Peroutka Pro-Life Ad

I fully agree Jim, and even here it's just a push of a button.

 

NO, he is not electable because he is not a serious candidate. He is not running a serious campaign.

[/qb]I agree. I prefer to be a part of the solution to abortion and judicial activism. That is why I cannot in good conscience vote for a man who cannot do anything about it when there is someone who can.

You complain about it a lot, as we have all seen. But you have no workable solution. Your "solution" is to vote for a guy who cannot possibly get elected in 2004. How does that solve anything?

 

Tha bad news is that neither Bush nor Kerry will work to end abortion or judicial acitvism. Kerry admits that he doesn't want to, and Bush says enough to get your vote but won't do anything about it.

As for Peroutka, yes, he dies have a serious campaign. You can look up his itinerary on his website, and order campaign materials, etc. He'll be on the ballot in most states, all anyone needs to do is push the button. Me, you, and millions of others. We get what we vote for.

And, he talks about solutions, not just a bunch of empty political rhetiric like Kerry and Bush.

As for me complaining but having no solution, I would disagree. It's just that folks don't really want a solution, they just want a Republican.

 

I would love a solution. HOw does a solution not run a serious campaign, not be seen in any news stories, get no publicity, make no political noise, and return to his office Nov 3? How does a solution have no power to do anything to effect change? I guess maybe I think of "solution" differently than you do. To me, a solution is something that works.

Bush gives the unborn the best chance in 2004. I hate to say that. I wish it wasn't so. But it is.

 

Bush will be nothing but four more years of nothing for the unborn. We've been doing it since 1973, and it keeps getting worse. We have to look to the long term, and start NOW to change direction. We have to face the situation head-on, and oppose abortion in all levels and branches of government, or it will not change. Electing Bush, will not change the direction of anything.

 

Except the only thing that right now can be done for the unborn ... and that is appoint good supreme court justices. That is the first step in the current climate towards getting change. Bush is the only candidate who might do something about it. He might not, but Kerry certainly won't. Peroutka certainly won't. Bush is the only one who might.

So this is a simple issue. If you care about stemming the tide of abortion, then you must vote for Bush. As bad as he is, he is the only hope.

 

Pastor Larry, the wimpy, double minded republicans had several chances to get some Judges in, but they caved in to fear and didn't, because the democrats may do the same to them the next time they oppose a judicial nominee of a democratic president.

Give it up, the republicans are a waste of time.


Jim

 

"The only thing that can right now can be done..."

I disagree. Congress could pass legislation prohibiting the federal courts from meddling with abortion laws. The justice dept. could protect unborn babies as "persons" under the constitution. This would cause political problems, though, and that is not acceptable to those who really don't take abortion seriously.

 

PL sez:
"Bush gives the unborn the best chance in 2004. I hate to say that. I wish it wasn't so. But it is."

http://covenantnews.com/baldwin040120.htm

 

Lady Eagle, how do you know that Bush approved of it? Just because it came from his administration doesn't mean it's his policy. Do you have a signed statement from him saying "I, GW Bush, hereby approve of my administation's proposal to permit the morning after pill"?

Just kidding...but Larry won't be.

 

Actually, the Republicans have pushed very hard for the approval of these pro life judges (that some think Bush didn't appoint). They need to push harder for sure. But with Bush there is a chance.

Back to the old FDA question no one ever answered. I have heard that the administration cannot interfere in FDA matters. Does anyone know if that is the case? It is supposedly an independent group that is supposed to be free from outside influence.

 

I could show you the reporting structure, right up to Bush through Tommy Thompson. But you really don't want to know, and would not accept any amount of evidence.

 

IF you can, please do. I seriously have no idea. I have heard that before and asked for somebody to explain it. Nobody has yet ...

 

Yeah, right.

 

Thanks for helping Jim. As usual, rather than prove your point which I perfectly willing to accept, you just ignore it. And then you wonder why you don't get taken seriously ... or maybe you don't wonder or even know yet that people don't take you very seriously.

Why not just answer the question?

 

The reason I ask is because on The West Wing (which is advised very closely by former White House staff), there was an episode in which the FDA was approving RU 486 on the same day as Bartlet's announcement for reelection. Josh wanted to call the FDA and get them to postpone the announcement, but Leo said that would be illegal to interfere with the FDA. I realize TV shows are not always the best place for this information, but The West Wing usually has those kinds of things right since they are written with help from people who know these things. I have searched but have not been able to find information either way.