Posted on 01/26/2005 5:29:50 PM PST by Rummyfan
She learned that trick from Dick Morris before he came back from the Dark Side. Let's hope Dick has saved some juicy tidbits on the Clintons for her 2008 campaign.
She does? Great. Thanks for clarifying that; I didn't do my research first....Drudge needs to set an example too (hint, hint) )-)
Here's the way I see it: the Republican party, as it is currently comprised, has no interest in actually outlawing abortion, or of finding some effective solution to the whole gay-marriage issue. That may sound outrageous: I have no doubt that President Bush and most other GOPers have heartfelt objections to abortion, as do most Americans. But think about it: as long as abortion is legal the GOP has a surefire issue which they know will mobilize conservatives to support them! Why would they want to change that? Right now they are the party of change, the party on the offensive, but if they actually accomplish the change, they lose that advantage. Just my two cents, maybe I'm wrong.
Ann's not married? Someone will have to rectify that! The line forms behind me!
The unpleasant truths that many on FR don't want to hear... but truths all the same. Keep telling it like it is.
Bingo. We have a winner.
BTTT
Yes, change hearts and minds, so that people who have learned right from wrong start electing men who actually will enect decnt laws to protect decent people, instead of electing immoral base men who only enact laws that favor PACS.
Thats fine, until a judge strikes down that law sayings its "unconstitutional".
You can elect all the holiest of holy men, who want abortion banned, and would be just and right, and they can pass all the laws to protect the ones who need the most protections (the unborn children), and it will all be for naught, as long as the judges say so.
Coulter is right, we need judges on our side.
You need to re-read what our founders said about that.
A Good Judge is meaningless if the people aren't good first.
Laws do not define a society, people do, and if the people are immoral, you get bad judges.
Why do you think we need new judges in the first place??
Annie is wrong on this.
When was the last time the President attended a RALLY?
This doesn't seem like a good use of his time - but, that's my opinion.
The Abortion Issue is in the hands of every woman of child bearing age, their sex partners and the Supreme Court.
The attendance of the President at a RALLY will do nothing. IMHO.
Coulter would probably say impeach them, on the minimum, replace the outgoing (retiring or dying) judges with pro-life judges.
Its as simple as that, personally, I do like some of the ideas of judicial reform being brought up, but I'm realistic enough to know thats not going to happen in this decade, it will be a debatable topic in the next decade and a viable issue then.
bump
WOW! My pacemaker just skipped some beats!!!
Over 40 states had outlawed abortion when Roe vs Wade came about.
The nation at that time, was predominantly pro-life, hell, there was a strong section of democrats who supported a constitutional amendment to ban abortion (see Richard Gephardt and Al Gore at one time) after Roe vs Wade.
Annie is wrong on this.
If Judges who made such an opinion, which at that time, flew in the face of a majority of the country, and against over 40 states, were able to make there opinion eventually become a majority opinion, what makes you think, that doing, the exact same thing, years later, will somehow be different.
Those judges didn't say, we need to change the hearts and minds of the people, they said, this is the law we found, and thats that, and eventually you people will think so to.
People define society, and based on Roe Vs Wade, that definition is restricted by the judges and they are the only society that counts, since the rest of the country at that time didn't agree with them.
WHAMMMMMO!
I don't know the last time, that a sitting president attended any kind of rally or was involved in any march.
Regardless of belief, I'm sure it must have happened, but thinking back, I would be pretty hard pressed to name any president that did it in the modern era.
The human force that defines society is greater than one man passing laws.
A Moral society would have risen up in anger at Roe-v Wade if we were a moral people.
The fact that we didn't but just said, OH, WELL...shows we are not a moral people.
Even if one bad judge got through, there would still have been a strong backlash demanding that judges removal
NONE of those happened, and if we were a moral people, we would have moral people in the media that would have supported the moral people who rose up in anger.
but, none of that ever happened, did it?
Sorry, but a good judge is meaningless if there is no good people. Good judges with bad people makes criminals.
Good People with bad judges makes people rise up to change the bad judge.
bad people automatically bring bad judges, and the people love it so.
Only a GOod People can bring a Good Judge and support him.
That is why the term YOU CANT LEGISLATE MORALITY came about:: Good Laws do not make Good Men.
Good Men make Good Laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.