How long is enough? Abortionist allow a few inches of the baby's head inside the womb before they kill it. Does the Senate need 2 years?
Huh? It doesn't matter how horrible abortion is. Under our system of gov't, it actually does take time to pass laws. And Yes it might take two years. Sometimes its most effective to have a vote close to an election,
"It was just few months, during which Bush was trying to set up his administration."
That didn't stop him from passing some of his agenda items, why did it stop him from doing what Karl Rove is concerned about?
Huh? Are you agreeing with me that Bush didn't have time to pass his entire agenda? A simple fact of politics you start with your strengths. Bush started with a tax cut something that he campaigned on. Something that a lot more Americans care about than a PBA ban. Yet the Repub control was so weak, we got a watered down delayed temporary small tax cut.
"Jeffords jumped when they began to push a conservative agenda (the judges)."
John Breaux by himself would negate that along with several other DemocRATS.
I was talking about control of the Senate and its agenda. We need to control the agenda, if we want to get a ban passed .And since Breaux hasn't switched parties. He's still a rat. And the Rats still control the Senate and its agenda. I'm sure that the Repubs would love to have him (or any other rat) switch to give them control of Senate. (Of course they would need 2 rats to switch, otherwise Chaffee will switch parties to keep conservatives out of power.)
"2) We lost a lot of Pro-Life votes in the last election. I don't think that we would have had the votes even if the Republicans had voted on it."
I wonder why we lost Pro-life votes? Could it be partially because of the very excuses/reasons that you are using now?
Oh good a personal attack. It's the fault of those who hold my position that we lost pro-life votes, even though we are talking about something that happened long after the election. Personal attacks are the sign of a weak position.
Reread what I said. You want a vote on a PBA ban. What good would that do if we don't have the votes. If we need to build support for it, then that takes time!! It might have been that the only way to have gotten enough votes to pass, would have hold a vote right before the 2002 election. When a rat would have been afraid of angering voters right before an election. That's what it takes to get some laws passed.
"Can you name 51 Senators who would vote for it? Keeping in Mind that the Democrats would put a lot more pressure on any democrat who voted pro-life, since clinton isn't there to veto it."
It takes leadership, the power of the Bully Pulpit and cajones to pass things that, at the momemt, may seem politically impossible. I don't think that I could accurately name the number of Senators who would vote one way or another and I doubt if you could either.
Actually that was a rhetorical question. And since I just said that I don't know if we had the votes, why do you doubt if I could answer it. My point was and is that without the firm support of at least 51 Senators, it will do more harm than good to hold a vote. I agree with you that it takes leadership, and the bully pulpit. But those take time. The Repubs lost control of the Senate far sooner than anyone expected. Keep in mind that the Jeffords switch came as a surprise. The rats were keeping a death watch on old Strom, the week prior.
(If you really want to, Go to the ACU website, checkout their record of the last vote. And compare it to the current Senate see how many votes we lost. I believe it was 5 or 6, but I havn't bothered to check.)
"I think that the heart of your complaint is that the Republicans didn't make it their #1 vote."
No need for hyperboli. My gripe is they didn't even try.
It's not hyperboli, I'm serious. In your response you complained that Bush managed to get part of his agenda passed. Why complain, unless you are upset that He put other issues ahead of a PBA ban.
I think that there is a way to end our discussion. Let me tell you what is necessary for me to agree with you. It's simple, prove that there was overwelmning support for a PBA ban. Not only enough votes to pass it, but enough votes to end any filibuster and force a vote. Because without that it would have taken time and effort to pass it. Repubs were denied that time because of the unethical actions of Jeffords.
Also I would agree with you if the Repubs had retained control of the senate and didn't hold a vote. Because then they would have had time to lobby, for Bush to use the Bully Pulpit. And even if that failed to gather enough votes, they could have held a vote prior to the election to show who the pro-death rats are, and maybe get them voted out.
I'm very much a pro-lifer but can someone tell me what good a PBA ban will do? Aren't there other procedures to murder the child at the same stage of development that would remain legal under any proposed PBA ban?