Forum: pol
Page 237
Subject: John Ashcroft

  Posted by: Seattle Zen - [119562516] Mon, Jan 08, 18:43
I am wondering what people's thoughts are on this man and the chances of his nomination as AG being ratified by the Senate.

Personally, everything I've heard about the man is very negative. This was GW's worst nomination so far. A man whom is proud of his far right partisanship should not be the Attorney General.

Without going into too much detail, I believe that his vicious attacks regarding Ronnie White's Federal Judicial appointment will come back to haunt the man. I've read quotes from him printed in Southern Partisan magazine that are inflamatory. In the end, I believe GW will retract his nomination and find another. If Kimba Wood can be canned for hiring a nanny without paying the correct taxes and if Lenora Fulani can rejected for some left-of-center law review articles, then I believe Ascroft should be sent home for lying about a good judge's record and for being in my mind, (how do I put this politely?) a knuckle-dragging troglodyte
 
1Perm Dude
      ID: 471126619
      Mon, Jan 08, 18:59 		Ashcroft is GWB's token Christian Right nomination. I think you are right that the attacks that the Right (particularly the Christian Right) made on Clinton nominees over the last 8 years is indeed going to bit this man in the ass.

Chavez and Ashcroft are going to destroy the temporary peace in the Senate. It's going to to be a lot of fun giving back to the Republicans the bile they've been pumping out for some time now.

pd
 
2steve houpt
      ID: 5811592615
      Mon, Jan 08, 23:23 		Lying about a good judges record?

Almost laugh when I hear the left comments about Ashcroft and Ronnie White. No case. It's all about his stand on abortion, just using Ronnie White.

Here is some of the 'biased' right on Ashcroft. Might even be some truth to it.

Behind the Ashcroft Battle

Shoddy Judge White
 
3biliruben
      ID: 3587722
      Mon, Jan 08, 23:43 		Haven't been keeping up too much, but my guess is one of the two will probably squeak through. Personally, I hope they go after Ashcroft and let Chavez squeak through with a lashing, if it has to be one or the other. Of course her indescretion could force her to be a ultra-hard-ass, and there won't be any loosening of labor laws in this lame-ass country which doesn't know that allowing freer movement of labor across the borders is almost always good for both sides (boldly unsupported argument, but I'm sure you will let me slide).

I think Ashcroft could do much more damage as Attorney General. From what little I've read, he is the anti-christ - but that's just from the liberal media (NYT), Steve. ;)
 
4steve houpt
      ID: 5811592615
      Mon, Jan 08, 23:53 		What are the quotes in Southern Partisan that are 'inflamatory'. Because he called Robert E. Lee a 'patriot'. Or he doesn't like George Washington being called a 'racist'.

Here is some more 'biased' right opinions to counter the 'facts' from the left.

A Thousand Cuts of Ashcroft - More dangerous than a deathblow.

Unless there is something else out there, I see Ashcroft being conformed with only some Democrats that are wanting to use their 'NO vote' in the 2002 Senate races or 2004 Presidential race as some campaign slogan like 'I tried to Bork Ashcroft'.
 
5biliruben
      ID: 231045110
      Tue, Jan 09, 01:27 		Alright. You're making me actually look things up.

Things I don't like about John Ashcroft:
(from - http://issues2000.org/Senate/John_Ashcroft.htm)

1. Drugs:
Ashcroft's record in the Senate suggests he'll be a zealous proponent of the war on drugs...
Commment: Anyone with any sense knows that the war on drugs only causes violence and shifts in power, not reduction in drug-use. You have to work on the demand side for that.

2. Death Penalty:
Oversaw 7 executions as Governor of Missouri.
Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals.
Comment: The death penalty is racist, unfair and immoral. If you are black and/or poor you are far more likely to be executed in this fine nation.

3. Civil Rights:
Against affirmative action.
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning.
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.
Comments: They speak for themselves.

4. Defense:
Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
Voted NO on banning chemical weapons.

5. Choice:
Opposes all abortion, even for rape and incest.

6. Environment:
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy.
Voted NO on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests.

7. Government Reform:
Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.

8. Health Care:
Voted against penalties on tobacco companies.
Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare.
Comment: Obviously a tool of industry.

9. Education:
Voted YES on school vouchers in DC.
Comment: Public funds shouldn't be used to help pay for private schools.

10. Labor:
Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage.

Like I said. Ashcroft is the anti-christ.
 
6Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Tue, Jan 09, 03:35 		I think there's little chance of his nomination getting stopped. There will be a serious hearing, and there will be a significant debate. This will be one of the first tests of GW. Will he run for cover like Seattle Zen notes that Clinton did early in his administration?

biliruben My concern isn't with his positions. My questions have to do with how his positions will affect his execution of his duties as Attorney General. To properly analyze whether or not he'll be a good AG, one should probably go back to his record in Missouri when he was their AG (right?).

For example, an AG's position on the death penalty should be (mostly) irrelevant. They are sworn to uphold the law, and the current law in the US makes capital punishment legal. Those of us who think that it should not be legal should fight to change the law, not waste our time fighting an AG who has to enforce it regardless of his convictions. Granted, an AG can be more or less enthusiastic regarding their enforcement, and the thought that there will likely be more executions because of Ashcroft's nomination is saddening (to me). However, I personally am not going to oppose a nomination because the candidate supports the current legal system a bit too enthusiastically for my taste. That seems like a rather odd position to take.

Ditto for abortion (with the argument flipped, of course). To what extent will/can his views significantly alter society?

Regarding his opposition of White, I think it is inappropriate to use the race card. Calling or implying that Ashcroft is a racist hardens us to the much more substantive racists.

Ashcroft simply has philosophical positions with which many blacks disagree. He can fight for those positions legitimately without being a racist if he holds those positions for legitimate reasons (i.e., reasons having nothing to do with race). This is the same manner in which Democrats SHOULD have fought Thomas way back when. Unfortunately, they had to rely on a bunch of heresay evidence about his morality and possible sexual harrassment issues (BTW, I haven't heard anything about his alleged behavior continuing while in the SCOTUS. It's usually pretty hard for people like that to change their ways . . .).

Back to Ashcroft, to repeat, what interests me is whether or not he will execute the position of AG satisfactorily. If so, he should be confirmed and let's get on with more important things.

(BTW, I "agreed" with Ashcroft on 6.5 of the 10 items (I gave partial credit to a number of responses). Does that make me 6.5ths of an anti-christ? In general, using voting records to determine whether one is the anti-christ is a pretty tough argument to make.)
 
7Perm Dude
      ID: 28059111
      Tue, Jan 09, 08:49 		How well he upholds the law, Madman? When an AG doesn't agree with certain laws, and the man has incredible discretion in how to pursue lawbreakers, his ability is already compromised. Abortion is the law of the land. Am I confident that Ashcroft will uphold it as such? No. And that's wrong.

Chavez will probably be replaced as nominee. Smart woman, from the speeches I've heard and articles I've read. Her comments on illegal immigrants (re Clinton appointees) holds her own nomination up to a standard that can't be upheld. (Also, a "Labor" Secretary who is against minimum wage also precludes her consideration for the position, IMO).

pd
 
8Myboyjack
      ID: 4443038
      Tue, Jan 09, 08:56 		PD, I'm wondering what it is, specifically, that any AG could do to "not uphold" abortion laws.
 
9Perm Dude
      ID: 28059111
      Tue, Jan 09, 09:03 		Well, let's go with an example, then. It's the law that protesters have to stay a certain distance from abortion clinics or face legal action (criminal charges, and also they can be sued in some areas). An AG who is so strongly against abortion might choose to ignore enforcement of those laws in order to allow abortion protesters to do as they pleased.


pd
 
10Myboyjack
      ID: 4443038
      Tue, Jan 09, 09:07 		So the concern is not that he could do anything to directly affect abortion rights; but, rather, that he wouldn't vigorously persecute....er....prosecute pro-life advocates?

Not a big concern to the majority of americans IMHO.
 
11Perm Dude
      ID: 28059111
      Tue, Jan 09, 09:14 		In that example, no, he's not overturning Roe v Wade. But's it difficult to see how a man dedicated to overturning abortion rights can agree to uphold that law fairly. Abortion is a settled issue for most Americans, and having the fox guard that hen house is in no one's interest.

pd
 
12Myboyjack
      ID: 4443038
      Tue, Jan 09, 09:48 		I agree that abortion is settled law; but the fact remain that about 45%-50% of the population, depending on who's doing the polling, disagree with it. Does that mean that they all are automatically ineligle from holding the office Attorney General? Seem's a little skewed considering we just elected a president who is pro-life, himself. Doesn't seem out of line to me for the president to want an AG who's views on important legal issues mirror his own.
 
13biliruben
      ID: 231045110
      Tue, Jan 09, 10:07 		Madman - 6.5/10ths of the anti-christ is better or worse than being 6.5/10ths of a "knuckle-dragging troglodyte"? ;)

Obviously I don't actually think Ashcroft is actually the Prime-Minister of the Underworld - he would have had to been elected some sort of diety or demi-god first, and then been cast down. He is more like one of Satan's bumbling henchmen.

Actually, I certainly agreed with SOME of his positions. 100% of his votes weren't completely despicable. You will notice that I titled the post "What I don't like about John Ashcroft:"

I think PermDude has hit it on the head with his selective enforcement, and deciding what fights to fight and which to ignore.

Your argument, Madman, that the AG is just an unthinking tool that has little choice as to how to uphold the law, suggests that it shouldn't matter one bit who actually holds the position, as long as they are competent.

MyboyJack - I think you are wrong. I think protecting of abortion rights through persecution of people breaking the law by attempting to take those rights away, and protection of those who are attempting to exercise those rights IS a large concern for a majority of Americans. An ABCnews poll this summer has 53% of Americans supporting legal abortions, with 17% supporting legislation to make all abortions illegal.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll000728
 
14Perm Dude
      ID: 28059111
      Tue, Jan 09, 10:28 		I'm sorry, Myboyjack, but saying that Bush is against abortion rights so he should confirm an AG who might selectively enforce the laws is wrong. Ashcroft is, by far, the biggest opponent of abortion rights that Bush has appointed to any cabinet position. Like Chavez, he's been appointed to the wrong position.

pd
 
15Myboyjack
      ID: 4443038
      Tue, Jan 09, 10:34 		Is it your position, then, that the AG can not, on a personal basis, disagree with ANY of the laws of the Unitied States? Or is abrotion special in some way?
 
16Perm Dude
      ID: 28059111
      Tue, Jan 09, 10:45 		I would expect that someone in that position will disagree with something in the law! But surely the visceral opposition Ashcroft feels for abortion rights is not so subtle as to be confused with any other kind of disagreement.

This is a man who has dedicated much of his personal and public service toward overturning and undermining Roe v Wade. This is more than just a disagreement. It's not much of a step to believe this man would find upholding the law to be difficult, at the very least.

I can certainly accept disagreement with laws--that's certainly expected. But the level of Ashcroft's opposition on this difficult issue (to say the least) should give pause with regard to his appointment to this position.

Put him somewhere else on the cabinet. He's not an entirely one-dimensional man, though his work on the abortion issue makes a legal appointment problematic.

pd
 
17Myboyjack
      ID: 4443038
      Tue, Jan 09, 10:54 		I guess my main problem with the attack on Ashcroft on abortion rights grounds is that his position is seemingly identical to that of the recently elected president. This, it seems to me, would be a much bigger intrusion onto the perogative of the president to select his cabinet, than were the rejected AG appointments of Clinton who took affirmitive action positions far to the left of anything Clinton would espouse. Wouldn't it seem strange for the Senate to tell the President that he couldn't appoint persons into the executive office for the very reason that they agree with him on certain inportant puiblic issues; issues that presumably the public wieghed themselves in electing him president? It does to me.
 
18Perm Dude
      ID: 28059111
      Tue, Jan 09, 12:50 		Actually, it's not the same as the President, who has never held as hard a line as Ashcroft on this issue (neither did George Sr.).

I see your point, though, that the President's outlook should be reflected in his nominees. I think Ashcroft goes way beyond that, however.

pd
 
19Baldwin
      ID: 25440222
      Tue, Jan 09, 14:10 		An ABCnews poll this summer has 53% of Americans supporting legal abortions, with 17% supporting legislation to make all abortions illegal. - Billiruben

Didn't really expect to get away with this one did you?

Just how obviously distorting can those questions be? Americans support legal abortions? Until the culture can be brought to it's senses even Ashcroft will support them while they are the law of the land.

On the otherhand many on the anti-abortion side are squeamish about banning them in cases of rape and incest. It is intellectual dishonesty to use a poll worded in this manner to pretend America is overwhelmingly pro-abortion.

Try asking if Americans feel a millions babies killed a year is unacceptable and see what the poll says.
 
20Perm Dude
      ID: 28059111
      Tue, Jan 09, 14:21 		Baldwin, you're right that polls can be misleading, but it depends upon your definition of "pro-abortion" to determine if America fits or not. In Ashcroft's case (which represents a minority view, even among pro-lifers) his extreme view precludes him from holding an office which he must swear to protect that law.

pd
 
21Baldwin
      ID: 25440222
      Tue, Jan 09, 15:19 		But it was ok if the chief law enforcment officer, Clinton had a five line a day habit. I see.
 
22Seattle Zen
      ID: 119562516
      Tue, Jan 09, 16:37 		Baldwin: Five lines of what? Does Jerry Faldwell have another video tape for sale?

Biliruben: Excellent post. Those ten reasons are enough for me. If George W. wants to "end all of the partisan bickering", Ashcraft is not his man.

Source: I am probably not alone in equating Southern Partisan magazine akin to "Holocost Denial Quarterly". In much the same way that it is not wise to make speeches at Bob Jones U., one should not subject themselves to a story filled with your quotes in this magazine.

I believe that Ashcroft should be denied his post by Senate vote. I believe it should be for his far right beliefs, but I also know that the Senate doesn't opperate so succinctly. I believe that Senators will bring up his nasty and personaly trashing of a moderate judge named Ronnie White as evidence that he does not have the "even handed temperament" to effectly serve as AG.

Steve H.: I read those National Review articles and found them really bad. They purport that Ronnie is pro-criminal because he questioned the majority's opinion in one case that one defendant in one case might not have had his due process rights fully protected. The whole of his record has been moderate. I really was appalled in the stories that they felt obligated to retell the greusome details of the murder and then implicate that because White didn't completely agree with the majority, he somehow condoned this behavior.

I have heard a different theory as to why Ashcroft opposed Ronnie White's nomination. This is from an article I read recently detailing an incident that occured while Ashcroft was Gov. and White was in the Statehouse:

In 1991, longtime Ashcroft foe and the Democratic Speaker of Missouri's General Assembly Bob Griffin awarded White the chairmanship of the Civil and Criminal Justice Committee. Griffin then made sure to steer all anti-abortion legislation into White's committee where he helped thwart it.

In the spring of 1992 an especially contentious anti-abortion bill calling for prison terms for doctors was awaiting vote in White's committee. The chairman called for a meeting on March 2, but promised no votes would be taken. Halfway through though, a roll call was taken and with one anti-abortion representative not present the bill lost on a vote of 8-8, since a tie meant the legislation died in committee. Proponents of the bill, including Ashcroft, cried foul over White's tactics.

I anxiously await Hon. White's testimony at Ashcroft's nomination hearings. If Ashcroft attacked White's nomination because he blames White for the failure of a piece of anti-abortion legislation which he wanted to make law, then I honestly believe that he is a vidictive and seditious man who I would not want to have prosecutorial power over the entire nation. And most of American would agree with me, except maybe Baldwin.

 
23Perm Dude
      ID: 471126619
      Tue, Jan 09, 17:40 		One down:

Chavez Withdraws As Labor Nominee

(AP) - Linda Chavez withdrew Tuesday as President-elect Bush's nominee to be secretary of labor because of questions and controversy over an illegal immigrant who lived in her home in the early 1990s. She stepped aside under pressure from Bush's political team, according to three Republican officials involved in the case. There was no immediate word on a replacement.
 
24Perm Dude
      ID: 471126619
      Tue, Jan 09, 17:59 		Nice opinion piece in the LA Times regarding Ashcroft:

You Can't Be a Moderate and Pick Ashcroft for Justice
 
25biliruben
      ID: 3502218
      Tue, Jan 09, 18:06 		Uh oh. I hope they didn't work some sort of under-the-table deal to sacrafice Linda to save John...
 
26Seattle Zen
      ID: 119562516
      Tue, Jan 09, 18:34 		Let me say something positive about former Sen. Ashcroft. I commended him for his decision to stop campaigning in his Senate race after the death of Mel Carnahan. It was a classy move.

However, I completely agree with the opinion piece in the LA Times that Perm Dude mentioned in his post. His nomination must be stopped.
 
27Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Tue, Jan 09, 21:02 		biliruben 13 You stated: "Your argument, Madman, that the AG is just an unthinking tool that has little choice as to how to uphold the law, suggests that it shouldn't matter one bit who actually holds the position, as long as they are competent."

This is a distortion of my position. It requires a very intelligent and capable person to become a quality prosecutor. Any nomination should be judged on that basis, rather than on their philosophical positions. Your implication that anyone who follows and enforces the law is necessarily an "unthinking tool" is quite shocking.

PD 9 This is a very simple question that one could ask the man during hearings, rather than jumping the gun and putting words in his mouth and assuming the worst. This is the sort of politicking that Bush has promised to try to get away from, I think, rather than away from supporting ideological principles.

I do not see why it is so hard to believe that someone could enforce laws that he disagrees with vehemently, especially when he swears that this is what he will do. Oaths are serious things and are supposed to mean something -- they are supposed to mean exactly what the oath would do in this case -- ensure that the official does what he is legally obligated to do rather than what he would personally desire to do.

biliruben Was Barry Richard an unthinking tool?
 
28Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Tue, Jan 09, 21:18 		I just finished reading some things about the Chavez nomination and withdrawal. This is kind of funny.

First, she's apparently backing down on the Baird's AG appointment which she criticized. That must be embarrassing (unless your initials are HC).

Secondly, Democrats are now arguing that a Hispanic housing an illegal immigrant is sufficient to prevent one from holding a cabinet post. Irony of ironies.

Actually, they had better be careful with this sort of thing. The overall impact of this squabble is more likely to help the Republicans in the long run as it will take a bit of the anti-immigrant stigma away from them if they play it right.
 
29biliruben
      ID: 231045110
      Tue, Jan 09, 22:08 		I never implied that anyone was an unthinking tool. It just seemed to me (obviously incorrectly, since you were so shocked) that you were suggesting that a person's ideological beliefs would not come into play as an AG, and he would be an "AG who has to enforce it [the death penalty] regardless of his convictions."

I actually believe quite the opposite. I don't think an Attorney General could possibly be an unthinking tool - an automaton was is able to uphold the laws on the books in an unbiased manner. I think no matter how much integrity he/she has, there is no way to completely seperate ones personal convictions from your duties, and decisions he makes on a daily basis will reflect those personal convictions and particular ideology. That was my point.

Sorry to put words in your mouth. I was actually going to explain further, but for some reason left an incomplete thought. Nothing new for me, though I have been a bit sleep deprived lately. ;)

Which 31/2 did you agree with, btw?
 
30Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Wed, Jan 10, 00:34 		I admit that he will more enthusiastically support the parts of the law that he likes, and I agree that you can't wholly separate out one's ideology. I guess we mainly disagree about the degree to which this is a problem. My perspective may be naive, but from a domestic policy standpoint, I think a conservative AG would be a lot less damaging to the left's agenda than a conservative labor secretary or EPA administrator, for example.

Actually, my biggest concerns aren't the domestic legislative sorts of cases, but bigger picture ones like anti-trust policy and such, as well as his willingness to investigate the Bush administration, should that become necessary. An attorney general must be perceived as somewhat independent and strong of character.

At this point, however, I have to admit that I really don't know enough about the AG's office to effectively comment one way or the other about Ashcroft and his ability to meet these sorts of ideals. But I do dislike the inflamed rhetoric that has already sprung up prior to the hearings. I guess that's my main beef. People are prejudging him on ideological grounds and not taking the time to see if he would be able to overcome them and be effective.
------------------------

(OT) Let's see. The 3.5 that I agree with (pure opinion to follow, no arguments of note)

1) +.5 Although I support criminal punishment for drug pushers, jail over-crowding and your noted demand-side arguments are valid, IMO.
2) +1. I'd really like to see the government start funding DNA tests and such for capital punishment cases if we can't get it repealed, that is. Although I support the right of a society in theory to execute criminals, I do not believe it substantially deters crime. Further, to err is human. I wouldn't ever want to push the button on someone. Therefore, I wouldn't vote to have someone else execute a person for me.
3) +1/3 rounded to .5. The flag burning amendment was another waste of our time. Regarding the sexual orientation "protections", I'm not sure they are really needed. Are they a significant deterrent?

Even if so, I fear an Alexander Hamilton-sort-of-encroachment. Hamilton, as you may recall, opposed the Bill of Rights because he thought that if they ennumerated the rights of citizens, that they would become implicitly limited. To a good degree, history has borne his argument out to be true. A similar erosion of our beliefs and standards regarding personal integrity and respect can and will occur the more we define different groups as being special and protected. I believe that at some point, we have to figure out a way to say that ALL persons are special and have to be protected, and end the debate there. I know we're not there yet, but that is the goal toward which we must strive, IMO, for the good of freedom in the long run. It is this belief (universal rights) that led us to the notion of civil rights in the first place, and I trust it will be strong enough to carry us to the needed conclusion. But we must have patience. In the final analysis, it is the universal acceptance of this core belief in freedom upon which we base all arguments, therefore I cringe whenever it is even implicitly attacked by accident.

4) I don't care. 0.
5) I hate this issue. +.5. I'm largely a pragmatist. I sincerely wish Roe v. Wade would never have been addressed by the court, and this issue could have followed a proper legislative route. Our country as a whole is suffering from grid-lock on this issue largely because we were not allowed to come to a democratic solution, IMO.
6) .5 one thing government needs to do for national security (long term) is to fund research into things like renewable energy. Honestly, I don't understand the argument against this. I'm indifferent about the road building in National Forrest issue, so I support the status quo, whatever that is ;-).
7) 0. The current system is ugly. I'm not convinced that McCain-Feingold is any less ugly. I especially don't trust politicians reforming themselves. This has never worked to our benefit in the past. I need an argument to why it will work this time.
8) .5. For better or worse, perscription drug coverage on Medicare makes sense. The government has made a commitment to senior and their health coverage. We have to follow through.
9) 0. I support vouchers, and will likely fight the NEA to my dying day for personal reasons. Outside of that emotional core, the federal government benefits from well-schooled kids, whether they are in private schools or otherwise.
10) 0. I think the minimum wage should be abolished. What I'd like to see is enactment of a wage subsidy, or perhaps an expansion of the EITC, funded out of either payroll taxes or a corporate profit taxation. In other words, I'd like a system that paid low-wage workers a reasonable wage, but that didn't suffer from the bad marginal hiring incentives. My personal take on this issue is that the minimum wage is an antiquated system that was designed in a rush to meet a need at the time. With modern technology and tax schemes and so forth, there are superior solutions to achieving the same goal.

Note that even though I'd vote with Ashcroft on the minimum wage, this doesn't mean that I share his philosophy. It's hard to take a voting record and read things into it. That's why I tried to provide a sentence or two explanation for each of my opinions. After a re-read, I just realized this is a thread-killing treatise on my beliefs (i.e., a waste of time). Oh well. I'm tired, too ;-), so I'm posting and forgetting about it.
 
31biliruben
      ID: 231045110
      Wed, Jan 10, 01:15 		Wow, Madman. Very thoughtful.

I figure I should at least post something, to prove you wrong about the "thread killing" aspect of sharing your beliefs. ;)

I think we have room for agreement on many of these things. We just have a basic philosophical differences with how to handle a problem. If you don't see a great solution to a problem, you suggest doing nothing, whereas I am more pro-active, I guess.

A couple of comments -

I think that Roe v. Wade could have been addressed in the courts to better affect. Better would have been to legislate it, you are right, but our legislature doesn't have that kind of guts, imho. If the court had ruled based on Equal Protection instead of Due Process and the right to privacy, a woman's rights would be much less likely to be eroded over time.

Sounds like we have room to find a middle ground on: 1-4, 6-8 and 10. Your ideas on the minimum wage sound pretty good, but I don't really understand how it would actually work. What's the EITC?

9 - I think the public school system, in certain districts is broken. I think granting local control (instead of large, byzantine beuracracies) while providing national funding equally to all children in all districts would go along way towards fixing the problems. Gutting broken schools and abondoning those children who's parents are unable or unwilling to protect their children's education and future is not the answer. Working together to fix the system from within is.

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments, Madman.
 
32nerveclinic
      ID: 441058281
      Wed, Jan 10, 03:03 		Baldwin:

"try asking the American people if a million babies killed a year is unacceptable and see what the reaction is".

I realize why you made the statement, what you were refuteing, but the fact is it doesn't matter what the American people think. It was ruled unconstitutional for the state to force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will, yes even if it means you are sucking the fetuses brain out with a vacum as you so eloquently put it before.

And by the way, as far as the wording of your poll question goes, it depends what the definition of a baby is. Most people call it a fetus at that stage not a baby.

Websters: ba·by (bb)
n., pl. ba·bies.
A very young child; an infant.
The youngest member of a family or group.

websters:
fe·tus also foe·tus (fts).
n., pl. fe·tus·es.

The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.

Your poll should read try asking the American people if a million fetuses killed a year is unacceptable.

As you mentioned the wording can make a big differance.

Anyone using public opinion polls to reenforce an argument in this case is derelict as it is a matter of constitutional law, not public opinion.

As far as Ashcroft goes, anyone who gets a 100% rateing from Pat Robertson and the Christian coalition is at face value an enemy of freedom. If that's the kind of country you want to live in, go for it. I'll take my chances burning in hell.
 
33nerveclinic
      ID: 441058281
      Wed, Jan 10, 03:07 		Or maybe you only go along with supreme court rulings when they go in the favor of your favorite Skull and Bonesman
 
34Toral
      ID: 550441019
      Wed, Jan 10, 19:45 		Perhaps beating a dead horse here, but I disagree
with the PD stance of considering a nominee's personal opposition to laws he must enforce,
wehemently. Most sentient people will disagree with some parts of the law, strongly. It's not
relevant to being AG.

Turn the abortion question on its head. Many states have abortion restrictions of some kind, restrictions that have been found constitutional. Does this mean that a pro-choice person who disagrees strongly with these provisions can never be Attorney General of these states?
 
35nerveclinic
      ID: 441058281
      Wed, Jan 10, 21:09 		To me the biggest examples of why you don't want an Ashcroft to be the Attorney general are examples like accepting an honorary degree from a university that say blacks can't date whites and Catholics are evil.

Why would you accept a degree from a University with such biggoted values when you are a public servant.

It says alot about the man's character.
 
36Perm Dude
      ID: 471126619
      Wed, Jan 10, 22:04 		Toral, looking at just the abortion question re: Ashcroft (there are other reasons he should be rejected, but in this one issue), this is a guy who has dedicated his whole political career, and private life, expounding on the evils of Roe v Wade. This is not just a disagreement over a part of the law. This is a major issue with which Ashcroft cannot possibly, with all good conscience, agree to defend.

It is, indeed relevant to his enforcement of the laws. Would you put David Duke in there? How about someone who believes income tax is illegal?

Most states have abortion laws which are constitutional because Roe v Wade did not allow unrestricted access to abortion. Abortion on demand has never been the law of the land. I don't know of any pro-choice person who has felt there should be no restriction of any sort on abortion access that was nominated to the position of AG. Even if they were, you are talking about Ashcroft who disagrees (on a molecular level, it seems) with any abortion access (rape, incest included) and a hypothetical AG nominee who disagrees with perhaps some of it. Not the same, in any case.

pd
 
37Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Wed, Jan 10, 23:05 		biliruben I posted an in-depth response to your questions regarding alternatives to the minimum wage.

I'm glad my comments were appreciated. I was somewhat reluctant to share, since I didn't want this turning into a "this is my opinion" NO, you're wrong because this is "MY opinion" sort of debate like what you see and hear on Crossfire and CNN these days. Too many political debates get mired down with that sort of thing. Perhaps I underestimated the maturity of gurupies.

You also really hit the nail on the head, in all likelihood, about a possible difference we have regarding how to tackle a problem. I am indeed very scared of establishing bad precedent. I'd prefer to think about it awhile. Notable exceptions are things like Social Security reform where there is a time limit that is hanging over us. This is also why I support research into alternative energy sources -- there is a time limit hanging over us, but we don't know when the hammer will hit.

I view the job of government to help secure our future, and since at some point in the future we know we will need alternative technologies, we should do what we can now to help smooth future transitions. We have known for 30 years now that our economic prosperity is highly dependent on one natural resource -- oil. We should do whatever we can to reduce this national security weakness, IMO.

The exception to this philosophical bend is our relative set of positions on vouchers. But I freely admit that my position on this issue is based on personal emotionalism that I normally try to avoid. Plus, the fact that many minorities in the inner city desire such programs makes me very sympathetic. We have to do something for them, and I perceive that the hammer is falling as we speak. For example, the Florida Fiasco can likely be attributed to extremely bad literacy rates in certain precincts. How can we allow minorities to receive this sort of education in this country? You can talk about affirmative action all you want, but until we give everyone at least a competitive basic skill set, we will never be free of significant racial differences in achievement. Further, I am extremely saddened about this cultural change, since my reading of history indicates an incredibly admirable push on the parts of minorities throughout history to try to gain an education in the face of tremendous odds. It's shameful and ironic that now that push for equality in education is not receiving its due attention.

From what I have read, I don't think the NEA truly understands just how devasting the current status quo is for certain segments of our society. Therefore, I don't think this problem can be fixed by tinkering with funding. Something radical and threatening has to be done to wake them up.

--------------
PD and Toral I don't think you guys are beating a dead horse at all. Like most things, I think this maybe comes down to a matter of degree. I would not accept Stalin as AG. How extreme do you have to get to be disqualified? I dunno. Everyone will have a different view of what is extreme I guess. I am also very tired of the abortion debate dictating who is qualified and who is not (both sides, BTW). Further, I think he deserves a chance to air his philosophies about how he would conduct himself given his beliefs prior to anyone speaking for him.
 
38Perm Dude
      ID: 471126619
      Wed, Jan 10, 23:23 		I'm looking forward to him speaking, Madman. Should be interesting. White is speaking tomorrow, I hear.

I have to say this: Ashcroft is clearly a nominee made by Bush to placate the Religious Right. But the RR would not be happy unless 'their" nominee was put in a position where their views would make a difference. In other words, there must be a belief from the Pro-lifers and others in the Religious Right that having Ashcroft as AG would, indeed, make some difference in the abortion debate.

Finally, I've also stated, in an earlier thread, where my basic position is on abortion: that both sides miss the larger point. Abortion should be safe, and very rare. Neither side is working toward that goal. Way too polarized right now.

pd
 
39hoops boy
      ID: 51440922
      Wed, Jan 10, 23:47 		I agree with you pd, that the rr feels comfortable that ashcroft can help thier side in the abortion issue if he ends up in that position. However, I dont think a logical postion can be defended that because he disagrees with the current law and even that he may work to change that law automatically precludes him from that position. (Since this would mean that the president, senators, judges, et al. would fall under this umbrella as well).

 
40Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Wed, Jan 10, 23:54 		PD I think that the primary reason why no one is working to make abortion safe and rare is the method by which abortion became legal in this country. I've heard the method the US used to come to its current status quo compared to France in this regard. IIRC, they went through a contentious set of debates, and ended up with what would be considered in America as a moderately liberal set of laws regarding abortion.

At any rate, I agree we are too polarized right now, and I also agree on the goal that we should be working toward. I think that extremists on both sides have become hardened and entrenched and even made more extreme by the current climate. This is why I hate this issue. It's a no-win debate.

I also agree that Ashcroft was a move to placate the RR. But as hoops boy notes, I'm not sure this means that his nomination can or should be defeated on those grounds. We shall see.
 
41walk
      ID: 481133813
      Thu, Jan 11, 14:44 		I forgot about this forum after the bad election finally ended!

Great thread folks, really eloquent posts and some good points. I would have to go along with biliruben and PD on the Asscroft nomination. His views are too extreme for that job. It is too bad that he is likely to get nominated, at least from what I have read. According the Trent Lott, quoted in today's NY Times, all 50 Senate Republicans have indicated they will support Ash's nomination. And, they say it's highly unlikely that every democrat will oppose it.

I guess on the one hand, Bush should choose cabinet members that express his political views, but on the other hand, while I knew his shpiel about being a president who is not going to pander to the wishes of a single party was bogus, now everyone knows it's bogus, too.

Ashcroft. UGH.

Madman: After you explcated your position on biliruben's most beautiful 10-point list, I think you are anti-christ free. Too bad our president isn't!

;-)

Finally, to those who continuously bash polling as a invalid and unreliable means of gauging public opinion (and thus are bashing everything I have been trained in as a survey researcher), you are so wrong, it is ignorant. Poll organizations (not employed by partisan parties) who create the survey questions take incredibly painstaking measures to ensure their questions are fair, unbiased and accurately measure the questions they wish to measure (are "valid"). The integrity of their data collection and results is critical to the survey researcher. Without that, then that researcher is out of business. Blatantly biased surveys are typically written and conducted by partisan organizations and reported by the same, and are not conducted by survey professionals. The majority of published studies using surveys, and polls conducted for the media (usually vended out to Gallup and such) are typically conducted by persons with doctorates or masters degrees in various social sciences. They test out these questions beforehand, and conduct studies beforehand to ensure their questions are not skewed towards leading the respondent. Beyond that, any reader's pickiness over item wording is clouded by an individual's own beliefs about the subject matter.

- walk
 
42Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Thu, Jan 11, 18:49 		Walk, glad to know that I'm not the anti-christ. That would suck.

But are you sure you aren't just saying that because we were in a SW league together a couple years back? I think you're just trying to avoid saying that "I was in a league with the anti-christ" ;-)

And given that I haven't revealed ALL my opinions, you probably shouldn't say that I'm "anti-christ free". You should say that I haven't evidenced an anti-christ-like tendencies with the beliefs I have expressed thusfar. Then, just like certain parties who housed illegal immigrants, you won't have to retract your words if I come out against some subsidy for PhD's in psychology or something -- something only the anti-christ would fight. ;-)
 
43hoops boy
      ID: 51440922
      Thu, Jan 11, 22:18 		Walk, I am not trying to say asscroft is even a centrist nomination by any stretch, but just becuase Bush nominates a candidate that isnt engulfed in rainbows and sacajewea dollars does not mean he pandering *singularly* to the ultra-conservative crowd. This theory that the only way bush can be a worthy president is by turning his back on conservatism is unrealistic and reeks of a double standard that would only be used by those wishing to deligitimize him.
 
44nerveclinic
      ID: 441058281
      Thu, Jan 11, 23:44 		Do you really want a redneck, who says if your daughter is raped, she has to have the rapists baby to be the chief law enforcement agent in the land??? Are we still that red neck a country.
 
45Madman
      ID: 146191423
      Fri, Jan 12, 00:16 		When we use derogatory stereotypes to hurt people in leiu of making intellectual arguments, then I do indeed believe that we have a long way to progress in this country.
 
46walk
      ID: 481133813
      Fri, Jan 12, 07:41 		Very funny, madman. VERY funny! Naaaaaaaa, you're only anti-christ tendencies are your (former?) consistent abilities to kick smallworld baseball ass(croft) so badly that you made the rest of us look like the lemmings we tease everyday...!

hoops boy: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, regarding Ashcroft. I think Asscroft, while only one of Bush's cabinet members, is so hard-core conservative, in such a prominent position, that Bush, to me, has somewhat gone against his word about trying be bi-partisan. It's just too extreme a person for too pivotal a job.

I do not think that Bush has to turn his back on his party, but Bush is the one who had, as a main campaign theme, this bi-partisian thing...well nominating Ash is about as conservative as he could have gone. Bush clearly has many more opportunities to try and manage the house and sentate in a bi-partisan way, but this nomination is a plain, simple "bad" one, IMHO.

- walk
 
47hoops boy
      ID: 16937178
      Fri, Jan 12, 07:55 		nerveclinic, my whole thing is that just because I do not agree with someones personal view points does not, in my mind, automatically invalidate them from being qualified for a position.

walk, i think your missing the point of what your saying, that the only way you would consider bush as being bi-partisan is if he only appoints conservatives to the unimportant positions. imo thats just unrealistic.
 
48nerveclinic
      ID: 441058281
      Sat, Jan 13, 13:55 		So Hoops boy I don't understand. Ashcroft believes that if your daughter (If you have one) get's raped, and becomes pregnant, she should be forced with the rule of law by the state to have the rapist baby.

Are you saying that I shouldn't oppose his confirmation simply because he has such extreme views? This is exactly why we should all oppose him.

To me, this type of belief is exactly what disqualifies him from the post.

We are going into the new Millenium. Do we really want leaders with this type of mentality dragging women by the hair back to the caves? This is EXTREME. For a man to say we should force women to have babies when they have been RAPED. Are we living on two differant planets???

If this is anyone's idea of God's will than again I say, I look forward to hanging with Lucifer in hell. Baby won't you light my fire.
 
49hoops boy
      ID: 51440922
      Sun, Jan 14, 22:54 		I am saying that his extremist views do not make him unqualified any more than putting someone in place who thinks its ok to pull a full term baby half way out of the womb and then suck its brains out with a vacuum cleaner. will they uphold the law of the land? thats the primary question. if they are willing to do that, then they are qualified, whether you like them or not. While many people have posted here many good reasons to be concerned with this mans view points, I have seen little/no discussion of his qualifications.
 
50steve houpt
      ID: 5811592615
      Wed, Jan 17, 11:07 		Have yet to hear anything in the hearings that would disqualify Ashcroft from carrying out the duties of AG.

In fact, I think the Senator that will help Ashcroft the best in the public opinion of anybody watching the hearings is Senator Kennedy. He may be turning the focus of viewers to his conduct in the hearings rather than on the qualifications of Ashcroft. From calls to C-span during the last break, people that were not hardcore one way or the other tended to support Ashcroft and bashed Kennedy.
 
51Perm Dude
      ID: 28059111
      Wed, Jan 17, 11:34 		Ashcroft and Kennedy are apparently good friends (only in the U.S. Senate would those two become friends!).

So far, it seems people are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, though others are still to testify. Frankly, I don't believe him, but I've already gone over that.

pd
 
52Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Wed, Jan 17, 20:23 		Uh, PD, I don't think you've said that here before, at all. You haven't commented on his testimony, since it had not yet been given.

What has he said that you don't believe? Are you saying that he's committing perjury, ala Oliver North? He is sworn, no? Or are you saying that he's deluding himself?
 
53Seattle Zen
      ID: 119562516
      Thu, Jan 18, 11:29 		It is not perjury to say that you will uphold abortion right laws and then later change your mind and fail to do so.

I believe that just about every single Cabinet appointee are giving answers that will be forgotten by Feb. with no intention of actually adhering to them. It happens with every Administration. Do you honestly think that terrible woman from CO, Gale Norton, will work with environmentalists and "respect the environment" as she claimed? She is a lobbist for a slew of fossel fuel extracting and piping companies and believes the only thing nature is good for is to burn as fuel. She supports, "free market solutions to protect the environment", which really equates "Let the big companies decide what to take and polute, they know best." She worked for and respected James Watt, for Christ's sake! If you agree with these Neanderthal policies, then you are happy she will be the next Dept. of Interior head and say, "I haven't seen anything that shows me that she is not qualified". Most Americans have serious reservations.

So, in short, is John Ashcroft saying things now to appease Dem. in order to get ratified which he will contradict later. Yes.
 
54Perm Dude
      ID: 471126619
      Thu, Jan 18, 11:52 		I agree, Seattle Zen. He's putting Dems in the position of saying that he is either lying or deluding himself (which he is, one way or the other, Madman, IMO). The depth of his committment to the anti-abortion cause, anti-affirmative action, and other Far Right positions compromises his ability to fairly enforce the laws (in which enforcement is often a judgement call as far as allocating resources, follow-ups, investigations, and so on).

Madman, I'll locate & BUTT up the thread in which I earlier gave my abortion opinion. It's pretty buried right now, I'm sure, and has been since before you started popping in here regularly.

pd

 
55Myboyjack
      ID: 4443038
      Thu, Jan 18, 12:14 		You know, characterizing an "anti-abortion" position as being "Far right" don't make it so. Trying to demonize or marginalize all those not in agreement with you, as I think so many of the special interest groups organized to oppose Ashcroft have been in the long habit of doing only obscures any real attempt at a rational and reasonable determination of a canidates postion or belief.

Somewhere between 40-50% of Americans could be called Anti-abortion. Are they all "Far-right?" If so, then the scales by which these things are determined need to be adjusted.
 
56Perm Dude
      ID: 471126619
      Thu, Jan 18, 13:00 		Myboyjack, even among the pro-life groups, opposition to abortion access in the case of rape or incest is a minority view. This puts Ashcroft to the right of not only those who support abortion rights, but most of those who don't. This puts him squarely in the Far Right category.

I'm not putting abortion foes into that category, only him. And his views bear this placement out on a variety of issues.

Been reading Justice White's testimony. Very interesting. He upheld the death penalty in 41 of 59 cases, and voted with the majority in 53 of 59 cases (and most of his colleagues on the bench were appointed by Ashcroft when he was Gov of Missouri).

In only 3 cases was he alone in his dissent, which seems to run counter to Ashcrofts claims that White had a "history of overturning death penalty convictions." I'm trying to dig up the records (hard to find, so far--maybe a news organization will post it) to show a breakdown of those cases. If the majority of the court were appointed by Ashcroft & other conservatives, it seems that White could only overturn a conviction (death penalty or otherwise) in which the same claim of "history" can be made against Ashcroft's own appointments.

pd
 
57Seattle Zen
      ID: 119562516
      Thu, Jan 18, 13:34 		Myboyjack:

I totally disagree with your 40-50% claim. Maybe in Utah, but if every person over the age of 18 voted on the issue: "Should abortion be made illegal?" over two thirds of this country votes NO, and Republicans know that. So should you. I get these numbers from votes on ballot messures in various states from the early 90's when the US Supreme Court looked like it was going to overturn Roe V. Wade. The passed at a 2/3 clip.

Anti-abortionists are some of the most vocal activists in this country, so it isn't surprising that people over-estimate their numbers. Just like the Jewish community in the US, very influential for their numbers. I have never heard anyone correctly guess what percentage of America is Jewish. Take a shot.
 
58steve houpt
      ID: 5811592615
      Thu, Jan 18, 14:39 		PD - Here are some. At least it gives you case numbers if you desire to track further. I had read this a few days ago. Glad Netscape's 'history' worked, or I would have forget where I read it.

You decide if they are fair. The review IS DONE by Landmark Legal Foundation, founded in 1976 is a conservative public interest law firm based in Kansas City, MO. Landmark has conducted a thorough legal analysis of dissenting opinions issued by Judge White. In each of the five highlighted cases the facts are enumerated, followed by excerpts of the majority opinion and then relevant aspects of the dissenting opinion issued by Judge White. But it's a start.

Landmark news: Juddicial Activism: An Analysis of Key Opinions by Judge Ronnie White

Only caught news briefs clips after Judge Whites testimony. Will try to catch replay on C-span tonight (if they show it again). Did see testimony of Rep (??name) from Missouri who was special prosecutor in the case. he had compelling testimony (and confirmed by a Judicial panel) about the competincey of Johnson's legal counsel. Also read a portion of letter from Sheriff whose wife was murdered who stated HE started petition and called Ashcroft to help against Ronnie White's confirmation.

Personal opinion. I think this is blown out of proportion.

Also think his religion and stand on abortion as regards to his duties as AG are blown out of proportion. This is politics letting the special interest groups that are major supporters of the Democratic party have their say. And that is their right. I support that right. As I support the right of Ashcroft's supporters that have different views.
 
59Perm Dude
      ID: 28059111
      Thu, Jan 18, 16:13 		Thanks, Steve, this is a good starting point. I see, however, that they only listed five cases, only one of which is a death penalty case (one of the three in which White dissented alone). In itself is appears to be a biased sample, but its as good a place to start as any.

pd
 
60Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Fri, Jan 19, 07:34 		PG-13 post.

From the mouth of the esteemed Maria Cantwell comes this comic question of Mr. Ashcroft:

"My second line of questioning is in regards to family planning. We have learned, during the time that you were in the Senate, you have advocated what some would describe as an extreme position in regards to reproductive choice and contraception. For example, you were a supporter of the human life amendment to the Constitution that would have declared life begins at conception, not fertilization."

Exactly from whom did Maria Cantwell learn this information? Do they have sex ed. in Washington State? Can we infer that she prefers a definition of human life that begins at fertilization??? Is she going to become a senator Quayleee?

For complete transcripts of day two . . .

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/ashcroft_hearingtext011701.htm
 
61Myboyjack
      ID: 4443038
      Fri, Jan 19, 08:20 		Madman - I believe that Cantwell also pressed Ashcroft on whether he would enforce certain EEOC policies - policies which are outside of the purview of the AG's office.
 
62Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Fri, Jan 19, 08:41 		myboyjack Indeed she did. Indeed she did. . .

CANTWELL: So about the laws that create legal rights to contraceptive coverage, for example, the EEOC recently issued a decision stating that employers who fail to include contraceptive coverage in employee health benefit plans, engage in sexual discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Notwithstanding your personal opinion, will you defend the challenges to this law or initiate actions against employers who fail to provide such coverage?
ASHCROFT: I have not examined the law on the requirement that a private employer provide coverage in this respect. And I'm, at this time, not prepared to comment or to provide advice about the course of action I would take there.
CANTWELL: And is that something that you wouldn't comment further on before your vote on nomination, or just this afternoon?
ASHCROFT: Well, I would defend the rule. You know, it's the job of the attorney general to defend the rule, but in terms of my own comments about how I feel about it, I haven't weighed the legal--I thought you were asking me for advice on it, and maybe I misconstrued your question.
CANTWELL: Yes, would you defend challenges to the law or initiate action against employers who did discriminate against...

ASHCROFT: I would defend challenges to the law and seek to uphold the law.
CANTWELL: Including actions against employers who failed to provide such coverage?
ASHCROFT: I'm not sure I have the enforcement authority of that rule in the Justice Department, were I to be confirmed. And so I'd be reluctant to say that I would deploy the resources of the Department of Justice to enforce the rule, if the enforcement is, by statute, focused in another agency.
CANTWELL: Thank you.

Cantwell then changed the topic.

"Thank you"? I guess she is basically saying "Thanks" to Ashcroft because he will NOT initiate actions against employers who engage in sexual discrimination, because he will NOT have the authority to do so?? I'm rolling my eyes, in case you can't see.

How in the world did she beat Skeletor?? An adaptation of one of my favorite Cheers lines . . . It appears that her brain could find protection in the shadow of a snow pea. . . This could be better than 4 years of Quayle. 6 years of Cantwell! I had no idea . . .

 
63Myboyjack
      ID: 4443038
      Fri, Jan 19, 09:20 		LOL. Well....she is kind of cute;)
 
64Perm Dude
      ID: 28059111
      Fri, Jan 19, 09:37 		I think Cantwell was fishing (and probably poorly prepped by her staff). "Thank you" was just a quick way to end the topic thread while still getting in a measure of control.

Fertilization v conception? Yikes! They need someone to stand up once in a while (like on Law and Order) and say "Objection: Counsel is making speeches!" or "Objection: Asked and answered!"

pd
 
65steve houpt
      ID: 5811592615
      Fri, Jan 19, 10:37 		These hearings are reaching the 'amazing'. I've never heard so many quotes taken out of context. All the recent testimony I have heard is 'strictly' campaign rhetoric. Nothing to do with 'enforcing' laws.

Gun Control president (M Barnes) 'worried' about Ashcroft enthusiastically supporting current gun control laws because of his quote 'ownership is for protection against a tyranical' government' which is a quote from James Madison. I guess all republicans that have EVER voted against some of the Democrat scare tactic gun control measures are not qualified for AG.

And Sen Kennedy is saying 12 children still die each day from gun viloence (does this still include all 'children' up to age 17).

One of the Republican's biggest complaints during any gun control debate has been the 'LACK' of the current Justice Department to pursue criminal viloations of EVEN current gun control laws.

NOTE: I do not own a gun. Never had. Only gun I have ever fired in the last 30 years has been a military issue.

Republicans (Hatch and Kyl) have not even bothered to cross exam this 'gun control' witness. Just that they disagree with his representation of Ashcroft.

Finally, Sen. Session's has hammered this witness for his out of context representation of Ashcroft and some of his postitions.

This is ALL campaign testimony. Which is what I think is the 'largest' purpose of this hearing. Continuing the 2000 or starting the 2002, 2004 campaign (my post #4).
 
66Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Fri, Jan 19, 20:14 		Here's my take on the Ashcroft nomination. I give him fairly luke-warm support. He's got a proven track record as a lawyer (as an Attorney General), and is clearly intelligent and well-intentioned.

The reason I give him only luke-warm support is that I think he has been just as guilty in the past at looking at a nominees politics, and hanging them out to dry without analyzing their true credentials. So as long as he gets nominated in the end, this little dose of humility isn't bad. What goes around, comes around.

I think this started in the Reagan era, no? I do remember reading somewhere that prior to then, most confirmations were largely to make sure that the nominees were capable. Any have good info. on this?

It would be nice if this stumping would end. But I suppose this is an inevitable effect of making these things (the hearings) part of the public record.
 
67biliruben
      ID: 3587722
      Fri, Jan 19, 21:47 		"On Thursday, a day after Mr. Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would not seek opportunities to challenge Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on abortion rights, Mr. Bush said in an interview with Fox News that he would not rule out having his Justice Department argue for a change in the law.

Further muddling the incoming administration's position, Laura Bush, the president-elect's wife, told NBC News in an interview broadcast today that she did not think the Supreme Court decision should be overturned."

From -
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/politics/20CABI.html

I hope Laura has as much influence over dubya as Hillary did.
 
68Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Sat, Jan 20, 23:13 		biliruben 67 As you know, I voted for Bush. But we're in for a rocky few months, for reasons that you note.

Clinton's first few months got me real scared, and I think Bush is similarly positioned for some failings (hopefully minor). Worse, his transition was radicially curtailed by the political operation that Gore put together (it wasn't enough for Gore to try to win the election after Nov. 7, he had to put political pressure to bear to get Dubya to temporarily stop his preparations. That was low, IMO. They BOTH should have been preparing . . . as I stated on this website a long time ago, I think)

But at any rate, there are going to be a number of issues that are going to look a bit ugly (like getting his hair cut and stopping LA-X, etc.). I just hope he can get through it.
 
69Toral
      ID: 550441019
      Sun, Jan 21, 16:12 		I like Ashcroft, but think that the Ronnie White episode is a real black mark on his record. In this episode he seems to have been guilty of misrepresenting a judge's record out of political motivations, and *after* White's hearings so that he was never even given a chance to defend himself.

Is this one dishonourable instance enough to disqualify him? I say no. Politicians are politicians, and you're going to have to look hard to find one who has never done something bad for purely political reasons. His competence, experience, and the presumption in favour of giving a Prez his own Cabinet outweigh this. Joe Biden, for example, was as guilty of this as anybody in the Bork case, but I wouldn't vote against him for this reason if a Democratic Prez wanted him as A-G.
 
70nerveclinic
      ID: 441058281
      Sun, Jan 21, 18:10 		Toral
What do you think of the fact that he wants to force a woman who has been raped to have the rapists baby by rule of law? The Ashcroft supporters don't seem to want to touch that one.
 
71steve houpt
      ID: 5811592615
      Sun, Jan 21, 19:35 		That's Ashcroft's idealogy and has nothing to do with his qualifications for being AG. It's not the LAW.

Roe v Wade may be modified someday, but I seriously doubt it will ever have any language like that. The American people may accept banning some types of abortions as long as the mothers life and health are protected and probably probably with the rape incest clause.

Toral - Ronnie White may have been (probably was) political - but reading how it happened (the petitions from law enforcement groups where started AFTER it came out of committee and one of the major complaints was it happened on the Senate floor) and he got 53 votes to support him. IMHO it was 'defensible' based on some of Judge White's rulings I have read.
 
72Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Sun, Jan 21, 20:58 		nerveclinic I also doubt you are misrepresenting Ashcroft's federal position on this issue. I would imagine that, like most pro-lifers, in their ideal world, the U.S. Federal government would play no role in abortion cases. Not sure, however.
 
73nerveclinic
      ID: 441058281
      Sun, Jan 21, 22:15 		Steve, Post 71, I know it's not the law, I realize it's his idealogy. But for God sake we have bipartisan hearings to decide whether or not a person is fit to serve. Whether it is law or not, it says something about the type of person he is and whether or not he will do a competant job.

If this guy really believes that a woman should be forced by the state to have a baby after she has been raped, I am suggesting we should help Bush realize maybe he has made a poor choice and should withdraw the nomination.
 
74Toral
      ID: 550441019
      Sun, Jan 21, 22:29 		nerveclinic, ditto Steve Houpt's response. It
really has nothing to with his suitability for
AG, IMO.
 
75Perm Dude
      ID: 471126619
      Sun, Jan 21, 22:43 		It would if the AG had nothing to do with using the full weight of his office to protect abortion rights.

Ashcroft has already committed himself to the other side of this issue. His right, of course, but my right to question a guy's motives on an issue for which he's been speaking long and hard. His position is clear.

As AG he needs not to be impartial on this issue, but to be an advocate for those invoking their rights against those who would take those rights away.

Like the White issue, I believe that once the opportunity passes for review, he's going to revert to his true character. He simply doesn't have it in him to support abortion rights, no matter what he says in order to get the job.

pd
 
76steve houpt
      ID: 5811592615
      Sun, Jan 21, 22:54 		nerveclinic - Are you against Ashcroft because he will not abandon his religous beliefs. Isn't there something in the Constitution agasinst that? He believes life begins at conception. And he does not waiver on that belief for any exception. I kind of admire him for that. He doesn't have to take a poll to come up with his views or beliefs.

I accept the Roe v Wade as LAW. Personally I don't agree with Ashcroft on his rape incest views. I think being forced to have a baby in that instance WOULD do more mental and physical harm than the abortion ever could do itself. But again, what does that have to do with being AG. Many people, including women, believe there are flaws with Roe v Wade (most people don't even realize it allows abortion on demand - but that's good advertising by the pro-choice). Ashcroft's belief is it's totally wrong. But, his overall view on abortion is similar to the President and many people in this country. Both realize it cannot be changed or overturned today (or in the near future).

 
77steve houpt
      ID: 5811592615
      Sun, Jan 21, 23:09 		Also - there would be no concern about Roe v Wade if all of the people and all constitutional scholars agreed it was a Constitutional right. But there is a question, so it is a major concern of pro choice that it may go away someday. So the FIGHT GOES ON. An will and will ...... But it is the law and as long as it is, I see no reason Ashcroft will not enforce the law. Nobody said you have to like the laws you enforce. I believe he said his religious beliefs force him to enforce the law.

But, I'm glad you guys keep posting your opposition (especially based on abortion - I said in post #2 it was all about abortion). Makes me read more and more on the subject. I am actually being pushed more towards pro life than I have ever been the more I read. The pro choice arguments are looking weaker and weaker. Basically I had just stayed away from the issue and taken very little stance on it one way or the other. I figured, it's the law.
 
78Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Sun, Jan 21, 23:15 		This is devolving into the most trite and unfortunate forms of abortion debates. Therefore, I must bring one traditional response to this State interference argument. P-K4, P-K4.

Neverclinic -- when would YOU have the State force a woman to have a baby that results from a rape? Anytime before the child's 18th birthday? Up to the cutting of the umbilical chord? When 49% of the baby's mass has been successfully extricated from the mother? 3rd trimester? Would you have the American people, via their representatives, decide this issue, or 5 people on the SCOTUS?

By using flagrant language, you are trying to make Ashcroft's position seem signficantly different from yours. Yet, the ugliness that you bring up is ugliness that is inherent in all positions regarding the abortion debate.

It is clear that you disagree with the place where Ashcroft is drawing the line. Fine. But you are making him sound like a crude imbecile. All who have positions are symmetrically imbecilic on this issue. (An unfortunate conclusion -- it's necessary to take positions, but it comes at a tremendous cost in this debate).

Both sides of the abortion argument are extremely crude because the very nature of abortion is crude. Small changes in assumptions lead to extreme changes in positions, unless one wishes to engage in partial hypocrisy, which is also inherently crude, and perhaps even less logically defensible. Anyone who has a position on abortion can be made to sound like an extreme imbecile. That's the nature of the debate. And I'm very tired of that nature ruling our political discourse.

Worse, because this crude and imbecilic debate is ruling our politics, we are getting worse governmental representation when it comes to the DOJ v. Microsoft, Electric Utility Reform, etc., etc.
 
79Chuck
      ID: 518191915
      Sun, Jan 21, 23:19 		Steve-- I respect anyone who does research on a subject as opposed to just going with a gut instinct (similar in basketball, I guess...).

Today was National Right to Life Sunday due to the close proximity of R v. W. I heard some stats today about why women have abortions. I will try to find a copy of it to send to you, but IIRC, it was something like 3% of all abortions are from rape/incest. I think it was something like 85% were in some way dealing with convenience. If convenience is how we build the laws in our country now, it may be time to get out. Pretty soon it might be convenient to get rid of the pro-lifers.

(I say that have sarcastically...)

I will try to get a source on what I posted above. I do know that was from Planned Parenthood research, but I couldn't find it on the net 2nite.
 
80Perm Dude
      ID: 471126619
      Sun, Jan 21, 23:33 		You're probably reading the wrong books, Steve :)

Actually, the pro-choice side is ill-served by idiots like Cantwell (as the pro-life side is ill-served by dittoheads). I believe you and I probably agree on a lot on this normally-divisive issue. My problem is that I will brook no fuzzy thinking on this issue, and with people so entrenched I'm afraid fuzzy thinking is increasing, rather than decreasing, as people no longer feel they have to think through their positions.

For example, the pro-choice side has been talking about "safe and legal" abortions for years, but I've seen very little work on making them safer (and the lack of doctors who perform abortions in some areas of the country make pro-choice advocates even less picky about who's doing the work). Doesn't keep them from bringing out the coathangers at every rally, however.

The pro-life side would have you believe that those getting abortions are selfish sex-seekers who are using abortion as a form of birth control (at a few hundred dollars each, this seems to be a bit more than a pack of Trojans), and they seem more interested in scaring teens about the hazards of sex than educating them as to its proper place. As the New York Times pointed out in a Magazine article today, the only facts about contraception many pro-lifers would tell teens is their failure rate.

None address directly the question of abortion demand, and strike me, then, as a bit senseless. What's the point of giving out free condoms if you can't tell teens that it's OK to say no? What's the point of witholding sexual information from teens when it's almost their nature to push the envelope with everything?

Glad you are reading, though. At least there's some movement out there.

pd
 
81Perm Dude
      ID: 471126619
      Sun, Jan 21, 23:39 		Chuck, I'd be interested in seeing the numbers and their source as well. I'd have to say, however, that unless the mother's life was in danger, Ashcroft would probably feel that the abortion was one of convenience.

pd
 
82steve houpt
      ID: 5811592615
      Mon, Jan 22, 00:00 		Perm Dude - one thing I will agree on. It is not a black and white issue either way. Neither side is presenting or representing the real argument very well and some of the real problems either way. It's become very politcal. I think a lot has been lost in the arguments.

I might read some of the actual court case transcripts. Harder to spin in front of the Courts than it is in Senate hearings or on TV.

A link to Roe v Wade and other cases

I bet I heard the phrase 'rape and incest' 100 times during the confirmation hearings from testifiers and Senators. In fact I would sit there and start to say it before they even got to it. Could see when it was coming, almost like the lyrics to a song.
 
83 Perm Dude
      ID: 471126619
      Mon, Jan 22, 00:10 		Steve, I have the Roe v. Wade SCOTUS oral arguments on audio tape (and accompanying book with transcripts) somewhere at my office. If you are interested I'll pop them in the mail to you to listen to at your convenience. Let me know.

pd
 
84steve houpt
      ID: 5811592615
      Mon, Jan 22, 00:30 		PD - thanks. The link take you to a re-link that has the 'real audio'. Listening now.

Supreme Court Case Roe v Wade

Look for about anything you want here.

The Oyez Project Northwester University - US Supreme Court Mutmedia Data Base
 
85Toral
      ID: 550441019
      Mon, Jan 22, 03:17 		PD 75: Are you saying that no one who believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided can be AG? Since every AG under both Reagan and Bush Sr thought that way, it's a bit late to be promulgating this as a principled criterion for rejecting AG nominees. It's not as though President Bush didn't make it clear what he thought of Roe; do we really want to create a principle that a President has to nominate Cabinet members with whom he disagrees on critical issues?

I think, although I an not sure, that Griffin Bell, Carter's AG, thought Roe was wrongly decided as well. He seems to have been able to "enforce the law" on the issue without problem.

For that matter, a number of (personally) pro-choice legal scholars think Roe was wrongly decided -- John Hart Ely I will throw out as a name. The radical Critical Legal Realist Mark Tushnet described it as the exemplar of a new kind of decision-writing style, legal conclusions offered wholly without reasoning (I paraphrase). Michael Kinsley of Crossfire, TNR and Slate, is an example of a well known liberal/moderate who holds to the view that Roe was wrongly decided and that it was a mistake for pro-choicers to work through spurious legal arguments instead of democratic processes.

Janet Reno was against the death penalty. (Not sure whether she believes it unconstitutional or not.) Nevertheless, as she noted on CNN the other night, her Department asked for it often. Is she can do this, it shouldn't be hard to imagine Ashcroft abiding by the current law on abortion (not that the AG does much to"enforce" Roe anyway.)

As a side note, Charles Fried's book on his time as Solicitor General provides some interesting background on the debates in Justice during the Reagan and Bush views about whether and when they should urge the Court to reverse Roe.
 
86steve houpt
      ID: 5811592615
      Mon, Jan 22, 03:34 		Well that took 3 hours.

Only 2:13 of oral arguments and re-arguments and another hour reading the decision. It was educational, but I'm not sure what it did.

I think I'll go buy and read something like Willie Morris' 'My Dog Skip' or 'A Prayer for the Opening of Little League Season' tomorrow rather than any more reading on this for a few days.
 
87Myboyjack
      ID: 4443038
      Mon, Jan 22, 07:58 		Since Roe v. Wade was decided by judcial fiat and not the democratic process, I'm not sure of the relevance of public opinion; however the % of "lifers" vs. "choicers" has been debated here by me and some others. In that regard, CNN just reported that a recent Gallup poll shows that 48% of Americans consider themselves "pro-choice" while 43% consider themselves "pro-life"
 
88 Mark L
      ID: 4444938
      Mon, Jan 22, 09:18 		Toral - Tushnet said Roe represented "the totally unreasoned judicial opinion."
 
89Perm Dude
      ID: 28059111
      Mon, Jan 22, 09:45 		Toral, I'm saying that Ashcroft, whose views on abortion are to the right of even many abortion foes, has compromised himself with regard to this issue. I'm sure he'll continue to lead the Republican charge toward unregulated (though government-funded) business access to, say, national parks and forests. And decline to prosecute monopolistic actions by businesses. And affirmative action? Fuhgetaboutit!

None of Bush Sr. or Reagan's appointees held the opinion that rape & incest pregnancies needed to be carried to full term by law. And my own belief about Bush, Jr.'s opinion is that he feels (like the true, "silent" conservatives out there) that the government has no business interferring either way on this issue (similar to Bush Sr.'s beliefs before he had to hitch his wagon to Reagan).

Summing up: Is someone who feels to strongly on this issue, for so long and so loud, precluded from saying he will uphold abortion rights? Yes, of course. Does this preclude his from holding the office? As one of many items, yes.

pd
 
90Toral
      ID: 550441019
      Mon, Jan 22, 11:13 		Thanx, Mark L. Pretty close, from memory, but Tushnet was snappier, as always. There is a guy who knows how to write.
 
91Chuck
      ID: 510581321
      Mon, Jan 22, 12:43 		I only have a few minutes between classes today, but a thought occured to me:

If every abortion-rights activist had been aborted, there would be no controversy
 
92Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Mon, Jan 22, 13:00 		PD 89 Exactly what role does the AG play in enforcing "Affirmative Action"?
 
93Perm Dude
      ID: 28059111
      Mon, Jan 22, 13:40 		Madman This AG, of course, will take no role in enforcing affirmative action regulations, and that is my point.

What role should he be playing? As head of the Justice Department, the AG decides whether to intervene in private litigation on civil rights issues. The AG decides whether direct intervention, of the filing of amicus curiae ("Generally, the Division files amicus briefs in cases that have the potential for affecting Division enforcement responsibilities, especially those concerned with developing or problematic areas of civil rights law."). The AG sets policy with regard to the intervention in criminal civil rights cases, which often involve the reflection of affirmative action legislation in the workplace, for example.

The decision, then, to pursue affirmative action cases, is a subjective one, subject to a number of considerations including the current administration's inclination toward affirmative action.

pd
 
95James K Polk
      ID: 114581215
      Mon, Jan 22, 15:27 		Death penalty foes consistently argue that, no matter how heinous the crime committed, you shouldn't put a murderer to death because "two wrongs don't make a right." This argument is fairly respected even by those on the other side of the debate. Yet when it comes to abortion, and especially in cases of rape/incest, this is essentially what people like Ashcroft are arguing. And they are called barbaric. But if you truly believe that life begins at conception, how could you argue any other way? That sometimes it's OK to kill a child if a horrible act led to the conception of that child?

I am certain that Ashcroft and others would be extremely empathetic in the case of a woman pregnant by rape or incest. That's truly an awful, awful situation, and one that no woman should have to be in. But when you believe life begins at conception, the question becomes: Is it worth trying to make this terrible situation better by killing a child? That's a Solomonic decision, and when you think it through that way, I don't think it's nearly as easy to paint absolute anti-abortionists as idiots.

If you want to argue that life doesn't begin at conception, then that's really where you need to start. Because all anti-abortion positions basically cascade from that critical point.

And similar to what steve houpt said earlier in this thread: It wouldn't matter whether I agree or disagree with Ashcroft on abortion, or on any other issue, for that matter; I respect the fact that he holds a belief based solely on conviction.
 
96Perm Dude
      ID: 28059111
      Mon, Jan 22, 15:31 		Well said, Mr. President.

I certainly hope my arguing that Ashcroft is unfit for this particular job means that I disrespect his convictions. I do not. I just don't want them speaking for mine.

pd
 
97Toral
      ID: 550441019
      Mon, Jan 22, 21:16 		On CNN's Crossfire tonite, it was said that "hints were" that Joe Lieberman would vote for Ashcroft. I haven't been able to find any more than this elsewhere.

I've been wondering about this, because from what I know about Sen. Lieberman, I would expect him to vote for Ashcroft. As a former AG himself, he knows completely well that a person may strongly disagree with some of the laws he is called on to enforce/uphold, yet enforce/uphold them because it his duty. Lieberman has a long record of integrity (only slightly sullied by some of the things he had to say campaigning with Gore). When he was first elected to the Senate in 1988, he made a point of saying that had he been in the Senate in 1987, he would have voted for Robert Bork.

The only thing that made me wonder about his vote is that if he wants to run for Prez in 2004, this vote would definitely hurt him with the Democratic special-interest groups. NAARL (abortion) and NAACP have already said that they view this vote as a "litmus test"

OTOH Sen. Lieberman may find a way to combine integrity with political advantage at the same time. If he votes for Ashcroft now, a future vote by him against a controversial Bush Supreme Court nominee may be even more compelling as a statement against this (hypothetical) nominee. I.e., he can say "I am not captive to special interest groups. I voted for John Ashcroft. But this Bush nominee to the Supreme Court "x" is beyond the pale..."

If Joe wants to run, he can set himself up as a statesman-like moderate type. Besides, I suspect that for Joe to vote against Ashcroft would make him feel slimy and dishonest, and he wouldn't do it in any case.

In any case, I view his decision on how to vote, and his stated reasons, as the most interesting thing yet to come in the Ashcroft debate.




 
98nerveclinic
      ID: 441058281
      Tue, Jan 23, 00:15 		Steve post 76..."nerveclinic - Are you against Ashcroft because he will not abandon his religous beliefs."

no, I am against him because the thought of the attorney general believeing that a woman who has been raped should be forced by the state to have the rapists baby is to me, frightening.

Also popst 76 "Isn't there something in the Constitution agasinst that?"

As far as I know, there is nothing in the constitution that says I cannot be against Ashcroft for Attorney general, because his religious beliefs make him say, that a woman who has been raped should be forced by the state to have the rapists baby"

If I tried to throw him in jail for those beliefs than I believe my actions would be against the constitution, but simply not believeing he is fit to serve as Attorney general would not be unconstitutional.

Can I get a witness? I believe there are any number of constitutional scholars on these boards who can confirm what are only my suspicions.
 
99steve houpt
      ID: 5811592615
      Tue, Jan 23, 00:58 		You can be against him for whatever reason you want. I don't think he can be denied the AG by some Senator saying he voted against him because of his religion (and beliefs). That's why they all 'tiptoed' around the issue in questioning him during the hearings.

But if he tried to throw you in jail for your statements, then he should be removed as AG and prosecuted. But he has just as much right to his beliefs as long as he does his job within the law.

Have you got anything better than the rape and incest phrase - it serves no purpose in the argument for AG. A lot can be done to Roe v Wade, but that will probably never pass muster with the SCOTUS. So it's a non issue as far as Ashcroft goes.
 
100nerveclinic
      ID: 441058281
      Tue, Jan 23, 01:33 		steve post 99

I disagree and I have have more than stated my reasons why in the posts above. Our country deserves better, Bush should withdraw him.

It's not a matter of can he be AG, the question is should he be? His extreme views rank him with others with religious views that the conservatives in this country like to ridicule...the Ayatolla Khomeni...or are his religious views acceptable to you? Of course not, it's not your religion.
 
101Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Tue, Jan 23, 01:37 		PD 93. . . I guess I was subtely trying to bring up the fact that Affirmative Action is hard to define -- thus the quotes. The parts of "AA" that the AG is slated to defend are the least controversial components, no? I dunno. It's possible, but I just don't accept a blanket statement when I'm ignorant, thus the question. I'm still a bit confused about the exact jurisdictional lines between the AG and the EEOC on some of these issues, I guess. Your post indicates the potential for a larger perview that I was initially thinking, but I'm still not exactly sure what he/she can/would dismantle or not-enforce.
-------------------------------------------
I want to echo steve houpt's comment about the rape and incest phrase. Flagrant language made to make either side's position seem ugly is exceptionally easy to do, and it furthers no rational discussions. The abortion itself is ugly; therefore anyone's position on it can be made ugly.

For example, when would you, nerveclinic, have the State force the mother to keep her baby/fetus after a rape or incest? There is a statute of limitations on her ability to terminate the life/"potential life"/"abnormal bodily growth that could eventually become a 'sentient' humanoid thereby earning certain inalienable rights". When is it?

Finally, I would imagine that Ashcroft's position many years ago would be that the Federal Government has nothing to do with it. Therefore, you are technically mis-stating his position. Would he support that Constitutional amendment in the absence of Roe v. Wade? That is the question. Possibly. But many conservatives simply want the federal government out of it, as per a different reading of the Constitution . . .
 
102biliruben
      ID: 231045110
      Tue, Jan 23, 03:33 		An even-handed article from the "liberal" press framing Ashcroft as a politically expedient, cautious moderate, when viewing his actions as governor, though not his words.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/23/politics/23ASHC.html
 
103Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Tue, Jan 23, 03:44 		Pretty interesting article, biliruben 102. I grew up 7 miles from the SW Missouri border (in KS), so I vaguely recollect some of those things. The tenor of the article seems fairly consistent with what I recall, although I was too young to really get into the specifics.

That's one of the better articles I've read on him, I think. Maybe people are finally starting to get a bit more rational about this thing.
 
104Toral
      ID: 550441019
      Tue, Jan 23, 03:48 		nerveclinic,

I understand your abhorrence. I regard the idea that a person ought to be able to kill a fetus/human being because a sex determination test
shows that the fetus/human being is not of the desired sex with as much abhorrence. I view women who wish to abort a fetus/human being because it would slow down their career opportunities with a lot of abhorrence too.

So there is a lot of room for abortion debate among people of good will, emotional though the
issues are. Janet Reno believed, (as I understand), that as a matter of law,
people ought to be able to kill fetuses/human beings simply because they were hoping to have the privilege of raising a fetus/human being of the different sex. She was not saying that this was a good thing, any more than John Ashcroft takes pleasure at the idea of women conceiving
after rape or incest not being legally able to kill the fetus/human being. She was confirmed, IIRC, 98-0 by the Senate.

In the long run, I believe these issues, involving as they do deeply civic judgments about when a person should be considered as a fellow citizen, should be decided by the democratic process, and not judicial fiat. I am willing to allow the decision to be made democratically, even though people who wish to abort get a vote and people (fetuses/human beings) at risk of being killed, who might wish to argue in favour of their right to live if given a chance, get none.

In the short run, Cabinet nominees at least (we're
not talking about lifetime appointed judges here -- yet) should be confirmed if they are willing to
uphold the law as it stands at any given time, regardless of their personal views of what the law should be.

Essentially you want to read people who take Ashcroft's position outside of the civilized community, outside of the area of legitimate debate. I would be much more willing to declare
people who want to kill fetuses/human beings for sex selection reasons, or even for personal career advancement reasons, outside the area of legitimate civilized debate. But I won't do that as a citizen, because I know that many well-intentioned people of good will take that position, as hard as I find it to understand.

In the case of Cabinet nominees, what needs to be shown is that, however strong their personal convictions are, they will abide by and enforce the existing law. John Ashcroft has shown that in spades, and deserves to be confirmed.





 
105biliruben
      ID: 231045110
      Tue, Jan 23, 04:15 		Actually, Toral, almost 20% of women who have abortions are 19 or younger, so a large percentage don't have an opportunity to vote (sorry, my source only had <15, 15-19 age ranges).

Madman-yeah, I thought you'd like that article. Not Baldwin can't call the NYT "liberal" any more, right? ;)

 
106biliruben
      ID: 231045110
      Tue, Jan 23, 04:30 		Just checking out some more of these cool tables and found that "...thinking that abortions should be legal under any circumstances" is highly positively correlated with education and income. Education (19% for no college, 35% for college grad) I would have guessed but income (17% for <$20k, 41% for 75k+) I wouldn't have predicted, other than ed and income are themselves highly correlated. Those who replied "illegal under all circumstances" were similarly negatively correlated, though with about half the support of those who thought they should be legal.

I'd give the link, but it is 12 lines long, and I doubt it would work. I will be glad to email the gif upon request.

I guess my assumption that everyone with money is conservative, is false. Just fiscally conservative, I guess. ;)

Just got a real job myself. Soon I'll be extolling the virtues of Adam Smith. ARghhh! ;)
 
107Toral
      ID: 550441019
      Tue, Jan 23, 04:53 		Nice article, biliruben.

Of course a cynic could note that it was only published when it became clear that Ashcroft would
be confirmed anyway.

Wait for Bush's first (non-Hispanic, non-Senator)
Supreme Court appointment. Then you will see the
New York Times smear job (or so conspiratorialists
would say :)).

Toral
 
108Toral
      ID: 550441019
      Tue, Jan 23, 04:59 		On Ashcroft as a person, I assume anybody following this thread will have read this; but
if not, here is an article from TNR by an observant Jew working for John Ashcroft. (Kudoos
to TNR, which has taken an editorial stance against Ashcroft, for publishing this):

http://www.tnr.com/012901/troy012901.html
 
109Toral
      ID: 550441019
      Tue, Jan 23, 05:05 		Doh, biliruben. Your amazing finding is well known. Rich people are willing to take human
life at their convenience. Poor people, even
though their life may have fewer material
pleasures, value it higher.

I could give you other citations which show
the same thing (e.g., Richard Posner, the only
reason pro-abortion legal arguments are taken
as seriously as they are is that they are promoted by career-women lawyers, anmd their husbands;
i.e., by people who have an interest in believing in
abortion.)


 
110biliruben
      ID: 231045110
      Tue, Jan 23, 10:28 		Well, Toral, pure self-interest could be one explanation.

I am naive enough to consider another: enlightenment garnered by more education allows one to realize that, whatever ones personal opinion on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of abortion, taking away a woman's right to choose for herself whether she is or is not able to begin raising a family is not a pragmatic or defensible position.

Understanding that you may consider something wrong, but realizing that you can't force everyone to think the same way you do by passing a law is a subtlety that may be gained by increased education.
 
111Perm Dude
      ID: 28059111
      Tue, Jan 23, 10:46 		bilirubin, I think you are right (#110). The rightsness or wrongness of "killing" is quite straight-forward when the question is framed in that way, but the understanding of rights is one that only comes about through increased life experience and education.

Not that one argument is "better" than the other, just that the rights understanding is not as easy to come to. Heck, nearly any rights question, not just this one.

pd
 
112Toral
      ID: 550441019
      Tue, Jan 23, 19:01 		I should have made it clear in 109 that I wasn't being entirely serious; I'm not sure that a smiley
would have been appropriate, but I was attempting, probably unsuccessfully, to indicate in a semi-lighthearted way that I disagree with the conclusion that I thought was being implied by biliruben's numbers. And that I was right in my guess about what was being implied, as shown
by posts 110 and 111.

Just to state it straight up, I don't think that the fact that a particular social policy is supported by people of higher education and income is strong evidence that it is a better social policy. There may be other explanations; and I'm enough of a populist to believe that the elites aren't always right.

In university I had a prof who stated straight up that surveys around the world showed that higher intelligence corelated with support of leftist positions and that this was a kind of proof that the left was correct. I admired his straightforwardness, but don't buy the idea.
 
113biliruben
      ID: 3502218
      Tue, Jan 23, 19:17 		clever, toral. ;)
 
114hoops boy
      ID: 51440922
      Tue, Jan 23, 19:23 		The catch to that arguement biliruben being that a vast majority of those people who become "enlightened" enough to understand they cannot pass a law to change someones beliefs wholeheartdly would support the subversion of other cultures beliefs in respect to how women are treated (read islam into that)

Personally I think that whole argument is vastly irrelevent since most of this debate boils down to steves post way back in #... well, somewhere I'm pretty sure he pointed out the debate comes down to at what point you decide life has begun, and that the majority of arguments follow from that.

An intresting side note to this is that you have to believe that Rae Carruth would have been charged with something had his *unborn* son died.
 
115James K Polk
      ID: 56528162
      Tue, Jan 23, 19:39 		biliruben, PD -- I love you guys, you know that :) But I can't go with you on posts 110 and 111.

"Taking away a woman's right to choose for herself whether she is or is not able to begin raising a family is not a pragmatic or defensible position."

The anti-abortion side is not going to disagree with you here. Of course you can't tell a woman whether or not she is ready or able to raise a family. But this isn't the crux of the debate. That would be: Is it acceptable that an outcome of this choice might include the killing of a child?

As for the correlation between higher education and pro-choice support, here's yet another theory. Institutions of higher education, for the most part, are the environments in which people first encounter relative morality. What's right for you might not be right for me, but I will respect your opinion ... etc., etc. Before you've been in this environment, your worldview tends to be much more black and white. And when your worldview has fewer shades of grey, IMHO, this simplifies the abortion debate to its most essential question: Do I believe there are circumstances under which it is OK to end the life of a child? Or, if you want to get downright nasty about phrasing: Do I believe that, in order to make one human being's life better, it is OK to kill another human being?

As for this: "Understanding that you may consider something wrong, but realizing that you can't force everyone to think the same way you do by passing a law is a subtlety that may be gained by increased education." I don't think the anti-abortion side is under any illusions that it can change pro-choice minds merely by passing a law. That doesn't have anything to do with education; it has everything to do with the fact that it's not necessarily their ultimate goal to get people to agree with them. They would argue that their goal, in its simplest form, is to save children's lives.
 
116biliruben
      ID: 140551217
      Wed, Jan 24, 13:11 		Looks like Johnny's gonna have to wait another
week before he gets his throne:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/24/politics/24ASHC.html
 
117Perm Dude
      ID: 471126619
      Wed, Jan 24, 13:43 		Mr. President, re #115: I see that you didn't quote me, just biliruben! I was simply trying to comment on the relationship between the increase in educational levels and the increase in empathetic levels regarding others' rights. Causal, or co-relational? Probably the former, and not limited to the abortion issue.

Regarding the abortion issue, however, you have simplified the issue to what you would consider to be the "essential" questions, but I have to disagree on that. If you don't believe (as many pro-choicers do) that it is actually a human life or a child, then your questions bring into the issue their own assumptions. Can't be the "essential" questions with assumptions, then, can it?

I'm not trying to argue the pro-choice side here, just saying that both sides are asking and answering different questions, which makes this issue all the more difficult and entrenched.

pd
 
118Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Wed, Jan 24, 14:48 		I actually have to strongly disagree with the notion that education leads to more enlightened decision making on issues that involve morality. I have known a number of less educated folk who instinctively have better morals than I (of course, you could rationally argue that I've been in school so long that I've become stupid. I'm open to that hypothesis).

Abortion is about morality. Therefore, it is about things that are fundamental to the way in which we all live our lives. I don't think being educated helps in any definitive way toward our understanding of this issue. Does studying philosophy give one a feeling of purpose in life?

Don't get me wrong. There are issues that are solely about education and perspective. For example, the choice of COLA's for Social Security. The Dems tried to throw that one in Rep's faces awhile back. I will simply not accept that the masses understood the incredibly subtle arguments for and against a one-time change in the COLA for technical reasons. This doesn't mean that the COLA adjustment was wrong. But that the reasons for it were highly esoteric.

Society and its morals are, by definition, understandable by society. In fact, I think the more highly educated one is, the higher the likelihood that you will build artificial intellectual walls that help protect you/us from understanding the more instinctual elements that undergird our societal fabric. We must study what they subconsciously know.

I will trust the masses for determining broad directions and fundamental societal values. I trust the educated to help us differentiate between good and bad ways of implementing those values. This is why I support our Republic, and fear Democracy. I trust the people to find trustworthy representatives (although sometimes I cringe). But I want the representatives to be educated (or at least rely on educated folk), so that they may make wise and informed decisions on specific issues.
 
119biliruben
      ID: 140551217
      Wed, Jan 24, 15:37 		Madman - I am leaning towards agreeing with you
regarding your last paragraph. I also believe we
should leave the nuances of implementation of the
will of the people to those we elect to study and
implement it.

It can be argued that an element morality is
inherent in nearly all the major issues of our time.

Healthcare, education, social security, welfare:
"The moral test of a government is how that
government treats those who are in the dawn of
life - the children; the twilight of life - the
elderly; and the shadows of life - the sick, the
needy and the handicapped."
-Hubert Humphrey

War, military:
The moral implications of whether/when we engage
in military conflict and with whom are obvious.

Drugs, alcohol, smoking,
Taxation, land-use, environment,
Violance, racism, sexism, and on and on....

All issues with strong moral components.

How much or how little we chose to involve the
government such issues is decided on a case by
case basis, balancing the prevailing moral
attitudes with the other components that are also
part of the equation. In the case of abortion, a
key compenent, one with it's own moral compenent,
is civil rights. We need to balance our moral
heart-strings with the realization that "moral
majority" (seems appropriate to dredge up that
term here) may be taking a decision, a
responsibility, a "right" away from a minority
group (women of child-bearing age), when that
decision only directly affects the women, her
fetus, and the people around her who care about her.

Another, similar moral issue involves advanced
directives. Provisions for treatment, or lack
there of, which often means life or death to a
sick or elderly patient. These come in many
forms, living wills, durable power of attorney
(DPA), Do not resuscitate orders (DNR). In
essence, many situations arise where we leave a
powerful moral decision to an individual most able
to weigh all the factors and make that difficult,
yet personal, decision. We still have some debate
in our society about these issues and given that
the issue of suffering is usually tantimount, it
is not identical to abortion, but for the most
part, our society has weighed the evidence, using
reason, experience and yes, education, and decided
that these decisions should be made by the
individual most affected.

Where I am going with this? Heck if I know. If
GW can ramble, I can too. :)
 
120biliruben
      ID: 140551217
      Wed, Jan 24, 15:41 		Sheesh, where the rotoguru spellcheck! Bad biliruben.
 
121James K Polk
      ID: 32012715
      Wed, Jan 24, 15:50 		Madman -- what you said in paragraphs 2 and 4 of post 118 was what I was trying to make a charge at in 115, but you said it so much more clearly. Thank you :)

PD -- sorry for lumping you in, I guess I read too much into the "I agree" part in your post 111. Mea culpa :)

And I completely agree with your point on the essential questions in the abortion debate. In fact, I mentioned in a previous post that I think the most fundamental question is when a person believes life begins. I failed to restate that in post 115, but there I was really trying comment on the anti-abortion response to a woman choosing whether she is ready to begin a family.

So, it comes down to this: I think the abortion debate can be simplified, for the most part, to two questions ...

1) At what point do I believe life begins?

2) Are there circumstances under which I believe it is acceptable to end the life of an unborn child? (This question obviously could be made moot depending on your answer to #1.)

I think the interaction between a person's answers to those questions decides where they are on the spectrum of pro-choice vs. anti-abortion. And for there to be any constructive debate on the issue, I think it has to center on these questions. This is why I think it is self-defeating for anti-abortion activists to use graphic pictures of aborted fetuses to try to make a point, and why I think it's just as absurd for pro-choice activists to frame the debate as being entirely about the woman involved.
 
122ivan
      ID: 32032247
      Wed, Jan 24, 15:50 		billiruben - intresting stuff.

i'd argue than in the case of abortion the individual most affected is not the mother.

which of course flips the whole debate, i'm not sure the can be a resoulution to the abortion debate though, it's either murder or liposuction depending on your politics.

 
123biliruben
      ID: 140551217
      Wed, Jan 24, 16:23 		Mr. President - sorry to not directly respond to
your dismantling of my post. I just wasn't really
sure what to say. As in the larger debate (if you
can call it that), our differences lie in what we
consider the "crux of the issue." Hard to find a
middle ground there.

I think our interpretations regarding the
correlation are pretty similar, actually. It is
just that I think those shades of grey are
essential, and you seem to have a different
opinion (see 1st paragraph above).

Oh, yeah. I love you too. ;)
 
124 biliruben
      ID: 140551217
      Wed, Jan 24, 16:26 		Oh yeah. Do you ski, Mr. President? If yes, drop
me a note. I'd like to ask your advice about good
places to teach my girfriend (she's down on
Pullman now) how to snowboard.
 
125saber34
      ID: 100392419
      Wed, Jan 24, 20:10 		re: post #5

Great record I think this guys is me......
Only one I might change is Medicar Drugs..
but I'd have to research that one...

Let me review it again....
Shoot now I need to comment....


1. Drugs:

**I agree with the demand-side, but I think we should still attack the supply



2. Death Penalty:
***Upholding law of the land
*Appeals are a waste of money... How many times *can a murderer prove he murdered someone.
*I'm tired of racism... when groups "label" *themselves it defines the racism... I dislike as *many white people as I do "colored people"

3. Civil Rights:
Against affirmative action.
***Quotas you mean***

Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.

***Same pay same work no labels***

Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning.

**Good make your statement by going to jail ever **think of that***
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.
**Hate, I hate am I a criminal... Prosecute for **the crime not who the victim was
Comments: They speak for themselves.

4. Defense:
Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

**Like anyone else follows it. Lets let China develope while we fall behind, heck we've done that with the whole military**

Voted NO on banning chemical weapons.
**same as above.**

5. Choice:
Opposes all abortion, even for rape and incest.
**I'm a lifer, but it does hurt to see instances as these, but Adoption is available....

6. Environment:
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. **40 years later??? What do we have??

Voted NO on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. **Lets make our country inaccessable, I'm all for charging me to go into the parks....

7. Government Reform:
Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.
**Campaign Finance = lets just support the liberals with the media.... Sorry John...Also note Americans don't care about this reform, never makes the top 10 of polls....

8. Health Care:
Voted against penalties on tobacco companies.
*I've seen many commercials, I know they are bad for me, I've read the label... I don't smoke , but I thought they made me smoke... just another take responsiblilty for you actions topics.

Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare.
** ????

Comment: Obviously a tool of industry.

9. Education:
Voted YES on school vouchers in DC.
**yeah... my public funds shouldn't go to promote liberalism.....

Comment: Public funds shouldn't be used to help pay for private schools.

10. Labor:
Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage.
***I get paid $10 an hour. I don't do anything worth that much money....

Like I said. Ashcroft is the anti-christ.
*** not yet...****
Anyone ever read revelations?
the anti-christ will have to be a liberal. Thats the only way we'll ever have such great and wonderful things... health care... world peace....etc...

By the wya I wish the Isralies and Palestinians would just go at it and get it over with for this decade....
 
126YankeesRule
      ID: 299302812
      Fri, Jan 26, 15:07 		u got to do wat u got to do
 
127hoops boy
      ID: 16937178
      Fri, Jan 26, 16:38 		"In the case of abortion, a key compenent, one with it's own moral compenent, is civil rights. We need to balance our moral heart-strings with the realization that "moral majority" (seems appropriate to dredge up that term here) may be taking a decision, a responsibility, a "right" away from a minority group (women of child-bearing age), when that decision only directly affects the women, her fetus, and the people around her who care about her."

The problem with this biliruben is that once again this issue comes back to when you believe the life of a child starts, becuase this has a direct impact on whether you feel the child has a "right to life" which is generally consider one of (if not the) top things gaurenteed to "Americans".

This is why the abortion debate is so circular, because the people on both sides do not agree on the basic assumptions.

(BTW- Thats another circular arguement often presented regarding takeing away a right of a women, but women have no right to an abortion in the context of an abortion debate, thats what were debateing on!)
 
128Perm Dude
      ID: 28059111
      Fri, Jan 26, 16:51 		Well, given saber's rants, I suppose I might as well weigh in with a more moderate view:

1. Drugs

We've got a real problem when those caught with a single reefer cigarette spends more time in jail than a man who beats his wife. If you believe people should be free to smoke cigarettes you should feel the same about alcohol and crack. Just don't make me pay for your habits. Oops! Too late.

2. Death penalty

Why let criminals off easy? Timothy McVie should spend the rest of his life in prison for what he did, not get off easy by dictating a "kill me ASAP" attitude. If it's about retribution then you should be against the death penalty. If it's about justice one mistake screws that theory and we don't know how many we've killed in error.

3. Civil rights

Its about opportunity, not retribution or quotas. Saber, read http://rotoguru1.com/cgi-bin/mb/pol/27.shtml for a more in-depth look at my position. Looks like you've bought the "quota" tag hook line and sinker. Thought you'd be smarter than that.

4. Nuclear Ban/chemical weapons

Let's see here--refuse to accept treaties we negotiated and forced onto others? Can you say: "Barganing position bye bye?"

5. Choice

Rape and incest? The choice is clear.

6. Environment

Ashcroft voted billions for Star Wars technology (in the hopes it would work) but against millions for renewable energy (which does work).

If lumber companies need roads when they pillage our national forests for pennies on the dollar, let them build their own damn roads. It's the cost of business. [it amazes me that conservatives want government off their backs but refuse to cut back on their own pork. The first step is to admit you have a problem, buddy]

7. Campaign finance reform

McCain is no liberal, by any stretch. And I haven't seen your poll citations, saber....

8. Health care

Government has to pay billions to cover the costs of cigarettes. Until Clinton stopped it, government allowed tobacco companies to write off the cost of advertising their products, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Government subsidizes the growing of tobacco. What do you think government is for?

If cigarette smokers kept the costs to themselves there would be no problem here.

Prescription drug costs are rising faster than many users (particularly for the elderly, who take medication more often than the average person) can pay. Truly, many elderly have to choose between food and medicine, which (in the end) causes even more health care problems that have to be paid for by, yup, Medicare.

9 Education

Probably need another thread for this one. I'm of the mind that those who want to send their kids to private schools should do so with their own money. Taxpayers who don't send kids to school (those who's kids have grown, teenagers, retired people, etc) don't have a choice to withhold their taxes from the school system, and that system works because good schools are in the local's best interests.

10. Minimum wage

I've already spelled out my views on Madman's thread.

Antichrist? Probably not, but close. Indeed, a picture on the news recently had a closeup of his head. I took the liberty of blowing it up here for a closer look, as I noticed something on his crown. Very faintly I saw the numbers: 6 6 7. Thisclose.

pd
 
129Toral
      ID: 25062617
      Fri, Jan 26, 17:06 		I didn't really intend to get into an abortion debate here. I've been around long enough to know that anybody who has a position on it isn't going to persuade anybody on the opposite side.

So my general approach to abortion debates is to stay out of them, except for correcting false statements or gross exagerrations. And, when I do speak, I find it more fulfilling to correct misstatements etc. on my *own* side rather than others.

But, after thinking about it for a few days, I can't not respond to PD 117. A pro-choice position supposedly shows a better 'empathetic level regarding others' rights.'

Insofar as empathy is relevant, I think, PD, you have it exactly wrong. The pro-choicer empathizes with the inconvenience, pain, perhaps suffering, of women having to have an abortion: the inconvenience etc. of one who you might know, who can speak, who can declare their suffering and declaim about it.

The pro-life position feels empathy for the fetus/human being who is killed, but has no one to speak for him or her.

If empathy is the standard, pro-choicers ought to retire gracefully from the argument.



 
130Seattle Zen
      ID: 119562516
      Fri, Jan 26, 17:13 		I was a philosophy major in college and remember reading a very famous article or paper by a woman in the 1970's that set up the following scenario (this is a very rough approximation, my memory is fuzzy, if anyone could find this article, I would be happy to read it again):

A woman wakes up one morning and finds that her organs are connected via tubes to an unconscious man who is now reliant upon her for his life, and not just any man, but a world famous pianist. The Doctors tell the woman that this man must stay connected to her for nine months. The woman can remain mobile, the man is on a gurney with wheels, but she feels tired and occasionally nauseous. If the woman removed the tubes, our pianist would die.

This woman is getting support from her husband and immediate family. Hell, after the nine months, our pianist walks home and doesn't need 18 years of emotional and financial support.

The question is, does this woman have the right to remove the tubes? Should she forced to carry this man around for nine months, or is she to be allowed to control the fate of her own body? We know this man is already alive and we know that the world is a better place with him in it, but sorry, most people would agree that our woman here should be allowed to decide if she wants to carry this burden or not.

So, Mr. Pres., even if you believe that a oocyte is "life", you can certainly still be pro-choice. And finally, who really gives a sh*t what men think about this issue, we don't have to carry the babies, we should be left out of the policy argument all together.
 
131Perm Dude
      ID: 28059111
      Fri, Jan 26, 17:18 		Toral,

Thanks for your note. I did not want to argue the pro-choice side (and said so in my post). Indeed, the part of these debates I dislike most is feeling like I have to strongly argue just one side or another when I'm usually in the middle!

I'd have to say, again, that the empathetic levels seem to rise with education, and that it is not limited to this issue. Don't let the starkness of the abortion debate overshadow the relationship in other issues! It's unfortunately that my point is being made in an abortion thread, but I stand by my points.

pd
 
132biliruben
      ID: 140551217
      Fri, Jan 26, 17:29 		667. Giggle, chortle, guffaw.
 
133Toral
      ID: 25062617
      Fri, Jan 26, 18:29 		I understand that support for "globalism" rises steadily with education and income. Seattle Zen,
biliruben ... throw away your placards and stop opposing. You must not empathize with others'
rights (?) and must be wrong.
 
134Seattle Zen
      ID: 119562516
      Fri, Jan 26, 18:37 		Toral

Put down the martini and explain that last post.
 
135 Mark L
      ID: 4444938
      Fri, Jan 26, 18:49 		Seattle Zen - you're referencing Judith Jarvis Thomson's article "A Defense Of Abortion." I question the validity of her analogy. The hypothetical involves a person being "hooked up" without any voluntary action on his or her part. Not true for the vast majority of pregnancies. The pregnancy might not have been intended (even not desired) but IMO there is still a difference between the two situations where the sexual acts were volitional.
 
136James K Polk
      ID: 355352418
      Fri, Jan 26, 18:50 		Seattle Zen -- the inherent difference in the anecdote you cite and an actual pregnancy is the fact that, in your story, the woman "just woke up" with this life suddenly in her hands. In a pregnancy (obviously notwithstanding cases of rape and incest), the woman does not "just wake up" pregnant. She has to participate in the creation of that life, and that's a very important difference, IMHO. The difference between the burden of responsibility through no fault of your own, and the burden of responsibility based on your own actions. That's why I don't find the anecdote to be anywhere near a compelling argument for abortion rights.

But I would agree with you that yes, you can believe life begins at conception and still be pro-choice. That leads to some ugly conclusions, however.
 
137Toral
      ID: 25062617
      Fri, Jan 26, 18:53 		Seattle Zen...I can't give you figures, but I believe that support for NAFTA, international trade agreements, 'global capitalism' -- support rises with education and income. It is the poor stupid people who statistically tend to be opposed to these things (and I say that, as Broadway Danny Rose said, with all due respect.)

(I am dubious about globalism too.)

Do you or bili really want to endorse a position that suggests that these elites must be right?

(BTW, SZ, the article you mentioned is perhaps the most famous pro-abortion philosophical article ever written. There are whole books just debating that article. I myself would take a hard line: 1) the person is morally wrong to remove the tubes; 2) society has a perfect right to enact a law making the removal of the tubes a criminal offence.)

Wish I could join you in your anti-globalist demos...I don't like it either.

Toral




 
138biliruben
      ID: 140551217
      Fri, Jan 26, 19:45 		I am not really sure what you mean by globalism,
toral, or whether I have expressed much of an
opinion regarding globalism on these boards. I
think I am still forming opinions about globalism.

I do know that there have been some nasty things
done throughout history in the name of nationalism
(are they opposites, I wonder?), and that our
world is getting way too small to think in terms
of only one nation's interests anymore. We are
pretty much all interconnected.

Then again, the impunity with which multi-national
corps subject their will on
unsuspecting/defensless societies can be a bit
disturbing, to say the least, so if that's what
you are calling globalism...
 
139Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Fri, Jan 26, 23:22 		Toral You bring up an issue (trade and education) that I considered using as an example in my post 118.

To repeat the gist of it -- with respect to morality and basic definitions of humanity, all have equally valid and supportable opinions.

Since "globalism" only tangentially is related to these issues (and, indeed, these tangents are of an extremely complicated nature), I would tend to agree that there is a high degree of likelihood that more education makes one more capable of understanding the complicated ramifications of the issues.

Just thought I'd point this potential stance out. You seem to be of the opinion that education is meaningless in any policy debate? Whereas biliruben has posited the reverse -- education leads to greater accuracy of positions? I'm suggesting a middle ground that results in positions neither of you two are (I'm guessing) particularly comfortable with, but to which I am perhaps more inclined (for reasons including this notion of when I trust the educated) ;-). This is not to say I don't have caveats with my support for globalism, of course.
-------------------
One point just for fun on the Seattle Zen story. There is also a distinction between cutting the life-support lines thereby letting someone die versus killing the pianist out-right so that the life-support lines may be more comfortably removed. . . My empathies in the abortion debate are pretty amorphous. But it is ironically exactly this sort of story that pushes me toward the pro-life camp. The thought that it would be moral to cavalierly terminate a living human being's life, solely for the purpose of more conveniently removing dependency status is a position that I find abhorrent. The reason my overall position in this debate remains illy-defined relates to the difficulty of defining the beginning of a human life. But if you yield on that argument, I cannot be with you.
 
140Toral
      ID: 25062617
      Sat, Jan 27, 05:12 		Madman 139: yes, education is irrelevant in a policy debate. What is relevant is arguments. Educated people may very well make better arguments about means to a desirable end. But even that is not always true. Educated people may prevail in their arguments about means, even where their arguments are fanciful.

Consider the approach of "the educated" to the problem of poor inner-city housing, (ghetto housing, to be blunt) in the 60s and 70s. The consensus of the educated elite (at least the liberal part of it) was that it was best to engage in "slum clearance". Hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money was spent to rip down existing neighbourhoods, and force the residents into "Public housing projects". Big apartment buildings with all the amenities, etc.


The results of this experiment by the educated are well known, I believe. The "projects", populated by people forced from their communities, absent the forcible guidance applied by ordinary citizens taking care of their street life, became literal Hellholes. The big one in St. Louis (Prue-something?) was eventually emptied of people and literally blown up -- destroyed, dynamited, just like the Kingdome --by the government after its failure became evident. Rates of murder, rape, drug use, non-parented families, lack of support for kids' education by parents -- any civilized index you want, have been much worse in the "projects" than in the poor communities that were destroyed to make way for them. To add a baseball note, if a fan chooses to walk from downtown Chicago to Wrigley Field, all is well -- except for a small part of the walk in which travellers are warned not, under any conditions, to stray 2 blocks to the west. Because if you do, you will run into a liberal "project" where, it is said, random gunfire is not unknown, and even Cops dare not enter except in teams with full body armor.

Actually, I should be blunter...it is an important part of the conservative project these last 40 years or so to realize that highly educated people make great mistakes about means. The "law of unintended consequences" may come to mind. Or we may think of Robert McNamara and the Vietnam war...or the Great Society welfare programmes that destroyed marriage as an institution among the black poor...or the affirmative action programmes that caused people to wonder of any minority person professional, "is he a really qualified professional, or an AA person that got by on a freebie."

Yes, there are highly technical issues such as the ones you have mentioned in your posts where one should defer to experts. Unfortunately, experts in policy positions don't seem to understand where the real boundaries of their expertise lie. Surprise! They are ordinary human beings who will
implement their agendas wherever they have power to do so, even if the matters are outside their expertise.

Buckley's aphorism puts it best: "I would rather be governed by the first 100 people listed in the Boston phone directory than by the faculty of Harvard University."

Toral



 
141Madman
      ID: 610552719
      Sat, Jan 27, 09:18 		Toral 140 needs to go in the Guru-archives. Well-said. I wholeheartedly agree.

I don't think I sufficiently clarified or limited the extent to which I trust educated folk. It all comes down to this:

If the issue hinges on knowledge, I trust the educated folk. If the issue hinges on judgement, I trust the masses.

The art and bias, of course, comes into play when I have to infer what the judgement of the masses would be if they had sufficient knowledge . . .

For two practical examples I already mentioned. With the COLA debate, the counter-arguments for the adjustments dealt with taking money away from seniors. This did happen. However, it was done in an effort, in my opinion, to more accurately reflect the previously established reasoned judgement that the Soc. Sec. payments should increase to adjust for the cost of living and no more. Therefore, the populist argument was null-and-void, IMO, since it didn't address the educated reason for instituting the adjustment.

Similarly with respect to globalism. There are certain pieces of it that are almost universally accepted in educated circles as implementing the mandate of economic growth and capitalism and such, even though the masses may not understand or appreciate this. Obviously, there are other pieces in which there is no consensus whatsoever, but that's another story . . .
 
142Seattle Zen
      ID: 56027123
      Sat, Jan 27, 17:13 		Thank you, Mark L, for reminding me of the author and title of that article. And thank both you and the Pres. for your responces in posts 135 and 136 because I believe it reveals motives that have not yet been exposed in this thread. You both said that the difference between Thomson's example and a woman's pregancy is that she willingly had sex where the woman who wakes up with the pianist attached to her was involuntarily burdoned.

It's called the "original sin" argument. "You had sex, little girl! You must pay the price! You will suffer the social stigma! No easy out for you, for an abortion 'for your convience' is wrong!" Now if a big bad man raped you and you got pregnant, well, then, that's not your fault, I'll allow you to end that pregnancy.

It is all a load of crap! Paternalistic is too kind of a term. A woman's body is hers and hers alone and a bunch of conservative, narrow-minded men are not going to disuade any woman from controlling her destiny. To resent women who choose to end pregnancies they do not want to bring to term is misogyny at its worst.
 
143steve houpt
      ID: 5811592615
      Sat, Jan 27, 17:53 		How about this? - if she decides to have the baby, (the man has no say, it's HER body), she is responsible for all financial support. She could have had an abortion. She let him have sex, he's not responsible.

Can't have it both ways, can you?

Some opinions from the other side:

By vesting all reproductive responsibility in the woman, a pro-choice male creates a situation in which men can easily rationalize their irresponsibility toward women who choose not to abort.

As Daniel Callahan puts it, ``If legal abortion has given women more choice, it has also given men more choice as well. They now have a potent new weapon in the old business of manipulating and abandoning women.`` Given that 80 percent of all abortions are sough by single women (according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute) the advent of reproductive rights has created a situation in
which a man can coerce a woman to have an abortion by denying his responsibility towards her, or even abandoning her when she gets pregnant and ``chooses`` to carry the pregnancy to term.

According to feminist legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon, ``Sexual liberation in this sense does not free women, it frees male sexual aggression. The availability of abortion thus removes the one remaining legitimized reason that women had for refusing sex besides the headache.``

Studies have also demonstrated that male coercion and pressure play a sizable role in many women`s abortion decisions.

By Kathleen Howley

I am going to try to say this without sounding like a man-hating feminist. Here goes.

There are few things in life more disgusting than men who, when discussing abortion, use the phrase: "I can't tell a woman what to do with her body."

It's like a password. It's usually pronounced with a self-satisfied smile. They're saying, "I'm cool. I'm a supportive kinda guy. I'm sensitive to the needs of women."

------ x--------- x----------
I'm not saying ALL men (or anyone here), but I'm sure some supporters think that way. And not just women of today. - steve h
------- x---------- x---------

In a July, 1869, article in "The Revolution," the feminist newspaper edited by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, the latter -- of the U.S. one-dollar coin fame-- wrote:

"Guilty? Yes, no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh! thrice guilty is he who, for selfish gratification, heedless of her prayers, indifferent to her fate, drove her to the desperation which impels her to the crime."
---------- x----------- x--------

A little harsh, but obviously this argument is nothing new. - steve h
 
144James K Polk
      ID: 4211362123
      Sat, Jan 27, 19:14 		Seattle Zen -- You sell the anti-abortion side way, way short by referring to it as a bunch of conservative, narrow-minded men. There are plenty of women and plenty of non-conservatives who find abortion to be abhorrent, and they by no means have a monopoly on narrow-mindedness.

That's because narrow-mindedness is exactly what leads people to present the abortion debate as being entirely about the woman involved. I'm sorry. It's not.

As for the "original sin" argument, you can certainly make it sound paternalistic and mean by phrasing it the way you did. But there are many, many people who believe in the principle of taking responsibility for your actions. In fact, we all subscribe to that theory every day, under the laws that we all are forced to obey. You get drunk, you drive, you kill someone, you go to jail. Sure, you did not decide to kill someone, but it was a direct consequence of a choice you made. Perhaps not a perfect analogy, but just like people know that there are risks to drinking and driving, people know that pregnancy is a possible outcome of having sex.

Back to the "paternalistic and mean" thing: There are plenty of anti-abortion believers who provide services, support, even lodging and medical help, for women who suddenly are facing a pregnancy they weren't expecting and don't know how to deal with. They do not harass the women, they treat them with respect and encourage them. Is this misogyny, just because they believe the women shouldn't abort those children?

And on that note, it wouldn't be hard to argue that women who abort their own children display misanthropy at its worst.

You don't seem to be arguing that life begins at some point after conception, so stripped down to its essence, Seattle Zen, what you are arguing is that if a pregnant woman decides her life would be better if the baby were killed, she should have that option. So where do you draw the line? Should we limit that right just to pregnant women, or should we all have the option of killing people in order to improve our quality of life?
 
145Seattle Zen
      ID: 5411501617
      Sat, Jan 27, 21:55 		Source:

What I get from your post is that not only should women have to suffer the consequences of having sex, but that men should too. Abortion makes it easy for men to avoid the responsibility of raising a child because there is no child.

I must ask both you and the Pres. a question: Do you believe that birth control is a good thing or a bad thing. I have a sneaking suspition that you both think it is morally wrong. The tenor of both of the above posts ring of "personal responsibilty"

But there are many, many people who believe in the principle of taking responsibility for your actions James K. Polk.

This is an old, outdated Christian, hell, even pre-Christian notion that sex is sin. Sure, in order to have a society 10,000 years ago, women needed a man to provide while she gave birth then raised their children. Man wanted to know that the child they raised was his, so woman was forbidden from having sex with other men. Likewise, pre-marital sex was forbidden, the man must commit to provide for the woman or the whole of our species would go kaput. The urge for sex is strong, so the onus on breaking the rules had to be equally strong. Women were cast out if the were proven to be "whores", but remember, if no one took responsibility for caring for the women and infants, we wouldn't survive.

Well, guess what, we now have birth control. We can have sex without fear of impregnating the woman, and THAT IS FANTASTIC! Not only that, but women can have children and survive in our society without a man providing and that, too, is FANTASTIC. Where before if men and women had sex, it almost always led to dire consequences, now it does not have to.

And guess what, there are some people who resent that this is the state of affairs. They liked society that cracked the whip and kept order. They liked the fact that sex had consequences and that our society exacted huge tolls upon women who broke the social taboos. These people are clinging to a past that was harsh because it had to be, but they fail to recognize the freedom and liberation that these scientific advances have brought us. Our society is no longer at risk of falling apart if consenting people have sex, and lots of sex, with lots of people, because now it is orgasims were are having, not kids.

Mr. Pres, I don't believe there is "life" until "viability", myself, but I will argue that abortion is defensible even if you believe life is at conception. I simply draw the line that anyone who has an organism living inside her, or heaven forbid, a pianist living via life-support next to you, only you can choose if you want to continue supporting that life or not.

Source: Loved the quote from Catherine MacKinnon. She's a peach :)
 
146James K Polk
      ID: 4211362123
      Sat, Jan 27, 22:59 		I have absolutely no problem with birth control. I'm all for it. I use it! :)

And I'm not quite sure how my posts have suggested that I might be against birth control, or that I think "sex is sin." I think no such thing. Sex is great! But sex can have consequences, pregnancy being among them, and anyone engaging in sex knows the risks. Heck, it's like if you go skydiving, you use a parachute. You expect it to work, and almost all of the time, it does. But if it doesn't, there are consequences that were set into motion when you jumped out of the plane. And you have accepted the possibility of that outcome when you jump. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't skydive, or that skydiving is somehow morally wrong, or that I would tell other people not to jump out of airplanes if that's how they get their kicks. Just know the risks and be prepared to deal with them.

It is at this point where our philosophies diverge. And it's where I have a question for you, Seattle Zen. What is wrong with the idea of personal responsibility? Simply taking responsibility for the potential outcomes of the choices you make does not equate with saying those choices were morally wrong in the first place. This is what you seem to suggest.

If, as you said, abortion is defensible even if life begins at conception, because "only you can choose if you want to continue supporting that life or not," I have another question for you. How do you feel about parents who have children, then abandon their children to die, or who kill them outright? Is it the right of those parents to decide they no longer want to support those lives? If life does begin at conception, this is a natural extension of your argument, because a 2-year-old child is just as dependent on an adult for survival as is a 2-week-old fetus.
 
147steve houpt
      ID: 5811592615
      Sat, Jan 27, 23:28 		That's what you get for sneaking suspicions. Believe birth control is a great thing. Sex is great.

This is nothing to do with birth control, Christianity, pre-marital sex or thinking sex is sin. Where are you coming from? Where did those thoughts come from? And what does personal responsibility in your life have to do with anything to do with that? Do you just like to take responsibilty for things in your life when it suits you?

So, if you forgot the birth control, you don't want the responsibility because you don't believe in personal resposibility, and in order to not have any responsibity, arguing abortion is a womans right makes your beliefs feasible.

I have a 'sneaking supicion' that it's not just abortion. You want to do whatever you want, whenever you want and you don't care what anyone thinks and you don't want anyone to try and tell you what you can and cannot do. You don't want to be held responsible for anything unless it's OK with you.
 
148steve houpt
      ID: 5811592615
      Sat, Jan 27, 23:36 		Why do people assume that if you make any pro life statement you are part of some Christian right organization? Or does it just make it easier to attack the points that way.

I can't even remember the last time I went to church except for someone that had passed away or someone getting married and that's where the services were.
 
149Seattle Zen
      ID: 5411501617
      Sun, Jan 28, 01:02 		"Personal Responsibility" is such a loaded term, along the lines of "Family values".

A woman has sex using birth control - a woman jumps out of a plane with a parachute.

A woman gets pregnant - a woman's chute doesn't work.

A woman says, "I'm getting an abortion" - a woman says "I'm pulling the cord on my emergency chute"

Mr. Upright says, "You made your choices, you must take 'personal responsibility' for them. No abortion for you, and GET YOUR HAND OFF THAT CORD, MISSY!"

Source:

You want to do whatever you want, whenever you want and you don't care what anyone thinks and you don't want anyone to try and tell you what you can and cannot do.

This isn't about me or men, ask Sean Kemp.

I don't like telling other people what they should or should not do (except that they should pay 50% of their net worth in taxes ;)). Conservatives exist for the opportunity to tell everyone what their "personal responsibility" is. If they don't like it, build more prisons.
 
150James K Polk
      ID: 4211362123
      Sun, Jan 28, 01:45 		First off -- the abortion debate isn't strictly about conservatives vs. liberals. There are both types on both sides of this issue.

Secondly -- you're sure picking and choosing the points you respond to. Rather than tackle direct questions, you've taken my analogy, admittedly not a perfect one, and made a comparison between pulling an emergency chute and aborting an unwanted pregnancy. Pulling an emergency chute cord, which negatively impacts no one, is VERY different from having an abortion, which negatively impacts the child, or fetus if you prefer. Not a good comparison at all.

If you're so against this idea of foisting "personal responsibility" onto other people, then what would you do with the drunken driver who kills someone in an accident? Choices led to consequences, but certainly those consequences were unintended. And don't think that I'm trying to somehow imply sex is immoral or should be illegal or anything of the sort, because I'm not. Just like I'm not arguing that the alcohol that got the driver drunk the first place should be illegal. I'm just arguing that sometimes we make choices for ourselves that do affect other people's lives. So how far are you willing to take this "don't tell others what to do" philosophy?

More specifically related to the abortion debate, how would you answer the questions I posed at the end of post #146? I'm really curious about that.
 
151Seattle Zen
      ID: 56027123
      Sun, Jan 28, 12:31 		Mr. Pres.

If the 2 year old doesn't sleep through the night and isn't potty trained... Just kidding.

Two year olds are obviously "viable" as they are living outside of their mother. My argument naturally ends at viability.

I know that you generally are a liberal, Mr. Pres, and it pains you to be lumped in with conservatives, but in this instance, you are holding a conservative and, in my mind, antiquated position. You proclaim that you are not implying sex is immoral, but comparing it to drunken driving, which is morally reprehensable, is just such an implication. I believe that most anti-abortionists populate the "teach abstenence and only abstenence" lobby - "sex outside of marriage is wrong" which is a ridicuolously antiquated notion as I explained above.

What I meant by "I don't like telling people what they should and shouldn't do" is two fold. First, literally, I don't enjoy being a moral scold. Secondly, I do not have all the answers, nor do I hold myself out to be the fountain of all that is rightous and good. I dislike people who do, from Catherine MacKinnon to Pat Robertson. I stand by my "orginial sin" argument and it is ridiculous to draw the conclusion that therefore I do not believe in "personal responsibility" at all. Just like I believe in Family Values, just not yours, or Steve's or ...

Mr. Pres, many people (my sister included)think that killing animals is akin to murder. I still eat meat. Many people think abortion is murder. Oh, well.
 
152steve houpt
      ID: 5811592615
      Sun, Jan 28, 14:58 		Seattle Zen - "a bunch of conservative, narrow-minded men are not going to disuade any woman from controlling her destiny. To resent women who choose to end pregnancies they do not want to bring to term is misogyny at its worst."

"This is an old, outdated Christian, hell, even pre-Christian notion that sex is sin. Sure, in order to have a society 10,000 years ago, women needed a man to provide while she gave birth then raised their children."

Maybe the reason I have 'scoffed' at some of your arguments is how you make your argument. I have never in this thread called anyone that believes in abortion any type of fanatical left. Athiest. It is political because a small portion of the democratic party (the most vocal women (NOW, etc) pro lifer groups) give major dollars to the democratic party and a small portion of the republican party (the most vocal pro choice groups - Christian coalition) give major dollars to the republican party.

But the argument is not republican, democrat, conservative, liberal, Christian or non Christian. Arguments that attack others personal beliefs not based strictly on the subject annoy me the way the possible government involvement annoys you.

I've never said I didn't respect you beliefs. I have brought counter arguments to statements that don't address the 'real' subject IMHO, just attack some of the messengers as......

When this started, I was basically neutral. It was the law. May not have liked it, but figured it was a no win argument (it probably isn't). And if the law was changed again or modified, that's the way the system works. Was not going to fight either way. I'll still leave that to the groups that think it's worth all their energy and time to fight for it or against it.

I have to agree with Perm Dudes comments in P#80: "Actually, the pro-choice side is ill-served by idiots like Cantwell (as the pro-life side is ill-served by dittoheads). For example, the pro-choice side has been talking about "safe and legal" abortions for years, but I've seen very little work on making them safer (and the lack of doctors who perform abortions in some areas of the country make pro-choice advocates even less picky about who's doing the work). Doesn't keep them from bringing out the coathangers at every rally, however. The pro-life side would have you believe that those getting abortions are selfish sex-seekers who are using abortion as a form of birth control (at a few hundred dollars each, this seems to be a bit more than a pack of Trojans), and they seem more interested in scaring teens about the hazards of sex than educating them as to its proper place.

Note: I don't know or really care to know all the people on either side by name. Have no clue who Catherine MacKinnon is. Does it mean she's from Georgia because she's a peach? PD - Take it Cantrell is the Sen from Wash?

If I'm writing my Senators or Representatives, it might be on education, not abortion. I'll leave that to the experts on both sides at spinning. They have to do something for a living. :)

And to all, have Happy Super Bowl Sunday.
 
153Myboyjack
      ID: 4443038
      Tue, Feb 06, 10:03 		Sorry to bring this thread up to the top for no good reason; I was just wondering if anyone knew why it was that Ashcroft hasn't managed to single-handedly revoke Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas, yet. :)
 
154Perm Dude
      ID: 28059111
      Tue, Feb 06, 10:13 		He wanted to get rid of Roe v Wade right away, but (Thank God) the departing Clintonians stole all the W's.

;)

pd
 
155Myboyjack
      ID: 4443038
      Tue, Feb 06, 10:25 		LOL, Fred. BTW, Stop drafting all my players!
 
156Lutefisker
      ID: 351182513
      Tue, Feb 06, 22:52 		Seattle Zen says:

"Well, guess what, we now have birth control. We can have sex without fear of impregnating the woman, and THAT IS FANTASTIC! Not only that, but women can have children and survive in our society without a man providing and that, too, is FANTASTIC. Where before if men and women had sex, it almost always led to dire consequences, now it does not have to."


Seattle Zen: Men not being involved in the raising of their children has led to dire consequences. Crime rates among children of one parent in their life are higher. Education test scores and graduation rates are lower.

Of course... we blame the man for not sticking around... but then... I don't know... when you have women who have had the attitude that men are not needed... is it any surprise...

As for equality... this does not presently exist when a woman can legally "abort" her responsibility to raise a child but a man can not legally "abort" his responsibility of raising a child if the woman choses to have that child.

 
157Madman
      ID: 21020124
      Sun, Mar 24, 2002, 02:55 		myboyjack 153 The reason that Ashcroft hasn't been able to over-turn Roe v. Wade yet is that he's been too busy trying to track down and now prosecute the guy who sent hoax anthrax letters to abortion clinics.

Once he gets done protecting the abortion clinics, I'm sure he'll turn around and try to shut them down. Don't worry. :)
 
158Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 13:19 		BeliefNet asks: Why Didn't Ashcroft-the-Christian Stop The Torture?

[thanks to Guru for restoring this thread]
 
159Boxman
      ID: 3821468
      Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 14:05 		For the same reason Nancy Pelosi-The-Catholic is for abortion?
 
160Perm Dude
      ID: 23343612
      Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 14:16 		So Pelosi prevented the Christians in the Bush Adminsitration from following their conscience?
 
161Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 14:29 		Putting aside the irrelevance (and illogic) of a 'i-dont-have-to-answer-to-that-because-they-do-it-too' response to post 158, the obvious difference between Pelosi and Ashcroft is that even the political opposition never questioned the sincerity of Ashcroft's religious faith, even if some blasted some his particular brand of Christianity.
 
162Boxman
      ID: 3821468
      Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 15:23 		that even the political opposition never questioned the sincerity of Ashcroft's religious faith, even if some blasted some his particular brand of Christianity.

Please google "Ashcroft true Christian" or "Ashcroft sincere Christian" and let me know if you want to keep at it.
 
163Perm Dude
      ID: 23343612
      Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 15:25 		So you are saying that Ashcroft isn't a "true" Christian?

What would a "true" or "sincere" Christian have done?
 
164Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 09:58 		Boxman, the google searches you suggest, which you seem to believe sufficiently challenge me because they return no results, are not the least bit applicable as measures for the public perception of the sincerity of Ashcroft's religious faith.

This is either a somewhat embarrassing revelation that you really don't understand how google searches work or one of the more threadbare strawman arguments these boards have seen (and these boards have seen some pretty sorry scarecrows, let me tell you).

For example, while I don't know what you think of the faith of famous religious leaders and politicians with the following names, none of the following searches return any results, either:

"Reagan sincere Christian"
"Santorum sincere Christian"
"Benedict sincere Christian"
"John Paul sincere Christian"
"Dobson sincere Christian"
"Donohue sincere Christian"
"Falwell sincere Christian"
"Robertson sincere Christian"
"Graham sincere Christian"

Surely you wouldn't argue that none of the religious leaders and pols with those names are regarded as sincere in their faith? For the record, some of these names do return a handful of results when 'sincere' is replaced with 'true', as in your other suggestion. But if you plug them in yourself, you'll see that the instances are obviously too few and/or too incidental to suggest any legitimate trends.

Further, the following google searches also return a handful of results:

"Obama true Christian"
"Giuliani true Christian"
"Carter true Christian"
"Clinton true Christian"

As I believe you know, all of those pols support Roe V Wade, so hopefully I've sufficiently dashed the notion that receiving any (no returns) returns for such searches is not an indicator of the validity of the search (at least one with such phrasing structure).

And really this is all a pretty useless tangent, anyway. The point of post 158 is that I found it terribly interesting that a prominent Christian media outlet (highly regarded among the religious right, as far as I know, and if you had bothered to read the article, you'd note that they accept Ashcroft's religious devotion as a given) turned the focus on one of their own and asked the hard questions. This is something that is all too rare on the political right and I applaud BeliefNet for sticking to their values, even if it comes years after they might have had an opportunity to help prevent or stop torture committed by publicly avowed Christians in the name of morality.