I know it's early to be "predicting" anything. But, come November 3rd there will most likely be a President Kerry result or President Bush re-election.
My question is if the person you are not voting for wins, what will your attitude towards the winner be?
If you dislike (or even "hate") Bush, will you continue to do so? Will you be supportive of him or antagonistic towards him.
If Kerry wins what will be your attitude towards him? Negative? Positive? Supportive? etc.
I for one believe that Kerry will win (even though I'm not voting for him). Call it a gut feeling, call it what you will.
But if he wins, I will be supportive of his Presidency when it is a positive for America and when it benefits me and my views (aren't we all like that?). I will hold him to his campaign promises regarding Iraq, OBL, N. Korea and Iran. I will watch with interest his "friendship building" with other nations and at what expense.
I will go into it with an open mind, hoping for the best and expecting him to do what he said he would.
What do others think if your candidate doesn't win?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
My candidate is J. Halvor Clegg.
If anyone else wins, I'll most likely be nonplussed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Here's the most interesting answer I've seen to that question:
Seriously, Chad, there's enough leeway in your "support him as long as he supports my views" that I think it would cover pretty much anyone's reaction. So ditto.
[ October 27, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:pies Tom:
You made me plow into a tree.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You read Hatrack while plowing?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I have a permanent telepathic uplink to Hatrack, but keep it on the DL-- the Cards don't know.
Links to Ornery make me spaz.
[ October 27, 2004, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I would support the President in the things I think he did right and not support him in the things he does that I think are wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Just be grateful I didn't take my shirt off, Scott. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I have thought a lot about that question the last view days, Chad.
I have taken the time to read more of the Kerry/Edwards site and bios and read their voting records,etc. in order to get a better picture of what kind of men MAY end up running my country.
Overall, though, I am a loyalist. So although I'll be voting for Bush, if Kerry wins, I hope I will show respect and support him because he was chosen by the people, and because to me the office demands respect, whoever is in that position.
Farmgirl
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
That's how I feel Farmgirl. I cringe to think of what may happen if he gets elected, but I will hope for and look for the best to happen.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I submit that your response and FG's response are actually quite different, Chad .
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I dislike Bush's policies. Therefore if he continues them if he gets reelected I will find a way to raise a great deal of hell one way or another.... There has to be a way to be more active when it comes to democracy.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
That's a scary post you linked to, Tom.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Just be grateful I didn't take my shirt off, Scott.
:counts his blessings:
Who knew Tom could help me believe in a benevolent God?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
My son and I were discussing last night -- and it was brought up that with the huge division in this country right now concerning this election, there is concern (on our parts) that no matter which man wins -- there might be a greater likelihood of an assassination attempt. I mean -- there are extremist on both ends of the spectrum, as we all know, and some people feel more passionately about this presidential race that anything else in awhile. So some people could have a very violent reaction to their party candidate not winning.
I hope that does NOT happen...
Farmgirl
edited AGAIN for spelling
[ October 27, 2004, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
My fear is that there won't be a clear winner.
What would happen if we fail to elect a president and one of our enemies forces our hand during the lame duck session?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Some will blame Bush.
"He should have been building up the defenses instead of campaigning!"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You laugh, Chad, but how much time do you think Bush has spent campaigning versus building up America's defenses over the last six months?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
How much has Kerry spent attending intelligence committee meetings? Edit: It's a moot point.
[ October 27, 2004, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I strongly suspect we'll have another delay while recounts and lawsuits fly about. I doubt we'll know for sure on November 3rd.
I don't hate or even dislike Bush, never have. I'll continue to watch his policies closely, both the heavily promoted and the more secretive ones, and do what little I can to bring attention to them.
Same for Kerry.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I find all this talk about respect of the position interesting, mostly because while I respect the position, insofar as it has the ability to affect my life, or my loved ones, I don't believe ANY deference should be given to whoever is currently holding it.
I understand that, especially in national security issues, the public may not get all the info, for good reasons, but generally speaking, if I disagree with the president, I see no reason to be demure in my attitude. If Kerry does something I find suspect (like his plan for N. Korea negotiations), I'll be complaining. Similarly if Bush retains the job.
All this deferential talk gives me the jibblies; It sounds to much like the president becomes the first citizen above all others. Sort of like the Animal Farm notion of "all animals are equal; some are just more equal than others."
So regardless of the winner, I expect to be critical of some parts of both.
-Bok
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I will be disappointed if Kerry wins, but I won't spend any time crying over it. I will continue to raise my kids and love my husband and get on with my life.
I will do as I've done with Bush - when he does something I like, I'll praise Kerry for it. When he does something I don't like, I'll complain. When the next election comes around I'll vote for the candidate I want to see win.
In the meantime I'll turn out for local elections and be involved in what happens in my city, county and state.
Honestly, my day to day life isn't going to change much no matter who is president.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
I'll be looking on whoever wins with a lot of hope and a heavy dose of skepticism. Basically, I'm saying, here's your shot, prove it.
Basically, Bush will have to prove that the long-term effects of his first term are for the better.
Kerry, he'll have to prove a lot more in a short period of time. He'll have to untie the Gordian knot without resorting to cutting it. He claims to be smart enough.
In both cases, we'll see.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Bok
Being respectful doesn't mean I will always agree with him and not criticize him. Shoot, I've criticized Bush on occasion.
The great freedom in this country is that we do have a voice when we feel something is wrong.
But I think you can disagree with a person, and even voice that disagreement, without being disrespectful to the office or to the person.
Just as you would if you were disagreeing with a friend..
Farmgirl
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I say that whatever happens we'll have someone new in four years. We're in Iraq for good or bad and it'll be at least four more years before we're able to undertake another major military action unless there is real emergency, e.g. China invades Tawain. My only immediate concern is what happens in Israel. Kerry has shown that he'll support whichever side makes up his audience while Bush has been the most pro-Israel president in American history. From my perspective Israel really needs a supporter with Gaza withdrawal coming up. With that exception I don't think the end of the world will come with either canidate.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Forgot to add that I seriously doubt we'll know who won on November 3. I'm sure the briefs have already been written and are just waiting to be filed. We're also probably in for a series of recounts especially considering the large number of absentee ballots which all have to be counted by hand.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:I strongly suspect we'll have another delay while recounts and lawsuits fly about. I doubt we'll know for sure on November 3rd.
3 of my registered Republican friends have been hit up for money for vote challenges after the election.
(I'm sure this is going on for both sides among the rank and file, by the way. My registered Democrat friends are likely not on such mailing lists, or they might not think it interesting enough to mention.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: A recent headline in one of Israel's leading newspapers succinctly captured the country's position on the U.S. presidential elections: "The world opposes Bush, except Israel."
There is virtually no Bush-bashing in Israel, no lamenting that the U.S. administration's foreign policy is built on one-on-one relationships rather than on forging multilateral alliances. Many Israelis, like Amnon Yaakobi, a stationery shop owner, admire President Bush for the very traits that draw the ire of much of the rest of the world. "Look, Bush is like a schoolyard bully," said Yaakobi. "He is strong, he makes threats. . . . He is the type that we need in the American presidency."
In an international poll taken by 10 newspapers in countries around the globe, Israelis gave Bush the strongest support by far. Fifty percent of Israelis polled by the daily newspaper Haaretz said they would prefer to see Bush elected president; 24 percent said they would favor John Kerry. Israelis were alone in believing the war against Saddam Hussein was not a mistake: Sixty-eight percent thought the United States was right to invade Iraq. Unlike every other nation in the survey, 40 percent of Israelis said their opinion of the United States has improved in the last three or four years.
"We don't look at the American president and ask, "Is he good for the U.S.?,' " Yaakov Gideon, a 50-year-old shoe shop owner, said between sips of coffee. "No, no, we want what is best for Israel. And hands down, Bush is the best for Israel." He went on to explain: "Bush has proved his fidelity to Israel over the past four years. He supports our fight against terrorism, and has gone to war against terrorism himself."
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I find is somewhat amusing that Adam thinks Bush has not been "pro-Israel". That being one of the MAJOR complaints of the Arab world against Bush, that he pretty much supports (in their view) Israel unconditionally.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Members of the Saudi royal family which extends far beyond members of the actual government fund terrorist groups, yes. Bush can't control this and neither can Kerry. Kerry's also not going to break off ties with Saudi Arabia for the sole reason that if he intends on staying in Iraq the US needs Saudi Arabia as a base.
quote: Also, Bush is an isolationist.
Wasn't expecting that, but ok. Bush's campaign in 2000 was basically isolationist from a foreign policy standpoint. Since September 11, he certainly has shown no isolationist tendencies whatsoever. Also, prior to September 11 he was still pro-Israel. When it comes down to it, Bush unlike Europe hasn't encouraged Israel to abide by that European court's ruling that Israel has to tear down its security fence. He also has endorsed Israel's unilateral plan to withdraw from Gaza. Bush has also in more recent times supported Israel's contention that Arafat can't be trusted as a negotiator or a leader of the Palestinians. Kerry on the other hand has claimed the security fence is justified in front of a Jewish congregation and that the security fence is "a barrier to peace" in front of an Arab group.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm always a little annoyed when I see those little signs on people's packs or on bumper stickers "Bush isn't my President". He is your president! Well assuming you're an American citizen of course. Democracy isn't getting what you want all the time, it's letting the majority choose, sometimes that means you're in the minority, that doesn't mean you get to have your own seperate country with your new president non-Bush, it means you get to do whatever you think is best for this country, and the country chooses what it thinks is best with it.
Being someone who doesn't want either of the canidates to win (I wish me luck ) I hope I'll be eqaully suppotive of either's victory, in the sense that I will recognize them as president, and will ... well "support" them as much as far as they do what I think is right, and disagree with them when they don't.
Hobbes Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
If anyone read the "Hamas Charter" from previous posts you know that "talks" are not an option with them. At all. They also want the "destruction of Israel".
So if you want to try to talk to the person gunning you down, who already said he won't talk and the only solution is their solution of your destruction, that's your perogative.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
I don't have a whole lot of faith in either of our candidates. I disagree with Bush more than I disagrew with Kerry. If Kerry wins, I will look to his term with some hope. But since I have disagreed with almost every one of Bush's policy decisions so far, I will feel pretty hopeless if he wins. (wishes Dean had gotten the Demo nomination)
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I said Bush is pro-Israel as in he support's Israel's actions. Whether or not you think Israel should take those actions is another debate.
Of course, Israel is losing the PR campaing, remember Jenin? Bush can't control that. If the media wants to make the IDF look like terrorists because they assasinate the leaders of Hamas what can Bush do but say it was justified?
I agree there needs to be a two state solution, just not at the expense of Israel and I am not confident of Kerry's commitment to the qualifier.
Kerry is a flip-flopper. You can whine and complain that its an unfair generalization, but when Kerry takes to exact opposite positions in front of two differnt audiences...
Hobbes, you mean like the DNC internet ads that say, "Dethrone Bush. Restore Democracy."
[ October 27, 2004, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Right now the Palestians don't have an honest broker in Yasser Arafat.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
What you're missing with Jenin is that the media is pro-Palestinian and therefore simply wants to cover up their mistake. The only thing Bush could have done would be to say that Jenin massacre was faked before it was revealed that it was. That would have been just stupid because at that point Bush doesn't know what happened. I completely agree that Israel has succeeded almost everywhere, but has failed miserable in media manipulation. I guess Jews just aren't good at propoganda despite having so many Jews actually involved in the American media.
I fear it will become popular in the US to be pro-Palestinian. At that point I don't trust Kerry not to turn on Israel.
Posted by Elf Elder of the Plains (Member # 6893) on :
I am hoping for a change in America (no matter who wins), and especially the economy.
Hey, wish me luck - I will be working next week as an election inspector (trying to make sure that dead people and pets don't vote).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Neither of the major candidates have earned my trust or convinced me that they deserve to be president. I'm going to be critical of them no matter who wins. President Bush because he's proven himself untrustworthy and Senator Kerry because he's floated a lot of plans that I don't think are grounded in reality. For the good of the country, I believe that whoever wins the election needs to be kept on a very short leash. George Bush has already shown that his administration will duck accountability if you give them ecen a tiny crack to slip through and John Kerry, for all the convention talk of "Send Me" hasn't seemed to have done a great job with acountability either.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Ha! If I honestly thought the Palestinians or Arabs would suddenly develop warm and fuzzy feeling for us if I voted for Kerry, I would in a heartbeat. But guess what, people? To them we are just American. We have supported Israel, Rep or Dem, since it began. Only Germany and France will feel like we are more sane if we elect Kerry.
I recall when Clinton was elected his first speech included a remark affirming our special relationship with Israel.
We give huge quanitities of aid to Israel as well as Saudi.
Back to the original question, if Kerry wins I'll deal. I don't know that the election thing will drag. I doubt any one state with enough votes to make the difference is going to be as evenly divided as was Florida last time. And if it is complicated, the public just doesn't have the attention span to care.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
For me, I don't want Kerry to win.. So...
I suppose I would only be able to hope, hope that he ends up being a whole lot better than what he has showed me he is.
If he ends up doing the types of things I hope he doesn't, I don't know what I'll do. Nothing drastic I suppose.
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
I really do not want Bush to win, but I am sure I will get by just fine if he does. I do not dislike him as a person. I strongly dissagree with a lot of his principles, which makes it hard for mr to accept him as my president. I think I would be more ok with the outcome of the election if I could actually vote. I am 17 and it annoys me to no end that I have no say in who my president is, but if I was 8 months older I would.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I've decided that no matter who wins, 2005 is going to be a great year.
Posted by Zevlag (Member # 1405) on :
November 3rd, if Kerry is elected I am leaving the U.S. If Bush is elected, I am leaving. Heh!
I am going to New Zealand Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: I know it's early to be "predicting" anything. But, come November 3rd there will most likely be a President Kerry result or President Bush re-election.
My question is if the person you are not voting for wins, what will your attitude towards the winner be?
I think either man will have to deal with a GLOBE of very serious, very bad problems.
I see a train wreck on fire falling from the sky.
I will hope and pray that if Bush wins, His "vision" will start to produce positive results here and abroad.
...but I have a feeling 10 years of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations will end up buggering almost all of us in the butt.
quote: If you dislike (or even "hate") Bush, will you continue to do so? Will you be supportive of him or antagonistic towards him.
I think Bush is a lousy president. I don't hate the man, or think he's "the devil. I do believe his "vision" is bad for America and Bad for Earth.
I would perfer for him to find another job.
...but If he is elected I will go with the hand that is dealt to me, and do my best to survive and thrive.
quote: If Kerry wins what will be your attitude towards him? Negative? Positive? Supportive? etc.
I think Kerry is screwed if he wins. Bush left him a TOTAL disaster in IRAQ, a mess of an economy, and he will face a Republican House, Senate and Congress.
I'm kinda thinking we're screwed either way.
(it seems a lot of people believe that Bush is the new Jesus and will save us all)
quote: I for one believe that Kerry will win (even though I'm not voting for him).
Me too.
Face it.
IRAQ is a TOTAL MESS. Disaster FUBAR!
The economy is still in the shitter.
And the man REFUSES to admit any mistakes.
He's done a crappy job and deserves to be fired, so I have a feeling America will reluctantly hire John Kerry, because Bush crapped out on his 4 years.
quote:But if he wins, I will be supportive of his Presidency when it is a positive for America and when it benefits me and my views (aren't we all like that?). I will hold him to his campaign promises regarding Iraq, OBL, N. Korea and Iran. I will watch with interest his "friendship building" with other nations and at what expense.
Kerry did what most politicians do.
He made a million promises that there's no way he can keep. He tried to be everything to everybody, and I think this will hurt him.
I am against his "us and North Korea" talks, I believe that we have to get the WHOLE WORLD at the table saying "You sons of bitches are crazy, we must take care of you."
I want America and Earth to begin to heal.
...but to be honest, at this point I AM waiting on Jesus or the Knights that appear to lay the Good Road for His Return, because almost nothing short of that can save us in my mind.
Play out the next 30 years in your mind with ALL of the problems in the world, how many times and in how many ways can this science-fiction film have a happy ending?
I would like to say again.
I do not hate George W. Bush.
I do not wish him or his family ill will.
(I love and adore Laura Bush, I think she is a VERY classy lady. And I think I have a crush on daughter Barbara, she's a cutie!)
I do not believe W deserves another term.
..but if he gets one.
That's the way it is.
I just hope he wins the Electoral and the Popular vote, then he will truely be my President.
<T>
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
I hate all politicians. It is not that I do not respect the man, I lack respect for the office. Actually, I retract the first part of the previous sentence. I disrespect the men as well, barring the election of a moral candidate. Respect is earned. It is not a right.
If Bush wins I will do my best to predict which corporations will get the most kickbacks (or otherwise financially benefit from his policies), and invest in them. My guess is Halliburton and defense contractors. I will support his policies if they benefit me personally. I will be antagonistic towards them if they are bad for me personally. I wish him ill.
If Kerry wins I will do my best to predict which corporations will get the most kickbacks (or otherwise financially benefit from his policies), and invest in them. I have no guesses currently, because the anti-corporate folks whine louder about a Republican president than a Democrat senator. I will support his policies if they benefit me personally. I will be antagonistic towards them if they are bad for me personally. I wish him ill.
If any other power-hungry jerk wins I will do my best to predict which corporations will get the most kickbacks (or otherwise financially benefit from his or her policies), and invest in them. I will support his or her policies if they benefit me personally. I will be antagonistic towards them if they are bad for me personally. I wish him or her ill.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I hope that no matter who wins the election, the country will come back together and solidify. We MUST. There is great hatred and division right now -- and we are facing an exterior enemy -- what greater weakness can we have than division within our own country?
If we can't bring the country back together non-partisan after the election, then we are a sitting duck, easy target. And then this empire will be gravely hurt or destroyed like so many of ancient civilizations before us..
Farmgirl
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
I think the manner in which the victory occurs makes the difference to me.
If Bush once more wins the electoral but fails by tens of thousands, again, on the popular vote, I am going to attempt to rally whomever I can to protest the election.
The Electoral College does absolutely nothing but destroy the democratic process. If my vote is to truly count, the electoral college must be abolished.
The vote of a person in Florida or California, should not count more than my vote.
To all those who support Bush I will place the blame of the hundreds of thousands that will die if he is re-elected. Whether you ignore it or not, he will attack any country he sees fit, beating his chest on 9/11. The United States' security level is at the same point it has always been. We are not in greater danger, save for the actions of our administration and the hatred he has brought upon his by the world.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
And I'll blame you for every abortion that takes place during Kerry's term.
As far as the EC is concerned because someone's vote in a non-swing state counts for less we don't know how the popular vote would turn out if the EC didn't exist.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
And I will blame everyone who supports whoever is the winner for every person convicted of breaking vice or tax laws, as well as anyone convicted solely because of immoral (and quite likely unconsitutional) "anti-terrorism" laws.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
quote: And I'll blame you for every abortion that takes place during Kerry's term
Interestingly, abortion rates have risen under the Bush Administration.
quote:Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4 percent decline during the 1990s. This was a steady decrease averaging 1.7 percent per year. (The data come from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies.)
Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.
We found four states that have posted 3-year statistics: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. Colorado's rates skyrocketed 111%. We found 12 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and four saw a decrease (4.3% average).
Under Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.
[ October 30, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: dread pirate romany ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Since justices will actually have to be appointed in the next four years, its likely that the president during the next term will decide whether Roe v. Wade is upheld.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: There have been no national figures published beyond 2000. Setting aside for the moment the question of whether the sixteen states Stassen uses to support his claim of a reversed national trend are representative of the country as a whole, Stassen’s case falls apart when one attempts to confirm the data he has reported.
Stassen lists South Dakota and Wisconsin as two places where abortions increased from 2001 to 2002. Figures from those state health departments show abortions decreased in both states during that time frame.
Stassen lists Illinois as another state where abortions increased from 2001 to 2002. State records do confirm a slight increase for 2002, but then a drop of 10% for 2003, indicating that 2002 was probably just an aberration in a long term downward trend.
With those three states shifting from the increase to the decrease column, Stassen’s claim that abortions have increased in 11 out of 16 states now turns into a 8 to 8 tie, with as many states decreasing as increasing. Hardly anything definitive.
Stassen reports large increases in four of the 16 states above – Colorado, Arizona, Idaho, and Michigan. While state data do record a significantly higher number of abortions in these states for 2002 than in 2001, officials from at least two of the states with the highest reported increases caution against seeing this as evidence of any real increase.
In Arizona, where Stassen reported a 26.4% increase, the state Department of Health Services cautioned in its report that “It is unclear whether this increase in the number of reported abortions represents a true increase in the actual number of abortions performed, or, perhaps, a better response rate of providers of non-surgical (so called medical) terminations of pregnancy.”
State officials in Colorado, where Stassen reported an astronomical 67.4% one year increase, recently revamped their reporting regimen to address underreporting, and sent a note to abortion “providers” reminding them that reporting was required in Colorado. The state said they expected an increase in reports, and declared, “No one could or should conclude that this anticipated increase in the rate of reported terminations reflects an increase in the true rate.”
Stassen doesn’t report these caveats. But if state officials are reluctant to say their data indicates real increases, they don’t belong on Stassen’s list of states with more abortions. That would leave just 6 increasing versus 8 decreasing states, the opposite of what Stassen claims. Stassen’s case falls apart. Stassen’s thesis that abortion increases can be linked to job losses and other economic factors doesn’t even hold up to his own data.
While some states where Stassen said abortions increased also saw increases in their unemployment rates over those same years, there are also plenty of counter-examples. Illinois’s abortions dropped substantially between 2002 and 2003, in spite of its unemployment rate being stuck at 6.7%, among the worst in the nation. Ohio’s unemployment rate rose considerably relative to most other states, but abortions there declined. If the economic determinism Stassen assumes was valid, those state results would be reversed.
Stassen presents himself as someone sympathetic to the pro-life cause who was shocked and saddened to find out that our pro-life president’s policies were not having the pro-life effects he anticipated. That persona is misleading.
[ October 30, 2004, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
I thought SC appointees did not necessarily rule the way their President expected.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
No, but Kerry favors a litmus test to make sure that justices will uphold Roe v. Wade.
I was just pointing out how stupid it is to say because someone voted for a canidate that they are personally responsible for a canidate's action.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Nothing says that only two out of the three branches have people who lie to get into office.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Wasn't expecting that, but ok. Bush's campaign in 2000 was basically isolationist from a foreign policy standpoint. Since September 11, he certainly has shown no isolationist tendencies whatsoever. Also, prior to September 11 he was still pro-Israel. When it comes down to it, Bush unlike Europe hasn't encouraged Israel to abide by that European court's ruling that Israel has to tear down its security fence. He also has endorsed Israel's unilateral plan to withdraw from Gaza. Bush has also in more recent times supported Israel's contention that Arafat can't be trusted as a negotiator or a leader of the Palestinians. Kerry on the other hand has claimed the security fence is justified in front of a Jewish congregation and that the security fence is "a barrier to peace" in front of an Arab group.