Replies

This is the point I am trying to grasp. I watched the interview with Orin Hatch yesterday state that we can't ask the interviewees about their stance on abortion. He made that very clear.

I am outraged that for 30 years as a Republican I have been told that when I vote the ticket I am helping get conservative, pro-life judges on the courts. Now, when we have the opportunity, Hatch has the nerve to say we can't ask and it isn't our place to ask? What is the difference between a Republican and a Democrat then? If we cannot expect something from our elected officials to put pro-life people into office, why are we posting signs on our lawns, going to benefits, handing out flyers, giving contributions?.... If, when the time comes to the point, we have to follow what Orin Hatch states and not ask? I feel either this is the biggest chess game of brilliant minds and we are all pawns .... OR I have and millions of others have been the pawns in a game we didn't know we were playing.

I listened to President Bush this morning. I will pray for him that God led him to this decision of Harriett Miers. It is all I can do.

But, I know that he also chose Bill Clinton to be his dad's rooming in buddy on his campaign for disaster relief and that his own mother calls Bill Clinton 'her other son'.

After listening to the likes of Orin Hatch yesterday, how quickly he turned on all who worked so diligently to put President Bush and conservative politicians in office, I don't know if I will trust another politician when they come around again in a year expecting help 'to get conservatives on our courts'.Suddenly we are not in the circle to ask of our politicians what they promised us in the campaign.... Orin Hatch's comments were a little akin to a philosophical date rape... He is hoping we had a good time, but it was only words to get them where they wanted to be. I apologize for my anger. I want to trust President Bush, but I remember Souter and O'Conner.... 'just trust us'.

The abortion issue is important, morally important, make no mistake. But it pales to transparency to the issues of the "substantial effects" doctrine, the right to bear arms and the imminent domain issues.

I think it's the Dale Carnegie stuff he's read. Carnegie is great for the working world but stinks in certain cases regarding politics. Win - lose is the harsh reality at times. I like to win. The Right need to be more aggressive. Etc.