Three Close Encounters

Bush, once again, forgot his audience was larger than his usual sycophantical choir. His use of code was conspicuous: "no litmus test" was the essence of his surprisingly brief response on the Row v. Wade question. Bush didn't elaborate, so I suspected he had tripped off into his own cozy world again. One more confirmation that I'm not the audience whom Bush is addressing in the debates. I had to look on the web to find that a "litmus test for judges" has meaning for a lot of people. Just not for me.

This was much like the Dred Scott reference in the second debate, which would be understood by the voters Bush represents as a reference to Row v. Wade. For a good discussion, check Paperweight's blog.

I first encountered the argument that equates slavery and abortion from Alan Keyes, who is running against Barack Obama in Illinois. Listening to Keyes on NPR's Fresh Air, I thought I was hearing the idiosyncratic ravings of a madman when Keyes compared Obama to a slave-holder because of Obama's position on abortion. Here's a sample of Keyes explanation:

One of the things I learned--because I had slave ancestors, and I, as I said, have deeply looked at, and thought about, meditated on the injustice involved in slavery.

Slavery is not a RACIAL issue. It's an issue of human justice! And that means that when someone is enslaved, in violation of the fundamental premise of human dignity, we are turning our backs on our decent humanity.

That's not a racial issue, and abortion is not a racial issue, but the principle involved is the very principle that lay at the heart of the kind of arguments that the slaveholders made in denigration of black Americans. But it was not RACE in fact that caused that denigration, it was an utter disregard for decent humanity.

What a shock to learn that many people--including the current president--equate pro-choice with pro-slavery. Yikes.

I could get petty--the spittle in the corner of Bush's mouth--the fake smile that failed to conceal his alarming propensity to rage. I keep expecting him to pull a Rumplestiltskin--to get so angry he pulls himself in two.

And to be fair, I wish Kerry had bitten his tongue last night when he thought of Mary Cheney's sexual orientation. While I don't agree with Lynne Cheney that Kerry's reference means he's "not a good man," I do agree that it was inappropriate. I think Kerry is a good man, and I suspect he's kicking himself today for vocalizing what popped into his mind. Given Bush's waffling and refusal to declare his views, and given Cheney's mousiness on his own differences with Bush, I can understand how Kerry would make the mental association, but I expect better self-censorship from our next president. I gave Edwards a "tacky" demerit, too, when he brought up Mary Cheney's sexual orientation. Even if her reputation as a gay rights activist is pertinent, and I'm not sure it is, there are better ways to make the point: sexual orientation is no more a choice than the color of one's skin, and an amendment discriminating against gays is no more Constitutional than miscegenation laws, which were found to be unconstitutional in 1967.

Still, Kerry gave a good performance overall. He's the one. I was going to vote for the Democratic party platform anyway, but now I feel much better about Kerry.