Jim

I was using both examples, not just Shiavo, to make my in initial point. When a highly intelligent politician is supposed to have said something incredibly stupid, natural curiosity, if nothing else, should make you want to see the actual words. Frist is a potential republican candidate and the fact that the actual words used do not come up on the DNC's own search facility, gives me pause. If Frist said something as stupid as Gerald Ford's 1976 "there is no Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe" gaffe, and it was that clear, I would expect to see the actual words popping up every where on the web. Instead of simply assuming the press is wrong, I have searched in vane for the actual language of these two incidents. I did this for Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Howard Dean before accepting the conventional wisdom. I acknowledge that Frist may have mispoken, had a senior moment or *gasp* been the first politician to triangulate in the history of Sunday morning news shows. However, before I assume that a world class surgeon thinks that sperm from masturbation can divebomb a woman's vagina with a realistic chance of fertilizing an egg, I would like to see what the man was asked and what he actually said. You make the point that Frist was acting as a politician and not a medical doctor in the Shiavo case. I simply responding that I doubt that he ever said anything to the contrary. Of course he was speaking first as a US Senator - that, no doubt, is why he was on TV. I seriously doubt anyone was mislead to believe he had done an examination of Ms. Shiavo. The more craven thing he may have done was to apologize after an overwhelming negative public response. Btw, I note that the Washington Post still believed he should make an apology after the autopsy. Even this highly critical Washington Post article doesn't really muster much authority against Frist: It is unfair to say Frist offered a second opinion. Everyone knew he had not examined Shiavo and as he says here, he simply raised the question about the detail of the examination by the neurologist who examined Shiavo. I, personally, do not know if this is a valid objection medically or not.

Do you recall the nature of the subtleties?

Why? If from the evidence in his possession, he had the sincere belief based on his medical knowledge that she was not in a PVS, why is it such a bad idea? Everyone knew he was not the treating physician and no one was misled in this regard. In fact, wouldn't it be untruthful and cynical calculation not to express his views? I personally do not have the expertise to make that judgment. I could view it in the light of "getting the full force of the media onslaught off of his back in the only way available to him." Again, I'd need to see the exact words of the initial statement and the apology. Also, you do not deal with my initial point re masturbation causing pregnancy. I seriously doubt he said such a thing and the dearth of the materials on the web on the issue seem to support this view. My initial post started with the point that it seems extremely far fetched that any medical doctor would say that masturbation by itself causes pregnancy. Actually, I'm not the one attacking or defending a position which hasn't been precisely defined. Conventional wisdom can arise without any meaningful vetting by the press. Ummm... no. Well, since you are clearly suggesting that at least some of this point is aimed at me, I'll respond. When Pres. Clinton was accused of perjury, I did not reach a final conclusion until I had seen the actual deposition transcript and looked at the interrogatories posed. Ultimately, I concluded that the testimony was probably perjurous but, after knowing the specifics, concluded that the statements did not constitute an impeachable offense. I am consistently skeptical about the conventional wisdom established by the press. I challenge you to find a post where I have accepted ridiculous statements attributed to a Democrat on face value without wanting the specifics of what was actually said. To add another example with a belated post script, if Howard Dean is supposed to have said that the United States can't win the warn in Iraq, I want to see the exact words. If the press reports that Sen. Kerry has said that US soldiers are terrorizing innocent Iraqis, yes, again, I do want to see the exact words. The alleged Kerry statement is the closest I can come to a preposterous statement attributed to a democrat roughly equivalent to masturbation causing pregnancy. If something is too good to be true, it usually is. If a highly intelligent person (in this case a world class surgeon) is supposed to have said something imbecilic, it's probably a good idea to take a look at what he actually said. Why is this so controversial?

Because I'm a republican.

I completely agree that you should vote for him instead of the democratic candidate.

You are surely not saying that most republicans want to set gays ablaze in public forums to pay for their godless behavior?

I haven't had the energy to dig more than 15 minutes into the exact words but I guarantee you all before I get started in earnest that there is more to this than simply Bill Frist claiming masturbation causes pregnancy. The actual words will show some subtlety that is wholly missed by the reports. With regard to Shiavo, I'll look for his actual words and I also guarantee that Frist did not purport to be making a medical diagnosis such as he would if he were Shiavo's doctor. I predict that it will be clear that Frist was acting as a Senator and that it was clear he was acting on what information he had as being a Senator even though he interpreted that information as a doctor. I also predict that the actual words of Frist's apology will not blur this distinction. Really, everyone, when a person is being hung by some words reported by the press, you must look for yourselves at the actual words spoken before drawing any conclusion. I've spent 15 minutes this morning for a direct quote of purported Frist's masturbation gaffe and haven't found it so far. If the quote was so damaging in and of itself, why can't I find it in searching the word "masturbation" on the DNC's search facility? Likewise, I can't find their referencing the words used for a search for Frist & Shiavo.

These were not great moments for Frist but I would not draw significant conclusions about a person without seeing that person's actual words. I'll wait to see the actual interview before closing the loop. I think it is telling that none of the leftist sites cite the actual words used. A great example of this kind of distortion was Feingold's misuse of Robert's testimony. The press just doesn't vet this kind of thing reliabily and I've learned to wait to draw conclusions until I've seen the actual words.

Yeppers. See below for spoiler info: There is a scene earlier where Hagrid overhears Snape talking with Dumbledore and Snape is trying to get out of a commitment he made. Dumbledore says, essentially, "you agreed to it, you have to do it." They are probably talking about Snape's unbreakable vow.

I think Dumbledore made him promise do ... that thing in the sixth book .... instead of breaking the unbreakable vow. When Dumbledore was pleading at the end, I think it was not to .... keep Snape from doing that thing.... but for Snape to do ... that thing. Heh, trying not to be too much of a spoiler.

Just to be clear, I didn't make the post to which you refer. We are all generalizing here but my sense is that Condi would get more dem votes for being a woman than for being black.

Republicans can only dream the Dems nominate Pelosi.

The democrats aren't that smart. Condi would get some votes for being female, but few for being black IMO. She seemed pretty firm in not running on last Sunday's Meet the Press. My dream candidate for the dems is Lieberman. Makes me wish we could have the VP from a different party like in the old days and we'd have Lieberman as President and Rice as VP.

I was actually "for Bush" although I was a bit lukewarm towards Lurch.

We'd never have another Jimmy Carter without a primary system which might be a bad thing. The possibility of a seeming maverick coming out of no where would be lost without primaries. The two party system does polarize but it also builds in some stability that is lost in many governments with multiple viable parties. As a somewhat pro-life' date=' agnostic republican who is not certain the framers of the Constitution were talking about a right to bear semi-automatic weapons, the two-party system pretty much eliminates me from public life in Oklahoma. Democrats will nominate someone, [b']anyone[/b], not from the northeast if they want to have a chance. Bill Clinton was a once in a life time force of nature.

Hands down, my favorite was Dukakis in the tank. I can still remember the squeaking sound of the tank as it rolled around with Dukakis looking like a complete nerd.

The nomination, probably. The election, probably not. I do not doubt her intelligence or political savvy. She has Bill's ability to triangulate issues but I do not see her having 1/100th of Bill's charisma. Even in the picture on her own web page, she looks plastic. She would be something like Dukakis who never could show who he was inside. I could easily see her having this kind of moment: Bernard Shaw: "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [his wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" I remember being annoyed at this point thinking Bernad Shaw had given Dukakis a softball precisely so he could show some emotion to America. My annoyance turned to joy.... Dukakis replying coolly: "No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life.... [blah blah blah]."