The democrats that support Kerry and Edwards on Hardball

[Renew Deal]

are idiots. They refuse to answer questions and then they let Peggy Noonan pontificate. These idiots need to be kept off TV if they are not going to answer questions. Take a position idiots. Don't let that nutcase (Noonan) have a cheap shot.

[Jawja]

1. And no need

to give Tweety an opening to say that Bush* scored a "bullseye" today with the gay marriage amendment issue because the Democrats won't commit to a position.

[lancdem]

3. Bush "scored" no such thing

Typical Tweety.

[DancingBear]

2. They were pitiful

The Edwards rep and Kerry rep tap danced around the gay marriage issue for the better part of five minutes. Matthews asked a simple question - "Would your candidate support states rights with regards to gay marriage?" He asked it over and over, pleading with either guy to give a straight yes or no answer. Neither one would -they hemmed, hawed, spat out talking points, and generally looked like the same ol' lily-livered Dems we've come to know.

This is why Kerry (and Edwards, as well) scare me - they can not and will not take a stand. I detest Peggy Noonan as much as the next person, but she is absolutely right, as is Matthews.

The ball less (candidate) wonders strike again.

[lancdem]

4. They were likely trying to avoid falling into a trap

[YNGW]

5. Yeah!

>They were likely trying to avoid falling into a trap

That's the way to take the bull by the horns.

[DancingBear]

6. What trap?

How is a straightforward answer a trap? Either a) you state that states have the right to (if they see fit) not recognize gay marriages from other states or b) state that you believe that while states may have the right to not allow gay marriages in their individual states, you believe that those marriages are legally binding and recognizable if entered into in another state.


All the moron needs is "waffle" ammo, and these guys on Hardball just brought a caseful.

I'm getting "queasy Kerry stomach" again...

[lancdem]

9. So what if they don't have an answer at the drop of a hat?

It's a complicated issue that Bush is trying to exploit.

[DancingBear]

11. They've been wearing that hat for a long time, though

The issue has been part of both campaigns for quite some time. They should have a position on this issue that can be easily articulated, and speaks directly to the question at hand. Neither one had that today, and they should have.

I was left with a sense of "oh no, not again" after that exchange, especially w/regards to Kerry, who is making (supposedly) a point to be upfront and "non-waffling" during this campaign. If so, he should tell his TV people to do likewise.

[Meldread]

18. I agree.

Got that same "oh no, not again!" feeling. I agree completely with what you've just said. They need to come up with an articulated position.

It's rather simple:
Are you for gay Marriage? They said no.
Are you for States Rights then? They both said yes.
Are you willing to protect State Rights against Gay Marriage if that is the case? They both looked like idiots -- deer staring into an on coming car's lights.

It's rather simple. Pick a damn position and STICK to it.

[Meldread]

15. Matthews didn't create the trap, THEY created the trap.

They are the ones that kept saying "It's about state rights, state rights!" and then when Matthews came around with a follow up question they were dancing all over the place.

This is EXACTLY what Rove is expecting them to do and this is EXACTLY what Rove is going to use to say "They are for gay marriage because they are against the Constitutional Amendment!" Then they are going to waffle and say they are in favor of the Amendment. This is the EXACT same trend we saw in 2002 and only came to an end when Howard Dean started to take a stand on the issues in 2003. Now that Dean's out of the picture they are getting jelly legs again.

[katieforeman]

16. I have heards Edwards say in debates that he thinks it's up

to individual states to decide about gay marriage.

Mayby his spokesperson isn't so good. But when I saw Edwards asked this question in a debate, he was very streight-forward and answered the question directly. He also supports changes in federal laws to give equal benefits-health insurance etc. to gay couples.

[Meldread]

19. Edwards DID say that.

His spokesman said that too. However the question was: Are you willing to take a stand if a state decides NOT to recognize gay marriage from another state? (That's State Rights.) They both wouldn't give a straight answer. So basically it makes them look like they are waffling on the issue and are giving gay people and the states nothing but lip service.

[Granite]

7. Joe Trippi said it best

The response should be something like this - the end result is equal partnership rights. Whether that is through marriage, civil unions, or some other arrangement, that is the question before the states to decide. But states cannot decide on a system which grants special rights and privileges to a select group of adults (to the exclusion of others). Essentially, it comes down to this - Massachussetts agrees to "gay marriage" and Alabama agrees to civil unions but the rights and benefits are the same by law, if not by name.

Where am I going wrong on this?

[DancingBear]

8. Hmmm, I wonder what (former) candidate said EXACTLY that?

Hint: he was in the Army. :)

[cindyw]

10. It was a trick question. Someone tell me what "protecting states rights"

means. Matthews was talking about states not recognizing gay marriage from another state. I would have answered yes to his question and he would say that that means Kerry supports DOMA. But the answer is that Kerry supports a states right to choose to legalize gay marriage. After that the full faith clause kicks in. Any state would have to recognize a marriage from another state.

Matthews was trying to get these guys to agree to his definition of "protecting states rights". I do agree though that these guys were caught off guard.

[DancingBear]

12. "States rights" was code for legalized discrimination

during the civil rights era. I don't think this was a trick question - it was merely Matthews doing his "how smart am I!" bit that he loves to do.

Having said that, the answer should have been thrown right back at him in the form of Trippis response (BTW, this is/was Clark's position during the campaign). If state "A" wants to recognize gay marriage, fine. If state "B" wants to call them civil unions, fine - as long as the full faith provisions travel across state lines, which of course they do. What I think Matthews was trying to get at was what about state "C", which refuses to accept either one? That is a legitimate question, which must be answered. *, by his Amendment statement, has done so (disgustingly so, I might add). Kerry and Edwards people MUST do better than they showed today. There was no way those guys should have not had an answer down pat.

P.S. Hey JK, talk to Wes - he'll give you the answer. :)

[KittyWampus]

13. SCenario Of State C Would Be Unconstitutional Wouldn't It?

Equal Protection and Civil Rights....

People are entitled to the same rights as everyone else regardless of sexual orientation.

So IMO Democrats should say so. Not recognizing or allowing for at LEAST a Civil Union should be ruled Unconstitutional.

[DancingBear]

14. Yes, but I think one state (or more) will push the envelope

Paging Roy Moore...

I am guessing we may be in for states rights/separate but equal - round 2.

[jpgray]

17. Kerry's Crossfire rep is a joke as well--any DUer could do much better

Even one that doesn't like Kerry can at least defend him against Bush--it shouldn't be hard to do. :)

[bigtree]

20. He's fine

He did the right thing by not answering beyond where his candidate has gone, and not allowing Bush or Matthews to frame the debate on a talk show.

Bleachers just doesn't like Kerry. She's among a minority of Democrats in the nation. I would view Bleachers campaign advice with that in mind. Bleachers thinks Noonan got a clean shot. I heard the pathetic republican hack and dismissed her out of hand. Bravo to the Kerry campaign for not being drawn into a nonsensical response. State rights is not a notion Democrats want to broadly defend. Once a state law is passed the federal government can challenge its legitimacy, but I would expect the state to take responsibility for their own inituatives and I would expect the federal government to stay out of it.

[mgarretson]

22. Bleachers7 is a dude...

hey big tree, Bleachers7 is a dude... :)

[mgarretson]

21. We all know the right answer but it's hard to avoid traps when saying it..

Harry (and others),
I agree with you... Kerry and Edwards tend to hem and haw a lot on questions but you and I know as Clark supporters that straight-forward statements don't play well. Kerry's a longtime politician and Edwards is a trial-lawyer and both have learned to be very cautious of what they say.

I know where I, and many other DUers stand... that GLBT community should have the same legal and civil recognition of their committed relationships that are afforded to heterosexual couples, but I'm not sure how we can get that message out over hostile media.

I don't this amendment business is going to pan out and we can only hope it doesn't effectively egg our candidate.

Let's definately keep talking through it though, if nothing else it allows me to vent. :)

From Clark Country,
I'm Another Clarkie for Kerry!