March For Life

[ICantSpellDawg]

Then use the democratic process and vote in enough pro-life congressmen rather then pro-choice congresswomen er men.

I think after 30 years one can expect that it is condisdered by the silent majority to be the norm. You need to invigorate them in a manner that will not alienate them.

Also a march that increases in number over the years isn't really that great a thing as population levels (despite abortion) do grow and most events that are popular are growing at faster levels then the march.

Also the march doesn't fullfill the cardinal rule of news... that it is new.

Right. I am trying to invigorate them to elect pro-life representatives in all areas of government. New Yorkers have a particular antipathy to pro-lifers and it is something that I strive to overcome when we start talking about the election. I won't vote for candidates who are pro-abortion unless they support the overturning of Roe v. Wade. (which a number of people do).

I wish that the Democratic party would be open to the idea - as so many of their constituents are.

[Papewaio]

Problem is that with politics people vote for what is most important to them right now.

Yes 3 years ago they could have been screaming at the same government over issue B, but right now there most important issue A is what they are supporting.

And that is another thing, prioritisation. Not only do people have to care about something, but it is horse trading. They will have to have it as one of their top 5 issues and in a close race where the contenders are similar in a lot of issues, then the voters have to have anti-abortion as number 1 otherwise another issue will swamp it.

Imaginary Voter:
List of priorities

1) Tax cut in half for his pay bracket.
2) Increase in the Surge and better body armour for troops.
3) Better servers and access for all to the Org.
4) Higher literacy rates for young children.
5) Anti-abortion

If two options are held before him at the elections and the first one is:
1) Yes
2) Yes,
3) Yes,
4) Yes,
5) No
vs option two.
1) No,
2) Yes,
3) Yes,
4) Yes,
5) Yes.

His priorities place 1) as number one, everything is secondary. So he ends up voting for his tax cuts and hoping one day to get a 5 x Y.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree. I keep it at #1 in principle so that nobody forgets about it. #2 is economy, #3 is Health Care, #4 is Defence.

I recently changed my #3 and #4 because i realized that there are other ways of getting people health care without the government running the show. (Similar to the way small businesses band together to buy larger group plans). Plus, I have a whole slew of deadly diseases that I'm sure will start to take their toll soon.

Defense is after economy because of the old guns vs butter argument.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I agree with the general response. There is little of the "man bites dog" left to the story and "dog bites man" rarely gets past the back pages.


Roe v Wade was a very poor decision in Constitutional terms, though many find it morally correct (I believe them to be wrong, but I'm a Right to Lifer).

Scott v Sandford was a reasonably good decision in Constitutional terms, though most of us -- and many at the time -- found it morally abhorent.

So, the SCOTUS has been wrong before -- for a variety of causes -- and will probably be so from time to time in the future. It is a human institution after all and none of us are flawless at all times in all things. On the whole, having the SCOTUS operating at a slightly more powerful level than originally envisioned by the framers seems to have worked reasonably well -- though I wouldn't mind a bit more legislative re-assertion from time to time. Still, it's too good a political cover to "let the court decide" so we'll be stuck with some lemons too.

Now, as to a 2008 GOP president setting the tone for the court, I am not quite so sanguine. A 2008 GOP president who does not come away from the elections with a 2-3% victory will be hamstrung in the Senate. No nominee of decisive passion opposing Wade is likely to get past the Senate -- they too will know the stakes. I believe the Senate is fully capable of stalling any nom of this importance until a milk-toast nominee is selected.

[Pannonian]

I believe the Senate is fully capable of stalling any nom of this importance until a milk-toast nominee is selected.

What does this term mean?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What does this term mean?

Somebody "without flavor." Smebody who will not rock the boat, who simply responds to the moment, with no particular agenda. Innoffensive but innocuous. Seen it spelled milque-tost.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Somebody "without flavor." Smebody who will not rock the boat, who simply responds to the moment, with no particular agenda. Innoffensive but innocuous. Seen it spelled milque-tost.

I've seen it spelled as o-b-a-m-a...