Would You Vote For This Man?

What pro-life legislation did Reagan introduce?

Answer: none, since presidents generally don't introduce legislation and, at the time, the Democrat-controlled Congress would have killed any attempt to pass such legislation. Reagan did institute the "Mexico City Policy" that banned federal money from groups that sponsored abortion in any part of the world (i.e. Planned Parenthood International). This is a policy since renewed by both Bushie I and Bushie II but Reagan did it first. Dutch nominated Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court (we won't mention O'Connor and Kennedy). He wrote a book about his position on the issue and made no secret of his support for the pro-life plank in the Republican Party Platform.

I personally wasn't disappointed in Bushie II's position on stem cell research. It was better than I expected from him since he's always been rather mildly pro-life. If I was to criticize Dubya, it would be in other policy areas.

That was the impression I got. I mean, the more of this stuff I see, the more I think the cynics are right: the Right is better at losing and complaining. Yeah, GW ain't the Second Coming of Coolidge or Reagan or what have you, but I'd venture to say he's better than the alternative. And yeah, I know, the perfect candidate (Libertarian, Reform, Constitutionalist, whatever) was there, yadda yadda yadda.

Maybe, just maybe, we oughtta be giving a little less time to Bush's shortcomings and a little more time to getting conservatives into Congress.

Does even Chuck Baldwin doubt that GW will appoint conservative judges? Sign a ban on Partial Birth Abortion? Make more tax cuts (already in progress, I understand)?

What's stopping him?

A two bit political schmuck from South Dakota who, through the grace of Jumpin' Jim Jeffords of the great sodomy-friendly state of Vermont, happens to wield the authority in the Senate.

How do we get rid of that problem? Figure it out. Bush bashing doesn't get it done, though.

Damn well said!

I've probably been on this forum longer than you've been thinking about politics. Please explain to me how when no matter what party is in power our government gets bigger and bigger, cranks out enough new laws each year to fill a house, gets more and more corrupt, and pays less and less attention to average voter exactly how we will eventually end up as anything other than socialist. Hell man, we are more than half the way there already, wake up!

So you'll get your chance to vote against W. That will accomplish a lot.

Were I a BushH8r, I might relish the opportunity.

As it is, I simply vote my conscience. If more folks did likewise, we probably wouldn't be boxed into the lesser of the two evils: Tweedledum or Tweedledee.

On every absolutely essential issue -- be it abortion (a GOP policy) or China (the enriching and sustaining of militant atheist communists at our own peril) -- the message they're sending is essentially the same.

I'm not cynical, I just don't see how repeating the same mistake again and again gains any real ground. Vote for a RINO you get a Democrat.

1) This man professed to be a Christian, but he appointed several open homosexuals to his administration. He was also seen bowing before pagan gods in pagan temples of worship. Would you vote for such a man?

There were at least 5 last I counted, it made the news, too, and people like myself posted the information. Problem was, too many people wanted their muffler to care. By the way, what is that abortionist's name that Bush re-named a highway after again??

2) This man professed to be pro-life, but he never promoted any pro-life legislation. Furthermore, he authorized the practice of using dead human embryos as guinea pigs for scientific research. He also promoted several pro-abortion advocates to high public office. Would you vote for such a man?

This is common knowlege, about fetal cell research. What was it called again? Oh, Yeah, STEM CELL RESEARCH.

3) Despite calling himself a "conservative," this man increased the size and scope of government to record highs. He even teamed up with ultra-liberals to pass the biggest expansion ever of government's role in education. Would you vote for such a man?

This just passed and several threads were posted on this alone!! Makes you remember the phrase, "Separation of School and State!"

4) Knowing that a certain Middle Eastern terrorist actually murdered Americans and Israelis, this man actively lobbied for the terrorist's safety and helped to perpetuate the terrorist's position as the leader of a known radical terrorist group. He is also in the process of helping to make this terrorist the president of his very own, newly-established country. Would you vote for such a man?

Goodness!! Haven't you heard of Yassir Arafat??

5) Knowing that criminal conduct took place within the highest levels of government, this man ordered his Justice Department to not investigate the crimes or turn over evidence already gathered regarding this criminal conduct. In other words, he knowingly chose to cover up this criminal conduct. He also refuses to hold himself, or any of his subordinates, accountable to the courts or to the American people for decisions that have the appearance of conflict of interest or unconstitutionality. Would you vote for such a man?

For the past 8 years, Clinton has...well, we all know what he did, and know less about all the rest of what he did. Why hasn't Bush done anything about it? Hmmm? All we heard in the first 9 months of his presidency is, "He never spoke of it because it was devisive; He gave us tax cuts; how do you know he isn't doing anything behind the scenes?" Garbonzo!!!
As for his own time period, isn't he being sued by Judicial Watch and argued about by Bob Barr, a FR Hero, for not releasing information on Cheney and the Energy Commision? Didn't this administration try to hide that information?? Hmmm?

6) Knowing that illegal aliens pose a clear and present danger to the security of the United States, this man pressured Congress to pass a bill granting amnesty to these very same aliens. Would you vote for such a man?

This just passed, this blanket amnesty, forget the title of the bill. It is amnesty, plain and sure. Clinton almost got impeached for his INS scandal, letting in illegal aliens without background checks so they can register as good little democrats. Bush is using the stroke of the pen to get these Hispanics to register GOP...and he is selling out the country for votes to do it!! 7) This man refused to help a Christian freedom fighter in Africa, which resulted in the murder of the freedom fighter by Communist guerillas. He then invited the leader of the Marxist murderers to the White House for a private meeting only days after the abandoned freedom fighter's death. Furthermore, this man refuses to assist suffering, persecuted peoples in another African nation because the industry to which his family is intricately connected is doing business with the tyrannical government in power there. Would you vote for such a man? 8) Knowing that a certain Islamic country is a notorious supplier and promoter of terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and that this nation routinely persecutes and murders Christians within its own borders, this man invited this country's Crown Prince to his ranch for a private meeting. Again, it is noteworthy that this country is also intricately connected to the family business and personal fortune of this man. Would you vote for such a man?

Try www.realnutcases.com. That is where this and you belong.

Thanks. That was pretty much what I was thinking (not the Prez's job to introduce legislation) but I was not sure my memory was serving correctly re: RR.

And I did so without any attacks towards you.

FWIW, the pro-life movement has been in three distinct phases since Roe v Wade (dates are approximate):

Phase I (1973-1979): Stunned silence. Some activism and anger from grass roots but generally not even a blip on the political radar screen.

Phase II (1980-1991): Overturn the law. Conservatives thought the best way to overturn Roe v. Wade was to put five pro-lifers on the Supreme Court and get the law overturned. Nominees had to claim they had "no opinion" about the issue, which we all knew was a lie, but it meant nominees had to have little or no paper trail on the issue in order to get past the Senate (see Bork, Robert). This got us Scalia, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter and Thomas, with Scalia and Thomas the only ones who came out of it solidly pro-life. The others have chosen to accept Roe v Wade as "historical precedent" even if they believe it was bad law.

This strategy proved to be a failure after 1991 rulings solidified SCOTUS interpretation of Roe v. Wade. Challenges were constructed in state law that offered challenges, notably laws passed in Pennsylvania, Nebraska and Louisiana but all were struck down by the Supreme Court except the Pennsylvania law on parental notification.

Phase III (1992-present): Nibble at the edges. Realizing that a one-swoop overturning was becoming impossible and with Clinton able to put more pro-aborts on the Court, pro-lifers decided to start nibbling at Roe v. Wade's edges. Bills for informed consent, parental notification, "partial-birth" abortion bans, etc. were introduced and passed many state courts. They have rarely succeeded at the high court though if they strayed too far from the Pennsylvania case (ironically the PA case went through Bob Casey who is one of the very few pro-life Democrats and who was publicly stifled during the 1992 Clinton DNC convention because the "party of tolerance" refused to tolerate anyone who differed from their monolithic thinking).

It's too early to tell if the semantic change Bush made in recognizing pre-natal care will have any traction in a legal recognition (and therefore acknowledgement) of the welfare of the fetus, but I suspect it will carry little weight in future legal decisions.

I explain all this to point out that, in Reagan's time, introducing legislation to curb abortion wasn't considered the proper way to go. There is/was also a "human life amendment" to the Constitution that would have recognized the fetus as a life worthy of Constituional protection and, though it made the Republican Party platform for years (and may still be in it), it has no momentum since it would need super-majorities in both the House and Senate to pass and then be ratified by two-thirds of state legislatures. Clearly, it couldn't muster the votes today to succeed.

Hope all this gives you an overview on how this issue has changed over time since the 1973 Roe decision.