October 06, 2004
cheney/edwards: work horse vs. show horse
funny, i turned on CNN's morning show today, and the big news wasn't that vice president cheney ripped senator "gone" a new poohole in the vice presidential debate last night. no, the big news was film of edwards and cheney at the same prayer breakfast a couple of years ago.
ah HA! proof that they've met! why is this news? because of something vice president cheney said:
CHENEY: And Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee.
You've missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform.
Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.
Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.
The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.
(let us note that kerry has missed about as much senatorial work this term...presumably so he could fly around the country and play football at airports? i really can't tell.) [link]
maybe CNN, the kerry-edwards ticket's propaganda tool, should think before they make a big deal about this. think about it! why didn't john edwards correct vice president cheney himself last night? possible edwards response:
"you know, mr. vice president, we actually HAVE been in the same room before. once, years ago, we were both at the same social function together! of course, we weren't at work on the floor of the senate, but the american people need to know the truth! we HAVE met. yes, we might as well have run into each other at a mcdonalds outside the beltway back in 1987, but do you see that you have lied, sir? what you just said is just one more lie from an administration that has repeatedly tried to deceive the american people."
edwards didn't say it because it would've proved his opponent's point, which was that senator edwards doesn't show up to WORK very much. he has missed a huge majority of senate votes and committee activity his last few years as a rookie senator, and had he chosen to run for reelection, was facing certain defeat in his home state. he hasn't been properly representing his constituents in north carolina.
hope is on the way? that's what edwards keeps promising the american people. but if we could talk to the people he represents in north carolina, they might suggest a different slogan...perhaps "the dope doesn't stay!" (at work for very long).
considering edwards' lack of credentials (or even work) i think a good cheney response would have been this:
"senator, having great hair may be good enough to convince john kerry to make you his running mate, but most americans want a little more in a vice president."
transcript [here]. also check out what the louisiana conservative has to say. [link]. he notes the exchange in which edwards implies iraqi deaths DON'T COUNT when it comes to tallying up the casualties. it's telling that the senator would completely discount those lives rather than concede the point to the VP.
Posted by travis at October 6, 2004 06:40 AM | TrackBackTravis:
I enjoy your site. I only stumbled across it yesterday evening. I'm adding you to my blogroll.
I grew up Presbyterian. I have learned a lot about the Mormon religion over the past year. (A dated a nice Mormon girl for about a year). I've been to Salt Lake City, driven out onto Antelope Island in the middle of the Great Salt Lake, and skied at Powder Mountain and Brighton.
I doubt seriously if I will ever become Mormon. Rightly or wrongly, the Joseph Smith story, and the story of Jews migrating to North America by ship centuries before Christopher Columbus, just strikes me as very implausible.
Yet, I do appreciate (whether or not this is a result of a plan of Joseph Smith or not) that the Mormon faith adds something to the religious life of its adherents that most (all?) other Christian faiths do not: an extra sense of magic and wonder about the history of Christianity - and the world, really.
Among many things, I think of (1) the title of the blog of another Mormon, "Commonsense and Wonder," (2) the great works of Orson Scott Card - although his fiction books are not explicitly Mormon, (3) the odd but intriguing notion of Mormons as modern-day Israelites, (4) the "Hill Camorah Festival," (5) the Mormon temples worldwide, (6) the golden plates, (7) combining Native American history with Christian history to create a religion with a uniquely American heritage, etc., etc.
So - while I doubt I'll ever be a Mormon - I have a soft spot for Mormons (and Mormon bloggers too, I guess).
With this over-long background, please indulge me if you would in answering a few of questions.
1. What are your thoughts on the book "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer? (See:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385509510/qid=1097077737/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_2_1/103-0038639-1105406).
2. Did you see the South Park episode on Mormons? What did you think?
3. What's your response to my above Protestant/Presbyterian view of the Mormon faith?
4. I know the Mormon church does not support or condone polygamy. (But see Doctrine & Covenant No. 132 - http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132). Anyway - we are clearly both political conservatives. So here's the question: isn't it a fair argument against states' sanctioning of gay marriage that, once that line is crossed, there is no principled reason to prevent states from explicitly sanctioning polygamous marriages? (I think that is a fair argument against the wisdom of states' sanctioning of gay marriage - but a Mormon's view on this would be particularly interesting).
Thanks.
-nikita demosthenes
http://nikita_demosthenes.blogspot.com
Welcome Nikita,
You seem very insightful.
TJ-- I TOTALLY AGREE!! Far too little attention has been paid to the senate records of these individuals (Kerry & Edwards).
I think a fitting argument may be, ye have not been faithful with small things (senate!) and therefore ye shall not be trusted wtih bigger things (president!).
It would be like asking me (some one who believes Speed limits are actually "guide lines") to be in charge of like Interstate Road Commissions or something bigger than that.
Posted by: "Bob" at October 6, 2004 10:11 AMtrav, i watched the news this morning and i knew it was blog worthy. edwards really missed the point of what the vp was saying. so they met at a breakfast, that doesnt change the fact that edwards never doing his job. talk about a political spin.
Posted by: briant at October 6, 2004 11:48 AMI'm willing to bet that Edwards had forgotten they'd ever met as well, or he did remember but knew that responding would just give Cheney another chance to drive the point home.
To me the debate was very entertaining, but largely irrelevant since we know that Cheney is sooooooo much more qualified and competent than Edwards.
The thing that struck me is that it will be a fun primary season in 4 years when Hillary and Edwards go head-to-head...
Posted by: doug at October 6, 2004 12:00 PMnikita d,
thanks very much for the link. you'll notice that we've linked to you, too. at this very moment, kazaa is sucking south park episode 712 out of cyberspace for me, so that i can respond to your #2. as soon as i watch it, my response will follow.
very good questions, all, btw.
Posted by: travis at October 7, 2004 05:36 AMThanks. I'll hold my opinions on the South Park episode about LDS for now so I don't influence your watching.
Posted by: nikita_demosthenes at October 7, 2004 07:24 PMmr demosthenes,
1. i heard about krakauer's book two summers ago and blogged about it kind of offhandedly at the end of a post. i also linked to the lds church's official statement about his book. the post is here: [link]. and it appears the church's statement has moved here: [link]. I recommend their responses very highly. i never read the book myself.
i am not familiar with the cases in krakauer's book, but let's look at the issue of mormon extremism using a more recent example. i'm sure krakauer was kicking himself for publishing his book before the elizabeth smart case broke. she was kidnapped by two mentally deranged hobos one of whom claimed to be a prophet and to be entitled to elizabeth as a plural wife. this guy was born into a "mormon" family, but the family was not too much into the church, and he basically grew up in a broken home. he was very far from being a latter day saint. in this case and in ones that krakauer cited (the ones where he didn't have the story totally wrong, at least), it appears that the criminals were merely using the church story as a backdrop for their lunacy. in other words, these people were probably going to commit crimes anyway. it's just too bad that these people's knowledge of the gospel was so superficial that it did not stop them from committing their crimes.
i joined the church almost 7 years ago at the age of 18. since then, i have gotten to know, literally, hundreds of members of the church in my time serving as a church missionary, as a student at brigham young university, and, of course, attending church. they are the kindest, most innocent people that i have ever come across. and i have met enough of them to spot the trend.
i find it funny that krakauer would compare mormons to muslim extremists, since we're so moderate in many ways. for example, some conservative christians (mostly baptists, and small evangelical sects) protest LDS general conferences because they feel LDS church policy is too liberal on the issue of abortion. specifically, the church allows for abortion in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother. a second example is stem-cell research, where the church has done nothing to oppose it. i think these are two examples where the church is even more moderate than mainstream christianity.
for more on the church, i recommend the official information site, mormon.org. also, there are a bunch of mormon bloggers at timesandseasons.org and
the LDS blogring. they tend to lean conservative, but there are a surprising number of liberal LDS bloggers. if you're interested in the history of the church, i'd recommend the PBS documentary "american prophet: the story of joseph smith" [link] which i think is a pretty fair look at the early church.
2. south park episode 712. i found it hilarious, and it describes my experiences getting to know a mormon family perfectly. unfortunately, the history lesson wasn't completely accurate. as a convert, my experience was a lot like randy's--awe at how frustratingly perfect these LDS families seem to be, and a desire to be like them. however, i don't know anyone in the church that believes as the harrison's do, that it doesn't matter if the church is a fraud, and that the important thing is the good the church does in people's lives today. and, as i mentioned, the version of church history put forth by the south park guys isn't too good.
follow this link for the official version of church history. [link]. there are several fruitful links on the page: the introduction, the testimonies of the three and eight witnesses who saw the plates, and the testimony of joseph smith are all worth reading. on the other hand, if you’re interested in more satire of mormon culture, check out thesugarbeet.com. it’s a fake news site modeled on the onion that regularly caricatures the church culture and people.
3. your views of the LDS faith are very accurate. in fact, one of the things that i love about the church is the depth of the doctrine. you said:
"I do appreciate (whether or not this is a result of a plan of Joseph Smith or not) that the Mormon faith adds something to the religious life of its adherents that most (all?) other Christian faiths do not: an extra sense of magic and wonder about the history of Christianity - and the world, really."
indeed, with scriptures and hymns that talk about a planet called "kolob", the existence of a heavenly mother, being organized before we were born from "intelligences", and the possibility for “eternal progression” there is definitely a sense of wonder present about the world and the nature of chrisitanity. and when you add holy temples a-la ancient israel, it gets even deeper. i love this because i there seems to be no ceiling to my spiritual progress. there'll always be more to know and understand and feel about so many things.
i understand you when you say you have difficulty believing the LDS view of history. it does sound implausible. i reacted the same way when the missionaries first told me that god and christ appeared to joseph smith. in fact, i couldn't believe they were telling it to me with straight faces. but later i had an experience with prayer that i could not deny. the bulk of what i've learned since that time has confirmed what i learned in that prayer.
i had been on the fringe of chrisitanity beforehand, ironically because i had trouble believing the story. perhaps my problem was attending a 'disciples of christ' church, which now has one of its pastors fighting with the ACLU to have the phrase "under god" removed from the pledge of allegiance. (with friends like these...)
one of my unanswered questions had always been, "what about the other people in the world at the time of the bible? were the people in jerusalem more important than them?” it hurt my faith to think that god didn't speak to all people. i couldn't understand how this group's religion could be for everyone NOW if it wasn't for everyone THEN.
the missionaries taught me about the book of mormon, and how it was the record of god's dealings with people on the american continent. and there may be other lost books which have yet to be revealed that represent the god's dealings with other of the world's peoples at that time (in other words, all the tribes of israel, not just those in jerusalem).
i had also seen a TV program in my teen years that questioned the reality of christianity. specifically, they questioned whether or not paul had made it all up himself. i remember how much this effected me. if this was the case, i thought, then judaism was the authentic religion, and christianity was a mistake. but, again, my concern was addressed as i began to learn about the church. the book of mormon is another witness of jesus christ. in fact, the law of two or three witnesses is a major gospel theme. [
">http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=two+witnesses&search.x=0&search.y=0&search=Search
] if it is a true record, it refutes the "paul made it up" theory of christianity.
in all honesty, i've thought about how the LDS church could be a fraud. i think the only reasonable explanation is that joseph smith's father told him what to write in the book of mormon, the doctrine and covenants, and the pearl of great price. joseph was too young and uneducated to do it himself. i seriously doubt he would have had the bible knowledge, especially at the age of 20, to produce nearly 1000 pages of doctrinally accurate text. however, the father theory falls apart when one considers how the smiths lived after the church was organized. their lives were lives of hardship. joseph's wife lost most of her children before they reached adulthood (i think 7 or 9 out of 11). his parents, too, lived through most difficult conditions. joseph's brother, hyrum, was imprisoned with his brother multiple times, and ultimately murdered with the prophet by the illinois mob. yet none of these family members ever changed his story. the devotion exhibited by joseph and his family to the church does not send the message that they were living a lie.
would it be inconsistent with christian doctrine for god to speak to prophets today? it frustrated me that my pastor at the disciples of christ church never seemed to be able to say, authoritatively, "this is the truth". it was always, "our best understanding of this is _______".
i believe that god has chosen to speak to us again. he spoke in the past because he loved his children and wanted to guide them. considering he loves us as much today (a long shot, i know) he must be equally eager to speak to us and instruct us. that is why i believe he has called prophets and apostles again in our day.
4. changing the definition of marriage is bad news. we blogged about polygamists trying to get in on the action here: [link]. the truth is, the LDS church will never reinstate polygamy, as much as little 16 year old mormon boys, influenced by our current culture of sexual deviancy, may hope for it. but you are completely right when you suggest that there is no principled reason to prevent states from sanctioning it if they allow gays to marry. when gay rights activitsts are asked about this problem, they generally respond that the idea is crazy and no polygamous relationships could be valid marriages. but fundamentalists in small western polygamous towns will push for it. the more inroads gay marriage makes, polygamous marriage surely will follow close behind.
polygamous marriage was practiced by some mormons in the early days of the LDS church (1830-1890). the church suggests only 10-15% of the members had these types of marriages, most anti-mormons claim the number is much higher. i don't know why, exactly, joseph smith introduced the practice. some say it was a way to grow the church more quickly, and mormons are still famous for their large families today. the church also established the "united order"--which was basically communal living--in the 1830s. the idea of a man taking multiple wives and providing for them would have fit in with that concept. the united order was replaced by tithing a few years after it was introduced. and needless to say, the polygamous families of today's offshoot churches don't live up to the prophet's original intentions for polygamy.
excuse the long-windedness of my response. if it wasn't for all the links, i would've had to go on much longer still.
Posted by: travis at October 9, 2004 08:22 AMthank you for your long, thoughtful comment. it's too much for me to respond to now. i'll re-read it and respond a little later. thanks again for the time and thought you put into it.