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30