... that President Bush thinks the Dred Scott decision was regrettable.

Note:Many old comments were lost in a database crash in 2008. Some conversations may seem to make less sense than they would have. A few will make more sense now.

1. 
   the_bone 2004 10 09 at 11:47:30 am

   That “Dred Scot” answer was kind of incomprehensible.  The earpiece must have been on the fritz at that moment.

   Oh, and I’m sure you loved it when Bush said “I guess you’d say I’m a good steward of the land.”

2. 
   Siona 2004 10 10 at 4:44:10 pm

   I almost turned off the debate at that “good steward” line. I haven’t felt so digusted since I saw 9/11.

   This is somewhat off topic, but the hypocrisy of the man astounds me. Do you know he doesn’t go to church?

    

   Empty Pew

3. 
   Seth 2004 10 10 at 8:32:49 pm

   I was equally mystified myself at Bush’s discursion on Dred Scott. But it turns out this is actually an appeal to the anti-abortion base: they perceive Roe v. Wade and the Dred Scott decision as equally abhorrent failures to treat human beings as persons under the law. Try googling ” ‘Dred Scott’ abortion” for a window into this way of thinking.

   I see this as an illustration of how politically divided the country has become. We don’t get each other’s allusions. Pretty soon we’ll be speaking mutually unintelligible languages. And not long after, we’ll be evolutionarily distinct populations. That is, for those of us who believe in evolution.

4. 
   Rana 2004 10 11 at 3:44:43 pm

   That “good steward” line made me laugh/wince, and I was disappointed that Kerry’s response was so weak (I _know_ he can do better than that!!!) but I was quite pleased with the man who asked that question.  His stony expression while Bush blathered on was perfect and spoke volumes.

5. 
   Dave 2004 10 11 at 10:22:17 pm

   I’m kind of disappointed to hear that the Dred Scott reference may actually have meant something. I had the same reaction I guess Chris did: “Oh wow! He’s against slavery! What a courageous stand!” It was definitely a surreal moment.

   If you go back to the etymological meaning of steward — “ward of the (pig) sty” — Bush can fairly claim to have been a good one, I think. He certainly takes care of his porkers.

6. 
   JoAnne 2004 10 16 at 8:04:08 pm

   “Stewardship” refers to a specific Christian doctrine:  God gave us the Earth and all the animals and plants on it.  We are given free rein with the planet (and I guess anything else we can get our hands on), with the caveat that God will call us to reckoning eventually for what we do. 

   We’re not watching over the Earth primarily for the good of anything else living on it, or even necessarily for the good of all humanity.  We’re watching over the Earth for God.

    

   And there’s the catch.  God doesn’t always make sense.  It is possible that God might want us to have a messy war to glorify God, or ensure the freedom of Iraq’s oil. 

    

   And if the end is coming soon, what is the point in saving things up anyway?  It’s better to trample a little wilderness if it will help you to get the Lord’s message out.

    

   Remember that the Bible puts humans at the top of the importance scale.  To some, “Earth First” is not just irrational, it is sacrilegious.

    

   Obviously not all Christians think this way — most of the ones I know don’t.  But this particular twist on the interpretation isn’t rare.  And it makes itself very cozy with capitalism and nationalism.

    

   To you or me, stewardship would mean not harming the environment.  To someone else, it’s making sure that we all have plenty of oil for energy and DVD players to watch Left Behind movies.