Cheney Daughter Remark

[J. J.]

Kerry's answer was more persuasive than Bush's answer.  That's the point of a debate.

How did you like Bush's answer where he mangled what Dred Scott was all about?  Was that just a bad memory, ignorance or was that intellectual dishonesty?

Gee, Bush wouldn't appoint a justice who would claim that a minority group had no rights that the majority was "bound to respect."  That sounds quite the opposite of, "...in a free society people, consenting adults can live any way they want to live."  I would call that both consistant and intellectually honest.

Now, we have a question that Kerry didn't answer, didn't state his core believe, and cited what he assumes "Dick Cheney's daughter" thinks.  Kerry was intellectually dishonest.  It's also a bit of stereotyping, assuming that Ms. Cheney has an opinion because of who she is. 

It seems that he might have been factually dishonest as well when he claimed, in his Al Gore moment, stating that he met with the "entire" security council befor the Iraq invasion.

[elcorazon]

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. 

That‘s a personal opinion.  That‘s not what the Constitution says.  The Constitution of the United States says we‘re all—you know, it doesn‘t say that.  It doesn‘t speak to the equality of America. 

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists.  We‘ve got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution. 


Prior to the 13th Amendment, a strict constructionist would have preserved slavery.

While the Constitution and the Bill of Rights don't use the word "slave" (the 13th Amendment is the only time that the word slavery is mentioned), the Constitution directly sanctioned slavery in five provisions:

Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 3: Counted three-fifths of all slaves for purposes of Congressional representation
Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 1: Prevented Congress from ending the African slave trade before 1808, but did not require Congress to ban the trade after that date
Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 4: Ensured that if a capitation or head tax were ever levied, slaves would be taxed at three-fifths the rate of whites
Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 3: Fugitive slave clause prohibited the states from emancipating fugitive slaves and required that runaways be returned to their owners on demand
Art. V: Prohibited any amendment of the slave importation or capitation clauses before 1808
In addition, many other provisions of the Constitution indirectly guard slavery, such as the prohibition on taxing exports, which was intended to help slaveholders.

Perhaps most important, the structure of the Constitution was designed so Congress lacked the power to interfere in state activities such as the institution of slavery.

Thus, in 1857 (before the 13th Amendment passed), a strict constructionist judge would have upheld slavery.

[J. J.]

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. 

That‘s a personal opinion.  That‘s not what the Constitution says.  The Constitution of the United States says we‘re all—you know, it doesn‘t say that.  It doesn‘t speak to the equality of America. 

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists.  We‘ve got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution. 


Prior to the 13th Amendment, a strict constructionist would have preserved slavery.

While the Constitution and the Bill of Rights don't use the word "slave" (the 13th Amendment is the only time that the word slavery is mentioned), the Constitution directly sanctioned slavery in five provisions:

Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 3: Counted three-fifths of all slaves for purposes of Congressional representation
Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 1: Prevented Congress from ending the African slave trade before 1808, but did not require Congress to ban the trade after that date
Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 4: Ensured that if a capitation or head tax were ever levied, slaves would be taxed at three-fifths the rate of whites
Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 3: Fugitive slave clause prohibited the states from emancipating fugitive slaves and required that runaways be returned to their owners on demand
Art. V: Prohibited any amendment of the slave importation or capitation clauses before 1808
In addition, many other provisions of the Constitution indirectly guard slavery, such as the prohibition on taxing exports, which was intended to help slaveholders.

Perhaps most important, the structure of the Constitution was designed so Congress lacked the power to interfere in state activities such as the institution of slavery.

Thus, in 1857 (before the 13th Amendment passed), a strict constructionist judge would have upheld slavery.

As you are well aware, or at least should be, was the interstate aspect of slavery and the claim that a state could not prevent a master slave relationship within its own boarders was the basis of Scott v. Sanford.  Each state was required to recognize this ownership across state lines, even if the state had a law prohibiting slavery.  Art. IV, Sec 2. dealt only with "escaping" persons.

As per the Scott case, I, a resident of the then free state of PA, could travel to the then slave state of DE, purchase a slave, and return with the slave PA.  My ownership of that slave would be legal, even though my state's legislature said it was not legal.

It is perhaps ironic that you should cite this, as the proposed amendment on same sex marriage related to limiting interstate relationships, but not those that were intrastate.  This is perhaps the best example of the intent in Bush's support of the proposed amendment.  They seem not only to be honest but intellectual] as well.

[elcorazon]

Are you saying Bush was correct to interpret the Dred Scott case as an example of "activist judges" which is what he described it as?

I don't think anyone suspects Bush OR Kerry of supporting slavery.

[J. J.]

Are you saying Bush was correct to interpret the Dred Scott case as an example of "activist judges" which is what he described it as?

I don't think anyone suspects Bush OR Kerry of supporting slavery.

Clearly Bush doesn't, at least it's expansion :-), and I would suspect that neither does Kerry.  I suspect that you support the same logic that led to decision in Scott v. Sanford, especially if you don't consider Chief Justice Taney to be activist.

Slavery, in 1857, was clearly not a violation of the US Constitution.  Art, I, Sec. 9, refers to "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, ... ."  The "importation" is clearly left to the discression of the states, absent a Federal Law (prohibited from being adopted until 1808).  It is pretty clear that the states could regulate what groups could, or could not, enter into their states.  "Persons," inclusive of slaves, could be regulated, permitted or prohibited, by a state, absent of Federal statute.

Several states regulated this, making the slave/master relationship illegal within that jursisdiction.  The only constitutional requirement dealt with escapees from one state to another.  Dred Scott was brought into a free state; he did not escape to one.  Activist Taney decided that the principle that a Black man had no rights that a White man "was bound to respect."  Where does the Constitution say that!

Bush, in argueing for the amendment, opposes this judicial philosophy.  An Activist judge cannot interpret the Constitution to require the laws of on one state, be they for slavery or same sex marriages, to be forced on another state.

That is a well thought out, intellectually honesty position, on Bush's part.  I contrast it with intellectually dishonest positions of Kerry.

Now, since I've answered your question.  I want to ask you a question about your beliefs.  Do you believe that sexual preference is solely based on a congential or genetic factor, a physiological factor?  Are people straight or gay because they are born that way and that choice plays no role it?

[elcorazon]

I do not believe sexual preference is a "choice"?  I don't know what causes it, but I do not believe people "decide" whether to be homosexual or heterosexual.

[J. J.]

I do not believe sexual preference is a "choice"?  I don't know what causes it, but I do not believe people "decide" whether to be homosexual or heterosexual.

Do you believe that sexual preference is an inborn trait and that it's physiological?  That would make it, I guess to be congenital or genetic?  I'm not asking for proof, and I don't have proof, but belief.

[elcorazon]

I think that it is likely inborn.  I believe that very young children already have their sexual orientation determined.  I suspect many homosexuals never practice it because they are socialized to become heterosexuals.  I doubt it happens to any degree the other way around.  I'm not an expert on this and cannot even begin to explain it, but that's as close as I can come to answering your question.

[J. J.]

I think that it is likely inborn.  I believe that very young children already have their sexual orientation determined.  I suspect many homosexuals never practice it because they are socialized to become heterosexuals.  I doubt it happens to any degree the other way around.  I'm not an expert on this and cannot even begin to explain it, but that's as close as I can come to answering your question.

When you say inborn, are you referring to something physiological, a physiological trait?

I will add that when you say socialization plays a part, then you are admitting that there is a choice.  A person socialized can choose to be re-socialized.  If you are stating that socialization plays a part in it, you are saying that there is a choice. 

That's contradictory to your other comments.

[elcorazon]

I think I'm being consistent.  What I said was there are homosexuals (that is their orientation) who act as if they are heterosexual because of the pressure society places on them to be heterosexual.  I said that I don't believe it happens the other way around because there is no societal pressure to be gay.

I don't believe those who act as if they are heterosexual are truly heterosexual.  I've seen many instances of men and women marrying, having children before they eventually divorce and begin "acting" homosexual.  It is my belief that they were always homosexual, they just repressed it.

As I said before I'm truly not an expert and never claimed to be one.  Even the president cannot be an expert on everything.  Even if you are right about this issue, my belief is a valid view which is at the very least "honest" even if it turns out to be wrong.  Kerry, I think, agrees with me.  His use of Mary in his answer was an attempt to personalize the issue to help him make his point more forcefully.

There may have been some political motive as well (upsetting right wingers, showing a rift within the administration), but hey, that's politics.

[J. J.]

I think I'm being consistent.  What I said was there are homosexuals (that is their orientation) who act as if they are heterosexual because of the pressure society places on them to be heterosexual.  I said that I don't believe it happens the other way around because there is no societal pressure to be gay.

Well here you have slipped back into intellectual dishonesty.  You're claiming on the one hand that being gay is inborn, and on the other hand, social pressures determine being gay or not.

As I said before I'm truly not an expert and never claimed to be one.  Even the president cannot be an expert on everything.  Even if you are right about this issue, my belief is a valid view which is at the very least "honest" even if it turns out to be wrong. 

Here you are dead wrong, and you are misrepresenting my opinion.  I have said that didn't know what caused sexual preference, but that I suspect that it is a mixture of factors, both inborn (congenital and/or genetic) and environmental.  Under evironmental is an element of choice, at some level.  Choice may be an important or a very minor factor, but it is a factor.

Kerry, I think, agrees with me.  His use of Mary in his answer was an attempt to personalize the issue to help him make his point more forcefully.

Kerry had the chance to answer the question and his answer was to "talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, a lesbian, ... ."  That is intellectually dishonest; you may think you know his opinion, but he chickened out when given a chance to state it.  He attempted to claim that she could speak with authority, which she can't, and to assign her an opinion that he didn't Let's face it, John Kerry is dishonest in regard to this issue and was sleazy in bringing up Mary Cheney.  We are also seeing his dishoesty in other areas as well.

[elcorazon]

I think I'm being consistent.  What I said was there are homosexuals (that is their orientation) who act as if they are heterosexual because of the pressure society places on them to be heterosexual.  I said that I don't believe it happens the other way around because there is no societal pressure to be gay.

Well here you have slipped back into intellectual dishonesty.  You're claiming on the one hand that being gay is inborn, and on the other hand, social pressures determine being gay or not.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID.  I SAID THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ACT HETEROSEXUAL, BUT ARE TRULY HOMOSEXUAL. 

As I said before I'm truly not an expert and never claimed to be one.  Even the president cannot be an expert on everything.  Even if you are right about this issue, my belief is a valid view which is at the very least "honest" even if it turns out to be wrong. 

Here you are dead wrong, and you are misrepresenting my opinion.  I have said that didn't know what caused sexual preference, but that I suspect that it is a mixture of factors, both inborn (congenital and/or genetic) and environmental.  Under evironmental is an element of choice, at some level.  Choice may be an important or a very minor factor, but it is a factor.
 
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOUR COMMENT CONNECTS WITH MINE.  I WAS SAYING THAT YOU'RE CALLING ME INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST WAS INACCURATE BECAUSE MY BELIEF IS REASONABLE, EVEN IF WRONG.  I'M NOT SURE HOW YOUR COMMENTS RELATE TO THAT.

Kerry, I think, agrees with me.  His use of Mary in his answer was an attempt to personalize the issue to help him make his point more forcefully.

Kerry had the chance to answer the question and his answer was to "talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, a lesbian, ... ."  That is intellectually dishonest; you may think you know his opinion, but he chickened out when given a chance to state it.  He attempted to claim that she could speak with authority, which she can't, and to assign her an opinion that he didn't Let's face it, John Kerry is dishonest in regard to this issue and was sleazy in bringing up Mary Cheney.  We are also seeing his dishoesty in other areas as well.

I ARGUED HIS POINT WAS TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT PEOPLE MIGHT RELATE TO.  YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS INTO HIS MOUTH WITH YOUR ARGUMENT.  I THINK HE WAS BEING 100% HONEST IN HIS OPINION.  HIS METHOD OF STATING IT WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING HIS ARGUMENT CARRY MORE CLOUT.  MANY PEOPLE HAVE CHANGED THEIR OPINION ON ISSUES RELATING TO GAYS WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PERSONALIZE THE ISSUES.  IN THE ABSTRACT MANY PEOPLE ARE TRULY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH MANY ASPECTS OF GAY RIGHTS, ETC, BUT WHEN FACED WITH ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS, THEY BECOME MORE COMPASSIONATE AND OPEN MINDED.  KERRY WAS TRYING TO KEY INTO THIS EMOTION, A PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE PERSUASIVE TECHNIQUE.

[J. J.]

I ARGUED HIS POINT WAS TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT PEOPLE MIGHT RELATE TO.  YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS INTO HIS MOUTH WITH YOUR ARGUMENT.  I THINK HE WAS BEING 100% HONEST IN HIS OPINION.  HIS METHOD OF STATING IT WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING HIS ARGUMENT CARRY MORE CLOUT.  MANY PEOPLE HAVE CHANGED THEIR OPINION ON ISSUES RELATING TO GAYS WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PERSONALIZE THE ISSUES.  IN THE ABSTRACT MANY PEOPLE ARE TRULY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH MANY ASPECTS OF GAY RIGHTS, ETC, BUT WHEN FACED WITH ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS, THEY BECOME MORE COMPASSIONATE AND OPEN MINDED.  KERRY WAS TRYING TO KEY INTO THIS EMOTION, A PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE PERSUASIVE TECHNIQUE.

I'm can assure you that I am not putting words into your mouth, but quoting your position, as posted.   Here is what you posted:

I think I'm being consistent.  What I said was there are homosexuals (that is their orientation) who act as if they are heterosexual because of the pressure society places on them to be heterosexual.  I said that I don't believe it happens the other way around because there is no societal pressure to be gay.

I don't believe those who act as if they are heterosexual are truly heterosexual.  I've seen many instances of men and women marrying, having children before they eventually divorce and begin "acting" homosexual.  It is my belief that they were always homosexual, they just repressed it.

Your belief here is socialization can be a factor is determining sexual preference, and sexual behavure.  I actually agree with that, and submit that socialization can be a factor in many types of behavure.  We do, however, have a choice in if we wish to follow that socialization.  Socialization is something learned, and can be unlearned.

I posted early on, that I suspected that what determines sexual preference is a mix of factors, some learned, and some inborn.  The learned ones have an element of choice.  I could have been socialized to think that certain groups are somehow inferior (or superior, for that matter.  I can learn that they are not and change that socialization; that act is a choice on my part.  I have not claimed that it is a complete matter of choice.

I am pointing the gaping holes that exist in your claims.  You are claiming that the reason someone is gay is due to an inborn trait, with no element of choice, and then saying, well, due to socialization, some gay people chose not to be gay.  You can't have it both ways and be intellectually honest about it.  You have to admit that there is an element of choice in sexual preference, though not necessarily the sole, or even the prime, determining factor.

It was in fact Kerry who was putting words in "Dick Cheney's Daughter's" mouth.  He didn't state, "I think that there is an something inborn."  He didn't answer the question, that is intellectually dishonest.  He then put words in the mouth of someone else and that both intellectually dishonest and sleazy.  That's why people are upset with his comment.

[elcorazon]

I just don't think you follow what I'm saying.  I do not believe there is any element of society causing people to be gay or not gay.  People are who they are.  I'm not gay.  I believe there is nothing society could have done to make me gay.  I know gay people.  I believe there is nothing society could have done to make them heterosexual. Having said that, I DO believe that society CAN impact behavior.  Just as people who are left-handed can learn to do things with their right hand, they continue to be left-handed at their core.  The analogy is not a perfect one, but the point is that behavior is different from what is at one's core.  Just because someone has a relationship with someone of the opposite sex does not make them heterosexual at their core.

As I've said many times, I could be wrong.  But I'm being honest.

[J. J.]

I just don't think you follow what I'm saying.  I do not believe there is any element of society causing people to be gay or not gay.  People are who they are.  I'm not gay.  I believe there is nothing society could have done to make me gay.  I know gay people.  I believe there is nothing society could have done to make them heterosexual. Having said that, I DO believe that society CAN impact behavior.  Just as people who are left-handed can learn to do things with their right hand, they continue to be left-handed at their core.  The analogy is not a perfect one, but the point is that behavior is different from what is at one's core.  Just because someone has a relationship with someone of the opposite sex does not make them heterosexual at their core.

As I've said many times, I could be wrong.  But I'm being honest.

Now, you are entering into the area of intellectual honesty.  I am saying, as I've said, that I expect that the reason that people have a certain sexual preference is a number of factors.  Is there some sort inborn trait that gives people a predilection for a certain sexual preference?  My guess is yes, and I could be wrong too.  Is everybody with this predilection follow that type of behavior?  My guess would be no.  There is some element of choice in following that.  How much of this is choice?  I don't know.

If I were a white resident of the GA in 1938, I certainly would be socialized to have certain opinions about Black and White people; does that mean that I have an inborn trait to feel that way?  Maybe there was an element of that, but it was mostly socialization.  How about if I resident of Germany at the same time?  Yet in both cases people chose to act againt that socialization.  That was still a choice. 

The problem here is Kerry's intellectually dishonest answer.  He didn't say, "I believe this ... ."  Instead he assigned an answer to "Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian," a sleazy statement as she never stated her position publically.

[elcorazon]

I believe you are confusing intellectually dishonest with attempting to make an argument more persuasive, and more potent.

Here's Kerry's answer:

And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.

I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.

And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them.

I think we have to respect that.


He said "I think".  That's what he thinks.  Personalizing it merely made his point more poignant.

His answer was as honest as can be.

I've also stated many times that there were political motivations behind his choice to bring up Mary Cheney.  I have no problem with that.  In the end, it was a bad decision.  I say that because we've spent more than a week discussing this rather than discussing more pressing issues.  This can only help the President's bid for reelection.

[J. J.]

I believe you are confusing intellectually dishonest with attempting to make an argument more persuasive, and more potent.

Here's Kerry's answer:

And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.

I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.

And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them.

I think we have to respect that.


He said "I think".  That's what he thinks.  Personalizing it merely made his point more poignant.

His answer was as honest as can be.

I've also stated many times that there were political motivations behind his choice to bring up Mary Cheney.  I have no problem with that.  In the end, it was a bad decision.  I say that because we've spent more than a week discussing this rather than discussing more pressing issues.  This can only help the President's bid for reelection.

Kerry didn't say, "I don't know, but I think it's inborn."  I could have respected that action.  He was intellectually dishonest when he said, in effect, "Ask them," and didn't tell us what he thought.   His sleazy tactic was in using the term "Cheney's daughter," in the example.  If he would have said someone who said it, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Yes it was a political mistake that was still being parodied on SNL this past weekend.

[elcorazon]

again, that's not what he said.  He said I think IF you ask them they'd say... he said it specifically with respect to Mary Cheney and more generally, "if you talk to anybody".  I really think you're delving into minutiae on this.

I can understand, to some degree, thinking it was in bad taste to bring up Mary Cheney.  I just don't buy the "intellectual dishonesty" you're pushing.  Maybe I just don't understand the term.  Is it different from regular dishonesty?

[J. J.]

again, that's not what he said.  He said I think IF you ask them they'd say... he said it specifically with respect to Mary Cheney and more generally, "if you talk to anybody".  I really think you're delving into minutiae on this.

I can understand, to some degree, thinking it was in bad taste to bring up Mary Cheney.  I just don't buy the "intellectual dishonesty" you're pushing.  Maybe I just don't understand the term.  Is it different from regular dishonesty?

Did he ask the question that was asked?  No.  That is Kerry's intellectually dishonesty here.  An example of Kerry's dishonesty is when he claimed to talk to the "entire" Security Council prior to the Iraq invasion.  Ah, you did ask the question.

[elcorazon]

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, the next question is to you. We all know that Social Security is running out of money, and it has to be fixed. You have proposed to fix it by letting people put some of the money collected to pay benefits into private savings accounts. But the critics are saying that's going to mean finding $1 trillion over the next 10 years to continue paying benefits as those accounts are being set up.

So where do you get the money? Are you going to have to increase the deficit by that much over 10 years?

BUSH: First, let me make sure that every senior listening today understands that when we're talking about reforming Social Security, that they'll still get their checks.

I remember the 2000 campaign, people said: if George W. gets elected, your check will be taken away.

Well, people got their checks, and they'll continue to get their checks.

There is a problem for our youngsters, a real problem. And if we don't act today, the problem will be valued in the trillions.

And so I think we need to think differently.

We'll honor our commitment to our seniors. But for our children and our grandchildren, we need to have a different strategy.

And recognizing that, I called together a group of our fellow citizens to study the issue. It was a committee chaired by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a Democrat. And they came up with a variety of ideas for people to look at.

I believe that younger workers ought to be allowed to take some of their own money and put it in a personal savings account, because I understand that they need to get better rates of return than the rates of return being given in the current Social Security trust.

And the compounding rate of interest effect will make it more likely that the Social Security system is solvent for our children and our grandchildren.

I will work with Republicans and Democrats. It'll be a vital issue in my second term. It is an issue that I am willing to take on, and so I'll bring Republicans and Democrats together.

And we're of course going to have to consider the costs. But I want to warn my fellow citizens: The cost of doing nothing, the cost of saying the current system is OK, far exceeds the costs of trying to make sure we save the system for our children.

so this would be an example of "intellectual dishonesty" right?   Bush gives an answer which he may believe, although he completely fails to address the actual question which was where will you get the money?  And, will it just increase the deficit?

If that's intellectual dishonesty, then I'm guessing every politician ever is guilty of this constantly.

[J. J.]

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, the next question is to you. We all know that Social Security is running out of money, and it has to be fixed. You have proposed to fix it by letting people put some of the money collected to pay benefits into private savings accounts. But the critics are saying that's going to mean finding $1 trillion over the next 10 years to continue paying benefits as those accounts are being set up.

So where do you get the money? Are you going to have to increase the deficit by that much over 10 years?
...................................................................................................................And recognizing that, I called together a group of our fellow citizens to study the issue. It was a committee chaired by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a Democrat. And they came up with a variety of ideas for people to look at.

I believe that younger workers ought to be allowed to take some of their own money and put it in a personal savings account, because I understand that they need to get better rates of return than the rates of return being given in the current Social Security trust.



so this would be an example of "intellectual dishonesty" right?   Bush gives an answer which he may believe, although he completely fails to address the actual question which was where will you get the money?  And, will it just increase the deficit?

If that's intellectual dishonesty, then I'm guessing every politician ever is guilty of this constantly.

As soon as Bush gets to this point, and unlike Kerry, paraphrases what Sen Moynihan did state on the record, it slips into intellectual honesty.  He answer the question.  Kerry, in the cited example, avoids stating his opinion, sight the presumed opinions of others that have not commented on it publically.  That is wher Kerry is being intellectually dishonest.  Likewise, Kerry is being sleazy when attributing an idea to someone who's never stated it publically.

[elcorazon]

but nowhere in the answer does Bush answer the question at all.  And he assumes that they'll come up with an answer.  What if they don't?  Maybe to be "intellectually honest" he should have said, "I don't know" but we're going to study and see if we can find an answer.  THAT would have been "intellectually honest".


I'm beginning to think that "intellectually honest" is a stupid term.

[J. J.]

but nowhere in the answer does Bush answer the question at all.  And he assumes that they'll come up with an answer.  What if they don't?  Maybe to be "intellectually honest" he should have said, "I don't know" but we're going to study and see if we can find an answer.  THAT would have been "intellectually honest".


I'm beginning to think that "intellectually honest" is a stupid term.

Here is the question and the answer:

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, the next question is to you. We all know that Social Security is running out of money, and it has to be fixed. You have proposed to fix it by letting people put some of the money collected to pay benefits into private savings accounts. But the critics are saying that's going to mean finding $1 trillion over the next 10 years to continue paying benefits as those accounts are being set up.

So where do you get the money? Are you going to have to increase the deficit by that much over 10 years?

BUSH: First, let me make sure that every senior listening today understands that when we're talking about reforming Social Security, that they'll still get their checks.

I remember the 2000 campaign, people said: if George W. gets elected, your check will be taken away.

Well, people got their checks, and they'll continue to get their checks.

*********************************************************

There is a problem for our youngsters, a real problem. And if we don't act today, the problem will be valued in the trillions.


I believe that younger workers ought to be allowed to take some of their own money and put it in a personal savings account, because I understand that they need to get better rates of return than the rates of return being given in the current Social Security trust.

And the compounding rate of interest effect will make it more likely that the Social Security system is solvent for our children and our grandchildren.

Bush answered the question, the people getting Social Security will continue.  If it costs, it costs.  Are you suggesting that Kerry wants to cut Social Security benefits?

Here Bush is being intellectually honest. On his remarks about choice, Kerry is being intellectually dishonest.

Only someone that is intellectually dishonest would call it a "stupid term."

[elcorazon]

Bush answered the question, the people getting Social Security will continue.  If it costs, it costs.  Are you suggesting that Kerry wants to cut Social Security benefits?

Here Bush is being intellectually honest. On his remarks about choice, Kerry is being intellectually dishonest.

Bush didn't say that if it costs, it costs and frankly that's not an answer the question was WHERE will you get the money?

I guess the term may not be stupid, but the way you're using it is making no sense.

[J. J.]

Bush answered the question, the people getting Social Security will continue.  If it costs, it costs.  Are you suggesting that Kerry wants to cut Social Security benefits?

Here Bush is being intellectually honest. On his remarks about choice, Kerry is being intellectually dishonest.

Bush didn't say that if it costs, it costs and frankly that's not an answer the question was WHERE will you get the money?

I guess the term may not be stupid, but the way you're using it is making no sense.

No, you just do not understand it. 

He's saying that if that adds to the deficit, that's what it will do.  He's saying that he will not finance it by cutting benefits.  What part of that are you havinfg a conceptional problem with?

He answered the question; maybe you don't like the answer, but that is the answer.  Kerry, when asked about choice, said, in effect, ask someone else (whose opinion that was never revealed).  Kerry was intelllectually dishonest on that answer.  He was also sleazy in briging up Mary Cheney.  Being sleazy and dishonest were Kerry's practice here.