I agree that Bush is pretty ho-hum. Possibly one of my least favorite canidates. The only reason I'm voting for Bush is to shut up those shrill, Anti-Bush people.
But I would be all for less debates, since all they seemed to talk about were the same things. two town-hall debates would be best, I think.

I agree that CBS Bob was terrible. He really skewed the questions for the challenger and let Kerry rebut twice, skipping the President. I sent a nasty-gram to CBS voicing my displeasure, but I am sure my note will be lost in the machine. It may have been more enjoyable if I had a couple drinks.

Tommy,

I had at least a couple drinks and, trust me, they didn't make tonight any more enjoyable.

Too many of the questions sounded like:

" Mr Kerry, do you like puppies"?
followed quickly by
"Mr Bush why do you support putting ground glass into childrens breakfast cereal?"

Kerrys pathetic need to say LESBIAN is beyond belief. I think it cost him votes.

Best line of the night went to Bush :

"I Listen to her"- The audience went nuts. My wife was still talking about it an hour later.

Best unintentional gaffe - Kerry announcing that he will be singing "just a gigolo" at the Baltimore Airport Holiday Inn Lounge by saying , with a wink no less -

"yeah I married up, WAY UP!"

The audience was silent. I laughed my ass off, I thought it was a moment of honesty from the Senator, I liked it.

For a night that was supposed to belong to Kerry, he sounded on the defensive to me throught the night. Bush sounded to me like he was having a grand time. I thought he smacked Kerry around like a pinata at a birthday party.

I dont think it helped Kerry, and I dont think it hurt Bush.

The debate is over, let's get this thing wrapped up so we can get on with our lives.

( Bush - 40 states. No, nothing I saw in the debate changed my assessment of the candidates and be honest, none of you did either. )

I was left with two specific thoughts regarding Kerry:

Social Security - I think Kerry has said he has a plan for everything under the sun so far in this campaign. But when the moderator brought this topic up, Kerry didn't say, "I have a plan...." The moderator even stated the widely agreed upon presumption that there are only three options for Social Security: (1) cut benefits, (2) raise taxes, or (3) reform it. Kerry didn't say which he would prefer, nor did he offer another option, or even some combination thereof. Nothing. He said, "We fixed it back in the 80's." In my opinion that says a lot. We fixed it? As if there isn't even a problem. Mabye that explains why he doesn't have a plan.

Spending - Kerry criticized Bush for not paying as you go, running up a huge deficit, and being the only president who has not vetoed a single piece of legislation. I'm not going to defend Bush on any of those points. I think those are valid points of criticism. But, a few moments later, or ealier, (probably both) Kerry criticized Bush for under funding programs.

Schieffer's brother and Bush are friends. If the bias in questioning isn't imagined, perhaps Schieffer was compensating, i.e. ironically trying to make sure he wouldn't be accused of bias.

Immediate debate aftermath thoughts immediately updated here.

I've gotta go in the "this debate sucked, and so did everybody in it" camp. Maybe it wouldn't have helped, but this one, unlike the first two, screamed out for heavy drinking. Bush won, IMO, because he was more recognizably human and sucked less than Kerry, but who was awake for it to notice?

Frankly, though, I expected it to suck, because the format for this one was essentially "Let's tell lies about trivia," a competition for who can promise to give voters the most free stuff, while not prompting giggles. Some of this stuff could be important, like the looming Social Security question that Kerry completely dodged and Bush half-dodged, but... there's a war on, you know? Who friggin' cares about this stuff?

More debates? I hope not. I've actually, to my surprise, become disenchanted with the whole "debate" concept, and found the "Oprah" style town hall thingy the most useful format this time (or the sit-down Cheney/Edwards thing, that wasn't bad.) The formal debate format is more like bad impromptu speechifying. When these guys are engaging in something vaguely resembling a conversation, it's better and more useful.

If I were running these things, I'd rather have the candidates forced into a "Meet the Press" style thing, though with questions from a balanced array of MSM and bloggers. Who knows, maybe by 2008 that sort of thing will be possible?

Frankly the debate was MEANT to suck. Both sides probably wanted the breather.

After all, we ALL know this campaign should basically circle around War on Terrorism and Iraq and the debate of: Is Iraq a valid part of the War on Terror?
All else, while important in our lives will look like fluff by comparison. The candidates DO disagree and GREATLY on the great issue of foreign policy... all their other disagreements are simply insignificant by comparison.
They probably meant to have debate with nearly no charm so that the spin guys would not have powerful new stuff on the final weeks.

The sad thing is that I truly feel I didn't get to see John Kerry enough to know the guy. He has a lot of plans... but who is he? What does he think? Is he really still 1970 Kerry or a totally new guy? Bush best line in this whole campaign is "You know where I stand". Well... that is true.

More debates? These frankly sucked, all three... they were shallow, repetitive, and often inaccurate. I would prefer long, unedited, and less confrontational interviews such as Bush had with Bill O'Reily (it wasn't great... but hey it was LONG and over time you get a great look a Bush, both the character as the goals).
I wish Kerry had done something like that... even the HBO special about him (actually about the whole democratic primary... Diary of a political activist or something like that) hardly showed us a glimpse of the guy. We should know more about presidential candidates (and sitting presidents), but these debates failed at that IMHO. They lacked both depth and authenticity... so what exactly did they bring to the table?
Ohh yeah... the "Global Test" line.

Fact is that even if they slip into a whopper such as the Global Test (BTW... Bush "lost" the first debate and still Kerry was refuting that line today... the power o spin)it hardly makes a ripple.

I couldn't handle any more "debates" like the last three. There were more debates to see this year, but not all included the Dems and the Reps. I'll be voting for Bush, but I did explore third parties this year. Some of the best discourse was a third party presidential debate shown on C-Span. Download it here:

http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=eventview&event_id=361

Nader wasn't there, but there were definitely some alternate views, and argueably better debates.

Gawd, no more debates. After this crapfest, I'm inclined to support amending the Constitution to ban the things entirely.

Please . . . please . . . no more debates!!! If there must be, the format has got to be tinkered with. More of the townhall format would be good. Even better if the moderator panel could include people who actually run a business in the real world.

Right on Lola! What concerns me the most is if Kerry/ Edwards win,
we get two lawyers that have absolutely no business sense, except to know which they think can be sued. Both Bush and Cheney have been CEOs of businesses. They show that in the way they 'manage' the oval office.

The other thing that concerns me is what if we are attacked again, which I really believe is more likely with anti-war Kerry. Worse yet, what if Kerry is taken out in the attack and we have a 'babe in the woods' in charge. God help us!

Yes we need more question from the American people and business represented on the debate panel.

Agreed that Shieffer is a loser. He asked a lot of loaded, partisan questions and did a poor job of moderating. To his credit though, he did ask a couple good ones. The flu shot question obviously took the candidates by surprise, as Bush took a while to ease into the answer and Kerry avoided it altogether.

Bush's zinger against CBS was hillarious...would have loved to see a reaction shot from Shieffer on that one with a split screen of Dan Rather.

Looks like a pretty solid win for Bush though. The MSM is calling it a tie and the blogosphere seems pretty united in calling it a Bush win. Kerry just didn't look Presidential. He had no overriding vision, was extremely negative, and looked totally devoid of compassion or empathy.

People want a leader, not a live-action Encyclopedia Brittanica.

I'd settle for someone who can at least speak English, which even Bush admits he has trouble with. He went to Yale for the love of God! That folky hick shit just doesn't work with me. I prefer someone with some common sense.

Jim - yes Cheney and Bush were both CEOs. Bush ran what two companies onto the verge of bankruptcy? He's been President for four years, his experience as CEO is no longer a valid argument. He's had four years to "run" the country and that is the test he has to pass with voters. And IMO, he's failed miserably. As for all of you saying the winner was clearly Bush, yeah if you're in his base, which really isn't going to do much to help you win more votes. I thought he looked sickly last night frankly and wonder about his health. Kerry's not a pageant winner by any stretch of hte imagination, but he just looks more put together. Bush always looks like he's been up all night partying.

At least Kerry can say LESBIAN. I didn't realize that was now a four letter word. WE all know the President has an issue saying the word gay, having said it once in public.

I'm sorry, the debate was at best a draw and at worst for you guys a win for Kerry. It really was the most boring of the three. I actually have read some interesting opinion articles and commentary today saying the debate was actually much more biased against Kerry than against Bush in regards to the questions Bob asked. Besides the fact Bush is the incumbent so any questions he is given will seem to question his administration. Whereas Kerry's questions will of course be more what do you plan to do differently. Kerry gets criticized for blasting Bush and not focusing on himself but nearly every question he is given asks him to do just that. And frankly that is how it always is when an incumbent seeks reelection. Particularly this one. This election is clearly a report card on Bush's administration. Democrats aren't crazy for Kerry, but we certainly are energized when it comes to the idea of getting Bush out of the White House.

My wife and I watched Fight Club instead. She's known I like the movie a lot, but afterward she kept giving me odd looks. Dunno if that means she's rethinking the whole marriage thing, or if my sex life is about to get a whole lot more interesting. Time will tell.

-- I actually have read some interesting opinion articles and commentary today saying the debate was actually much more biased against Kerry than against Bush in regards to the questions Bob asked.---

Spin Away, here comes the 15 point jump:

The media “wants Kerry to win” and so “they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic” and “there’s going to be this glow about” them, Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek, admitted on Inside Washington over the weekend.

MR. THOMAS: There's one other base here, the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points.

I actually have read some interesting opinion articles and commentary today saying the debate was actually much more biased against Kerry than against Bush in regards to the questions Bob asked.

Links, please.

Hey Britton, good to hear from you. I always like to hear how the other half thinks. Fantastic defense of Kerry's unbelievably inappropriate remark re Cheney's daughter- "At least Kerry can say it"- and doesn't that validate any ridiculous thing anybody ever says? Well done.

"Democrats aren't crazy for Kerry, but we certainly are energized when it comes to the idea of getting Bush out of the White House."

Well, here's one Democrat who's not crazy about Bush, but is energized about the WOT and that means keeping Kerry out of the White House. I can't speak to whether this is a widespread phenomenon, but I can say my sister and mother feel exactly the same way. We'll all be voting Republican for president for the first time in our lives.

I just don't seem to have been watching the same debate as the majority here. I think Bush was very bad in projecting a "presidential image." That cackly "heh heh heh" laugh drove me up a wall, the white fleck of spit on the corner of his mouth was distracting, and his constant smiling seemed almost an ingratiating plea that said, "Hey, you ladies out there--I'm not really mean, I'm really a nice, friendly guy."

Kerry pandered on substance, but Bush on style.

And in a presidential race, style counts for a lot. The presidency is, for most Americans, a uniquely symbolic office. They want a projection of "leadership"--calm, relaxed, reassuring firmness and decisiveness. Bush has the decisiveness down, all right; but on stage he just doesn't project a reassuring image of statesmanlike command and "gravitas." Too often, he acts instead like a guy pledging for a frat, trying just a wee bit too hard to get you to like him. It undercuts his goal, which is to get people to see him as a better image of Commander-in-Chief than his rival.

The real problem for Bush in these debates--especially #1 and #3, last night--is that he's largely blown the lead he'd established with voters on his core strengths: the image of being a strong, reassuring leader in scary times. Kerry, simply by acting like an undertaker, seemed to be calmer, more controlled, more in command of himself. And I think this projection of being "more presidential" is what's showing up in the instant polls.

In short, I see this election slipping away, and America about to ratify its first New Left traitor as President.

The best thing Team Bush can do right now is to run a bunch of ads in swing states with images of 9/11, and showing cops, firemen, soldiers, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain endorsing Bush as a strong leader for scary times. I just hope Karl Rove is smart enough to figure that out.

I think that Bush won but it was not a knock out win. He was better on style and substance but not enough better that it will make more than a 1 or 2 point boost. I think the swiftvet ads may do more.

Fritz's Thoughts

Stephen, I think you are plain wrong about Bob Shieffer. I was three sheets in the wind and thought he was much better than Jim Lehrer. In fact, I think Bob went out of his way to be fair because of the CBS scandal and it made for a substantive debate.

As for the final outcome, this was the only draw (1-1-0). Given the subject matter was supposed to favor Kerry, that means Bush wins. Look for the president to start to tick back above 50 percent after this weekend. As a left-of-center Bush supporter I am happy; as an American, it makes be feel good that for all its flaws the debate process does, in fact, frame the issues.

And, yes, we can hold a hot election in the middle of a war.

What confuses me most is why a lot of the same people who thought Bush did poorly in the 1st, and only OK in the 2nd think he not only won, but won by some decisive knockout last night? Personally, I thought Bush was OK in the 1st (agree with the CW that he was too scowly and all that, but he landed the best sound bite "punches." And I thought he *did* win decisively in the 2nd.

But last night? I thought Bush did a little better than Kerry, but they were both pretty bad. From both, way too much regurgitation of not just boilerplate talking point stuff, but the *same* stuff as in the first two debates! And both had their share of not really answering the questions (yeah, I get the "it's all about education" idea, and he's got a point, but when the question's about shorter-term jobs issues, it'd be polite to say a few words to that point.)

And the whole thing reinforced for me just how stilted and artificial this format is. The only bits that really sticks with me were Bush's answers on the religion and "talk about the women in your life" questions. Not so much on what exactly he said, but it was the first time either Bush or Kerry sounded like just a regular person telling you what they thought. So overall better for Bush than for Kerry.

But for the life of me, I can't see anything from last night that would lead one to a "Well, Bush sucked in the 1st and 2nd debates, but he really kicked ass in the 3rd" evaluation.

The remark about Cheney's daughter was in no way inappropriate. I think the reason why Kerry brought up Cheney's daughter is because the President had just sat there and said he did not know if [being gay] is a choice or not, he evidently has no thought on whether people choose to be gay or not...yet his right arm has a lesbian daughter, who has been very supportive and active in their campaign. So if he cared about the issue or about whether someone who is gay has a choice to be otherwise, why not ask a person who has been very active in your campaign? I think Kerry was showing that the President was skirting the issue and has no excuse to skirt the issue. Mary Cheney is an openly gay woman who works for the campaign. She is fair play. Besides the fact that Kerry made not ONE negative reference to her. For the Republicans to construe it as distasteful merely shows their true feelings about the fact she's a lesbian in the first place. As if by mentioning she is a lesbian has a negative impact. If it does, well then that shows the ignorance of the American people who evidently do think gays have a choice to be other than what they are. As Lynne said, if it's a cheap shot to praise her daughter for being honest about who she is, then that evidently shows what they think about who their daughter is. Could he have avoided mentioning her? Sure, but the fact is the Bush Administration has been proactive about making gays an issue in this campaign and so if they are going to wage that war, their side is fair game as well. I wish Kerry had gone where he should have gone and asked the President point blank why he would deny the Vice President's daughter the right to receive benefits of marriage. Bush's only argument was gays are deserving of respect. He made NO MENTION of whether they deserve any RIGHTS or BENEFITS in their decision to enter into a commitment with one another. Yes, we all know on the issue of marriage, Kerry has the same view that it is between a man and a woman. The difference is that he at least speaks about the fact that they should NOT be denied the basic rights that every straight couple receives automatically when married. I'm sorry but on that point, Kerry spoke far more admirably on the issue. Bush was the condescending one, saying we deserve respect no matter what relationships we enter into...as if there is something inherently wrong with those relationships to begin with. He completely avoided the question by saying he did not know if it was a choice.

And as for the comment regarding her mother and herself voting Republican for the first time. While I can understand that since Bush is probably the least republican candidate the party has ever had, my parents and siblings are all Republicans who will be voting for Kerry because they think Bush is an idiot who isn't fit to run this country and has proved that by failing to do squat for four years.

Britton,

I would give Kerry a pass on the Mary Cheney remark IF Edwards didn't do the same thing.

We watched the gay-bashing of a Senate candidate by DEMOCRATS in Montana in 2002; this was not an accident or debate point. It was a cold and calculated move by the most cynical campaign since Nixon in 1968. Will it matter? No. Kerry missed an opportnity to win last night, and will be talking about his first debate over beers with friends as they watch President Bush's first State of the Union address in his second term.

This is over.

An an aside, I find it ironic that Bush clearly won the domestic debate and Kerry won the foreign policy debate. Is this the bizarro world or what?

I think Jay Leno had the correct assessment. Recorded in beautiful downtown Burbank, many hours before the debate took plac, stated: "The winner of the debate is clear- it was those people that turned on the baseball game".

ed

Sorry, Britton, your post doesn't pass the bullshit detector. It's painfully obvious you're toeing the party line here; no one I have talked to about this issue, including dyed-in-the-wool Carter-style Democrats who can't stand Bush and think Cheney is an evil cyborg, thinks it was in any way relevant, appropriate, or honorable. I think you and M.B. Cahill are on your own on this one.

You might also want to look into using your "enter" key a bit more, or the "return" key if you borrowed Dan Rather's typewriter from 1972.

Britt -

You're out of your fucking mind. If Mary Cheyney works for the campaign stuffing envelopes or getting out the vote or whatever she's not the candidate. If you want to use your kids for campaign props it's your business but you don't use someone elses. Innapropriate and stupid. It shows that you as the candidate don't have have any respect for families in general. My wife's from a political family and her and her sister and parents always worked on the campaigns and represented the family but they're not in the public eye and don't expect to be treated that way. It's just crass behavior from a lowlife POS.

"President had just sat there and said he did not know if [being gay] is a choice or not, he evidently has no thought on whether people choose to be gay or not...yet his right arm has a lesbian daughter,"

And this makes him an expert on the *causes* of homosexuality how?

Seeing as how even the American Psychiatric Association is still officially agnostic on the gay nature/nurture thing, I really don't think every friend/coworker of the father of a gay person is required to have an opinion. I find it kinnd of heartening that, unlike Kerry, Bush actually knows when he doesn't know something.

In my opinion, Kerry won with facts, Bush answered his questions, but not with substance. If you know the numbers on what they're speaking of, then you wince at every sentence because both of them lied, some more than others. Check here for lies and truths explained

Andrew Sullivan who happens to be a gay Republican had this to say about Mary's Lesbian reference. What about Mary?
I agree with him and think that there is nothing wrong about the "Gay Cheney" mention. Bush mentioned he was married and referenced that he's a heterosexual on t.v. ?? It's not something to keep hidden folks. I'll be voting with the people who can interpret and understand Bush's report card, which a big fat D- is what I'm seeing there.

Kerry bringing up Mary Cheney is no more crass than him bringing up Bush's twins. He made no negative comment towards Mary Cheney any more than he did towards speaking about Bush and his relationship with his daughters. Mary Cheney is not stuffing envelopes. She is running Cheney's reelection campaign. She was also the gay liason for Coors Brewing Company and was very involved with the gay community. Her sexuality is not a private issue. The Vice President brought it up in his debate. Why should he be allowed to discuss something that is private for Mary if you feel that is the case? Sexuality isn't a family issue nearly as much as it is a personal issue. As for the APA, I'm a homesexual and I can tell you that it is not a choice. Period. It's funny how heterosexuals discuss such issues in scientific terms ignoring the fact that nearly every homosexual you speak to will say that they cannot change the way they feel. Whether homosexuality stems from nature or nurture, it is not something that one can change. Mary Cheney knows that. And John Kerry knows that. Just because Bush would prefer to think that it's a choice because that fits into his prayer book, doesn't mean it's the truth.

How

about

this

Rob?

Is

that

better?

Doesn't change the fact that no one is toeing a party line. Mary Cheney works for the Bush/Cheney campaign. She formerly worked as as gay liason for Coors Brewing. She has been in the past very open about her sexuality. The only people who think this is a low blow are people who think homosexuality is something negative. Kerry made no negative statements about Mary or her sexuality but praised her for living her life being honest with who she is. You're all just worried that bible beating conservatives will get freaked out about Cheney's lesbian daughter because THEY think there is something wrong with her being a lesbian. Well news flash...everyone knows Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. Big f-ing deal. Bush should be called out for choosing to worry more about whether Mary Cheney and other gays will taint the sanctity of marriage than whether she will have the ability to visit her partner Heather in a hospital should Heather become ill. Or worry over whether Mary Cheney will be able to ensure the life she builds with her partner will be protected should she pass away. Bush should have to explain why he thinks that Mary Cheney, myself and other gays should be denied the basic benefits that heterosexuals get when they obtain a marriage license. He has made no effort to extend those benefits to gays and his Party has seen fit in states across this country to explicitly deny those benefits (ie: Virginia).

Nahhh Britton, we couldn't possibly talk of those important things, we should only focus on whether it was appropriate or not to refer to Cheney's lesbian daughter. Senator Kerry, how rude! Don't you know that the Cheney's are supposed to feel embarrassed of this natural phenomenon? Kerry shouldn't rub it in.

Ignoring as well that when Alan Keyes, a republican (not that any of you should claim him), called Mary Cheney a "selfish hedonist" Lynne and Dick had little to say about it. But John Kerry says that Mary Cheney is living her life honestly and he's somehow a very bad man. Mary Cheney has used her sexuality for profit and for her father's campaign. It's an issue that should show Americans exactly where the "family values" candidates stand when it comes to their own family.

Kerry's body slam to Mary Cheney was the only gaffe to emerge from any of the debates--and it's a major one.

Kerry shouldn't have used the reference to Mary Cheney and her sexuality anymore than Bush shouldn't have mentioned Elizabeth Edwards and her obesity. (oh wait, Bush didn't do that did he; how gentlemanly of him) According to the National Institute of Health one quarter of adults in the US are obese. That should be a heck of a lot more of a societal concern than same-sex marriage and would have been a good topic of debate how each of them would approach this national health issue. Looking at the questions old "Bob" asked it looks like he is is definitely in the twilight of his career. The questions that weren't already addressed in a previous debate were tedious and in some cases, inane. The candidates and most importantly the electorate deserved better debate moderators than we saw in any of the three.

Excuse me Dougrc, but you're comparison to homosexuality to obesity is offensive as hell. And its EXACTLY the point Kerry is making. Mary Cheney did not choose to be homosexual. To compare the two is absurd, uneducated, idiotic and flat out rude. Obesity is a health condition that whether by choice or genetics, has a very negative connotation...it's unhealthy. To compare homosexuality to that perpetuates the attitude that 1. it's a problem and 2. is something to be ashamed of. Mary Cheney isn't ashamed of it it would seem. So why is Kerry's comment regarding the fact that she's a homosexual be offensive when she herself and her father have both been open about it? Why dont' you find something more worthwhile to critique about Kerry's performance than make illogical comparison to obesity?

Britton: Many Republicans (including this one) have denounced Alan Keyes for his carpet-bagging Illinois senate campaign, as well as for his general hypocrisy on so-called black issues and his general all-around nutjob factor. This happened long before the Cheney mention.

But since he's trailing Barack Obama by about 45 points, so what? (Many Illinois Republicans that I know are voting for Obama. That's how bad Keyes is.)

Who "won" the debate? No frickin' clue, nor do I care, nor does it matter. I was too busy playing with my kids and watching the Yankees/Sox game. Who are you people? The last time I tried to watch a presidential "debate" I about lost my mind. If you're not drinking, you shouldn't be watching. Get a life! (Not you, dear host - many thanks for your self-sacrifice). If you haven't already decided who to vote for, and you were watching these pseudo-debates to reach a final conclusion please please don't bother voting at all. I don't trust you; you are clearly deranged.

Britton, my point is just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you have a clue what you are talking about. Much of adult homosexuality is a choice, as is much of adult obesity. My point was, Kerry has no moral or ethical standards that would stop him from bringing unwanted public scrutiny to another citizen, just as long as he thought he might score points with one special interest group or another. President Bush does have a moral standard that he would have to violate to act in like manner.

By the way, a recent study of genetically identical twins in the Journal of Personality & Social Psychology observes that the participants were definitely individuals when it came to sexual orientation. Consider the study's male identical twin pairs: if one twin was gay, then only 20% of the time was the other twin gay. Female twins were alike only 24% of the time. With discordance rates in the 76 - 80% range, other variables, including variance in pre-adolescent and post-adolescent developmental environments (including peer pressure) must play pretty significant roles in creating the individual differences.

Just the fact that in the gay community sexually transmitted diseases, suicides rates, and promiscuous behavior are evident to a greater degree than in the general population indicates that there are some destructive shared, learned behaviors at play in the gay community. Exercising choice is as big a part of becoming homosexual as is choosing to reject that lifestyle and return to a strictly heterosexual lifestyle.

Only people who are socially insensitive, morally blind or individually involved in homosexual behavior do not see homosexuality as a social problem. A wide-spectrum of committed behavioral psychologists, therapists, and other mental health professionals reject the misguided decision in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the APA diagnostic manual. If you would like to become educated in such matters you can visit the website of National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

Of course, you probably won't because you already believe you know everything there is to know, don't you Britton? By the way, I'm glad you are offended; I was too, by Kerry's mentioning of Mary Cheney. We will not surrender the moral highground to one who stoops so low.

By the way, mindpunk, for us that think that baseball is about as exciting as picking navel fuzz, nobody watches the debates to make up their mind unless they are a few bricks shy of a load. We just wanted to see what Laura and Mama T were going to wear this time...

Dougrc,

I won't even bother discussing your completely idiotic, absurd and unfounded argument except to say I'm a queer and I have no choice in that matter and most REPUTABLE studies show that. Since you aren't actually gay, then I don't think you have exactly any perspective in this. And I'll pass your thoughts on to Dick Cheney...he'll be glad to know that is what you think about his daughter. Oh and by the way, the reason why suicide rates among homosexuals is high is because of ignorant, uninformed assholes like yourself. Thankfully most people feel differently than you to, some of them even Republicans!

Well, I'm not gay - but I'm usually pretty cheerful...

Britton, I'm sorry you have bought into the lie that there is no hope. I always like it when somebody throws the "reputable" studies line at me. Reputable always means "accepted by the gay community". Any scientific proof that contradicts their agenda always is "disreputable", even though those conducting the study may be much more knowledgable and respected researchers than those trying to discredit them. Until 1973 when political correctness overrode sound scientific evidence and solid therapeutic experience, our largest psychological and psycho-analytical professional associations accepted their responsibility to the homosexual community. In 1973, they abandoned their integrity and started rejecting the further treatment of the homosexual disorder. It did not change the need of the clients, just their willingness to acknowledge it as a body of professionals.

I am not homosexual, but is naive of you to say I couldn't understand or have a perspective. I had a childhood friend die within the last 4 years of AIDS related complications contracted during his practice of homosexuality. I have almost 90 pages of notes I took over his last 18 months of life detailing conversations we had discussing his lifestyle and behavior.

I have worked with, supervised, and even promoted several other homosexual co-workers, both male and female. Their lifestyle did not diminish who they were as human beings, nor did it make them another class of individuals. Nothing but their sexual behavior distinguished them from their co-workers. Only in one instance did homosexuality affect any one of the employee's job performance and that was dealt with fairly and in accordance with our company's standards of behavior policy, the same way a heterosexual would have been dealt with in similar circumstances.

I can understand the drives and behaviors behind the lifestyle without partaking in the lifestyle myself. Having studied and read professional journals and articles pertaining to the subject since the early 1970's, and having a degree in Behavior Psychology, I probably know a whole lot more on the subject than someone that can't control their rage enough to avoid abusing someone they disagree with by name-calling.

By the way, since I turned 18 years of age, I have at different times been a Democrat, an Independant, and a Republican. And do you know that my views and beliefs pertaining to the gay lifestyle have not changed during all of those years. Only my compassion has grown. If you had known me when I was a Democrat you would not have liked my attitude concerning the gay community at all!

By the way Greg, there is treatment for your condition, too. Join the Democrat Party. That usually grows a sour attitude on one pretty quickly...

By the way, I thought Kerry fumbled softballs all night, and I thought Bush swung and missed too many times on questions from the left to have won. I did like Bush's tie better...a brighter crimson...more optimistic, don't you think?

Doug,

Frankly you're a moron who has no clue what you're discussing. Your 'science' is based in organizations that have no clue what they are talking about and plenty of non-biased reputable sources have shown that. That have nothing to do with the gay community. And frankly, if rejecting my homosexuality means sitting at the table with the likes of you, NO THANK YOU! I'm not killing myself, practicing sexually dangerous activities, or exposing myself to anything negative or detrimental any more than a heterosexual. I have no desire to be a heterosexual, even if I could be (which by the way is SOOOOOO not possible). Why would I want or need to be one? I love who I am and my life and people around me, gay and straight. I don't think being a heterosexual would make me any happier. And frankly that is what counts in life. As for not liking you when you were a Democrat, I doubt I would like you very much regardless of your political affiliation. As for your friend dying of AIDS, I'm sorry for that, but you need to base your conclusions on sexuality on more than just one person. Frankly, if you truly believe the crap you're spouting, why not reassess your support of Dick Cheney...something must be up if his daughter has chosen such a negative lifestyle.

And as for knowing more on the subject, being a homosexual myself, I would say I have a much more clear perspective on the issue and what makes me who I am. I doubt very seriously you would accept the idea that you could choose to be sexually attracted to another man. Besides the fact, that even if one could change their sexuality, which is just an inherently absurd notion, why should one change their sexuality? What is wrong with being gay?

Britton,
There are many people (some I know personally and some who contact me via e-mail) who claim they are formerly gay and that the gay life style is a choice. Many were in the life style for years and years and are now married with children. I can't ignore so many testamonies to the fact that no one is born gay.