Sunday, October 10, 2004
There's Still Time
Help elect Paul Babbitt and Stan Matsunaka to Congress.
They'll make America better. Their opponents are slime.
It is with significant regret and more than a little trepidation that I announce that Rain Storm will be on hiatus beginning October 11. Mrs. Rain Storm and I have some personal issues that must be resolved. This will likely be both painful and time consuming.
I expect all the rest of you to continue to kick George W. Bush's stupid ass all the way back to Texas. Thanks to all of you. You've been great. Carry on.
Inside the Bubble
Based on his statements during the first 2 debates (and his nearly 4 years in office), maybe you've been wondering where the president gets his news.
Well, after Bush mentioned the "Internets" (plural) during the second debate, McCord started wondering too. So he did a little poking around, trying to find some more Internets, and by golly, he found the one the president looks at.
Thanks to Kevin for the link.
Dred Scott = Roe v. Wade
Still thinking about Bush's incoherent babbling about the Dred Scott decision during the debate, and wondering, "Where did that come from?"
It turns out that, among the anti-abortion zealots that make up the base of Bush's cultural war constituency, the Dred Scott Decision is sort of a code for Roe v. Wade. It's part of their attempt to paint the anti-abortion fight as the moral equivalent of the civil rights movement.
Kevin Drum picked up on this post from Paperweight's Fair Shot:
Bush couldn't say that in plain language, because it would freak out every moderate swing voter in the country, but he can say it in code, to make sure that his base will turn out for him. Anti-choice advocates have been comparing Roe v. Wade with Dred Scott v. Sandford for some time now. There is a constant drumbeat on the religious right to compare the contemporary culture war over abortion with the 19th century fight over slavery, with the anti-choicers cast in the role of the abolitionists.Let that be a lesson, debate watchers. When Bush seems to be pulling something completely out of right field, well, he is. And somebody told him to say it, even if he doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about.
Don't believe me? Here.
Further, Bush has to describe Dred Scott as about wrongheaded personal beliefs, rather than a fairly constricted constitutional interpretation because he needs to paint Roe v. Wade the same way, and he wants "strict constructionists" in the Supreme Court, so he can't really talk about the actual rationale used in Dred Scott.