Replies

Pro-life people who attack other pro-lifers because they are willing to look at the big picture, get the facts, and thoughtfully consider whether their ultimate goal is harmed or helped by certain actions which aren't 100% pure (according to them) are doing considerable damage to the movement as a whole.

This Gonzales issue is a perfect example. Without having the facts, some people have attacked Gonzales as being a pro-abortion person. It is not true, and demonstrates a willful attempt by some people to derail a possible nomination and also smear both Gonzales and the President.

Because of folks like this (and I am not talking about you), those of us who are pro-life but willing to function in the political realm of compromise are getting a bit exasperated. Here is an example: the partial birth abortion law only stops a certain number of abortions. I have seen people on threads who mock the President for supporting this law as "making an easy choice" and not "really being against abortion totally." The fact that it is a FIRST STEP apparently isn't enough for folks like that.

Dog Gone is exactly right. Those who are ONLY concerned about abortion (to the exclusion of national defense for example) are alienating potential allies and are causing resentment and division, when they instead should be trying to get as many allies as they can.

I don't know why some people behave this way, but it is why single-issue voters are beginning to annoy a lot of people.

Your statement to Dog Gone was not based on anything he said, but simply because you disagree with him on tactics. I think it was poorly done of you.

There are so many issues to be dealt with here is another.

This year, I'm particularly thinking a lot about welfare reform and how measures over the last few years have helped create a better life for those once dependent on the government for their very existence. Thankfully, when the welfare reform law that was passed in 1996 came up for renewal about two months ago, lawmakers didn't heed the advice of liberal critics who wanted to see it dismantled. They refused to jettison the formula that has enabled thousands of Americans to leave the welfare rolls over the last six years – namely, work in exchange for aid. Liberals insisted that it would doom millions of children to a life of poverty. Yet there are 2.8 million fewer poor children today than there were in 1996.

Across the nation, welfare caseloads have been cut in half. And for the best reason imaginable: because the people who used to get the aid are working. Indeed, employment among poor single mothers has risen by at least 50 percent. (And this in the midst of an economy that is still experiencing sluggish growth.) Meanwhile, the poverty rate of the single mothers who make up such a disproportionate number of welfare recipients has dropped by nearly a third and is now at the lowest point in U.S. history. The poverty rate for black children has fallen at a similar rate and also is at the lowest point in U.S. history. Why would we ever want to go back to the way things used to be?

Lawmakers, who could be passing more reform measures, seem to be at a standstill. Instead of forging ahead with more welfare reform, they've merely extended the law as it's written until early next year. In short, they're acting like so many of us do when faced with a difficult decision to make: They're procrastinating. Yet it is possible to make the law better – by emphasizing marriage. Research by Heritage Foundation analysts Patrick Fagan, Robert Patterson and Robert Rector (the primary architect of the 1996 law) shows why marriage education is the next logical step in federal welfare reform.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30248

Pro-life people who attack other pro-lifers because they are willing to look at the big picture, get the facts, and thoughtfully consider whether their ultimate goal is harmed or helped by certain actions which aren't 100% pure (according to them) are doing considerable damage to the movement as a whole.

Just who are these people who are doing such extreme harm to 'the movement' through their extreme 'purity'?

This Gonzales issue is a perfect example. Without having the facts, some people have attacked Gonzales as being a pro-abortion person. It is not true, and demonstrates a willful attempt by some people to derail a possible nomination and also smear both Gonzales and the President.

It has been obvious for some time that whoever the President picks is going to go through the meatgrinder from both the left AND the right. This is the big enchilada.

At this point, very few people have enough information to make an informed judgement in this particular case, although certain facts are beginning to emerge from the clutter.

Because of folks like this (and I am not talking about you), those of us who are pro-life but willing to function in the political realm of compromise are getting a bit exasperated.

Compromise is one of those words that can be twisted any old way...when in fact it a question of degree. Conservatives have worked too hard for the GOP to stand silently by if leadership is going to give away the farm, though. That's why people are very watchful. Does the name Souter ring a bell?

Here is an example: the partial birth abortion law only stops a certain number of abortions. I have seen people on threads who mock the President for supporting this law as "making an easy choice" and not "really being against abortion totally." The fact that it is a FIRST STEP apparently isn't enough for folks like that.

Mistrust of elected officials is not really a bad thing...in fact, we have a duty to watch them all, even those we think of as solid...too many men and women to count have caught whatever it is in the DC water supply.

As to the PBA ban, that's a no-brainer black and white issue anyhow. Republican leaders (now that they control the levers of power) to maintain any bit of credibility with the base, had better move and move fast...no matter what they may or may not do later.

Dog Gone is exactly right. Those who are ONLY concerned about abortion (to the exclusion of national defense for example) are alienating potential allies and are causing resentment and division, when they instead should be trying to get as many allies as they can.

As I said earlier, this 'one-issue voter' is a mythical creature.

Your statement to Dog Gone was not based on anything he said, but simply because you disagree with him on tactics.

No, it's simply because I have watched party 'moderates' (those who could give a rip about the scourge of abortion) use that tactic for years, and it ticks me off.

I think it was poorly done of you.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Texas Court Upholds Abortion Fund Limits Some of the same pro-aborts voting again I see.....

I come late to this thread, but boy are you good! It is a pleasure to read your posts on any issue. You are pragmatic and very smart as well as conservative, and also have incredible insight. You opine in such a way, that only a village idiot could accuse you of being a bushbot. Thank you for speaking for me, I agree totally on everything you have said. You go girl!!!!!!