bush - fool number one

[mahak]

I do not need to enumerate all the foolish activities of this dry-drunk butcher. If you still sing his praises, I have only pity for you, and if you are the majority of this electorate, the pity extends to the denizens of the entire century of so-called "Pax Americana".

 

I wish here only to delve into military strategy (which transcends political ideology, BTW). This arrogant man and his fascist handlers are wasting the U.S. military endowment while neglecting a rudimentary fact of military science.

 

If a defeated military is not soon given full military duty by the occupying force, no buffer is created to stand between the innocent victims of brutality and those forced, by ksatriya dharma (i.e. obedience to order from superior officers, etc.), to inflict such demoralizing defeat.

 

A quick exit of american forces is required, our troops are damaged and need the shelter of their own homeland. To engage the Republican Guard and Iraqi regular forces is necessary, and the operational requirement must be peacekeeping, meaning compassionate, yet firm, order. The granting of complete amnesty to a defeated military is the ONLY option for two basic reasons.

 

1. A stablized political climate which will prevent, by buffer, a bloody and extensive internal subversion, must be a priority production. The victor is crippled greatly by overextending the mission and ludicrous change from destruction to peacekeeping. NOTE: The U.S. is already a crippled victor and steps are absolutely required to support the troops by reassignment and medical and psychological repair. If immediate remedies are not forthcoming, not only does morale suffer, but the very real probability of mutiny, fraggin, etc. exponentially increases each day.

 

2. It is unreasonable to demand that defeated civilians and innocent non-combatants accept those who inflicted death and destruction on their homes as peacekeepers and men of good will. I wouldn't, nor would any stupid rednik amerikan. If amerika were defeated and occupation by the victor were to take place, the victor would be damned forever to snipers, bombers and all what we see in the daliy news. To be surprised at the killings of our soldiers by the Iraqis is also ludicrous, for we would all do the same thing in their shoes.

 

Bush is too stupid for common sense solutions to the havok he alone has wreaked, without justification. Besides his low IQ and lack of any programs thought out by himself, his tex-mex, western movie jargon is out of place, and also glorifies a time (the old west illusion) where the demoniac manifest destiny policies were also engaged in genocide.

 

Hope this line fills out. I ask the commenters relate to military strategy only, because bush is not worth debating his intellect. Everything he touches turns to catastrophe, and I just want to prevent a revolt against the office by the military, I wish to support the troops by honoring their commitment. To deny them rotation from the theater of operation is most disturbing, and rumsfeld should be arrested by the Generals immediately.

 

Haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

[I_love_krishna_]

Bush scored 600 big points on his SATS! lmao /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

Its not on one part but 2 parts put together... hmm

 

In which part do you think he scored the most points?

 

English or Math?

 

/images/graemlins/grin.gif I can't do that poll thing because i don't know how! damn it!

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Haribol, sounds right, the peaceniks just want to pretend that everything is mellow, veg out. Meanwhile, the US is being covered by fascist imperialism, lawlessness at the top. As I promised, I will not use this thread to bush-bash on incompetance, and will just deal with military issues.

 

A serious federal felony has been committed by the administration, and the democrats just give permission. The bush wannabes accross the aisle just want to seem like they are not reactionary, so they let these nazis continue the purge of our democracy.

 

The felony is not unlike the Rosenburg folks who were executed for their treason. They exposed agents who were undercover, and this administration, in their continuing cover-up of their evil and illegal sack of Iraq, sluffed off the blame for their intentional misleading the American public (re WMD) by "outing" a CIA agent assigned with tracking such weaponry. They not only ended the career of this agent, they also put her family in grave danger.

 

Also, when the war first broke, we sanctimoniously criticized the news agencies for showing american dead bodies, clearly complaining that such activity is against the Geneva convention. Now, we hypocrites do the same thing by parading the folks we murdered (I say murdered because it was a simple matter to arrest the sons of Saddam, which would have provided ANSWERS).

 

Not only is this military incompetance, it is criminal murder so the truth stays hidden.

 

I shed no tears for these brothers, Im too busy crying for the amerikkkan leadership who have adopted the worst of totalitarian practices.

 

Ane we keep seeing our children die for this goon, and since the war was declared "over" by the AWOL deserter who donned a uniform and pretended to be a loyal military man on May 1, more american military folks have dies than during the "war".

 

Wake up. I know it is boring, I know there is better things to talk about and think about. I type here just to let off steam, because if Bush really shows that he is fool number one, and the "New" democrats take power, wew will just continue the same . under liberman or kerry or other candidates who wrote bush a blank check to carry out the manifest destiny genocide, which has backfired.

 

later, mudmon (aka mahaksadasa)

[Guest guest]

Haribol, I just typed my disgust with the clinton rednik democrats and the secular zionist democrats. Who will I vote for?

 

I will never sign on to anyone who gave bush permission to avenge his fathers assassination attempt. In my home state, only jim mc dermott, who has been vilified as a traitor by many, and Ms. Murray, refused to give such permission. On the national scene, my man is kisinich from Ohio (who is a very unique person, it behooves the vaisnavas to study the character of this guy), and howard dean (both pro life, anti-gun controlBTW), these are the only two, and I hope they are the ticket, which will give us a clear choice.

[theist]

And what do you think of the fact that Kucinich was strongly pro-life until he decided to run and now is OK with abortion rights?

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich022003.asp

 

I will never vote for someone who supports the right to murder the unborn.

[Guest guest]

Haribol, yes, it is unfortunate that stances change. But, I know many who voted for bush for his gun rights position who are now seething about how his dismantling of the constitution which will take their guns anyway.

 

As far as statistics go, abortions soared under reagan and king george I, but leveled off under clinton. Pro life means post partum concern as well, and all the right wingers are to eager to cut off unwed mothers, cut off WIC, cut off child care, etc.

 

Anyway, sorry I brought up the "dead" issue of abortion on this thread, designed to discuss military strategies of the buffoon idiot running things "in proxy",( cause the dry drunk cant run his own life, cant run a bank, cant run a baseball team, and cant keep his nose out of the white stuff).

 

mahak

[Guest guest]

I would just like to comment that the media black out regarding Bush family and Bin Laden family business connections as recently as spring '01 are a little confounding to me....likewise the overwhelming proportion of Saudi's on the planes that were hijacked and the corresponding lack of conversation about Saudi support of anti-Israeli/US terrorism is a bit amazing. Likewise, the silent treatment regarding the no-bid contract for Halliburton oil for any and all reconstruction efforts n Iraq are stupefying.

 

At what point are American's going to get up off the f*%#ing couch and educate themselves about their government. They lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc. for purposes that are meant only to create economic windfall to the corporations and corporate sectors that support them most.

 

This war isn't about anything more than that. It's about $$$, control of oil, and the furthering of a Bush Administration propoganda effort to keep American's scared of impending doom so that legislation like Patriot Act, Total Information Act, Homeland Security, etc. can be passed without so much as a blink.

 

Why have we not heard anymore about Ken Lay getting off scott free for stealing the retirement benefits of 10's of thousands of Enron employee's? Because Enron was the single largest campaign contributor to the Bush election effort. Why was there a media black out surrounding the "suicides" of 4 people very closely tied to the Enron scandal on the eve's of their testimony that would have further implicated Ken Lay and likely the Bush family as well?

 

Bush is a criminal. This is a fact not to be refuted by any. He has set this country back more than a cnetury with reagards to civil liberties, international diplomacy, economic policy, and fiscal solvency. And he's done this in 2 short years. Please encourage everyone one you know to learn the facts about our present regime and to voice their opinions on election day '04. By then I'm guessing he'll have us on the brink of WWIII and Great Depression 2.

 

RM

[trupti]

Goodness. I have had enough with bush. You know i am from texas and i do not like him at all. I dont know if you have not noticed, but the man does not do speeches well. i dont know how someone with his creditials can become president. He smoked so much crack in the 70s that is probably why he can not talk without slurring his words. Our economy sucks and just yesterday, on Sunday for that matter, comes on tv and says, "by the way, i need some more money for this war". He did not even come prepared, he did not even fully explain what this money is for. When i need money and i ask my parents they are like, ummm welll what is it for, how much, why? Dont we have the right to ask these questions when he is asking for so much money. and now, this new war on iraq. He tries his hardest to make a connection b/w al queda and iraq, but now matter how hard he trys, he fails to show a connection. I just hope that we do not have to face another four years of goerge bush, unfortunatley, it seems as though we may. There are not any strong leaders taht oppose him. he will win. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

 

i know this is a little off topic, but...Has anyone watch the osbournes on mtv? do you see the shape of ozzie? when i am surfing the channels and there is only that on tv, it is so funny to see his behavior. It is insane. thaat is what drugs do to you. i think i will tape the show and when it comes time when i have children and need to teach/explain the evils of drugs, show them the tape of ozzie, ifyou do drugs, this will happen to you, or you may, to a lesser degree, end up like george bush. Scarry isnt it kids!!!

[Kulapavana]

Both parties and most if not all politicians in US are totally corrupted by the special interest money and big time demons pulling the strings of puppets like Bush. Not voting simply maintains the status quo. Voting 3rd party seems to be the only option, mainly at this point to weaken the 2 party system. With time (when people see how many voted for 3rd party) such 3rd party candidates may even have a real chance at presidency, but it will put both dems and reps on notice. I vote libertarian, as they seem to have the most practical approach.

[mahak]

Democracy is greatly flawed, because the electorate is ignorant and very easily manipulated.

 

Nader made the gore presidency disappear, and put bush into office. Hillary is going to take care of the democratic party threat to bush and gang.

 

Democrats cannot oppose bush at the same time they give him whatever he wants to carry out his purge of humanity.

 

Our only hope is in the republican party rejecting this nazi. He needs to have opposition similar to nixon's opposer, pete mcClosky during Nam.

 

Im hoping the good republicans can get out of their subserviance to anti-christion fanatics and mount real change, like mcCain, or even elizabeth dole.

 

kicinich is still my man, but he will be buried by the likes of the revisionists who give bush his bucks, like kerry and gephardt.

 

No vote is a good vote, a vote of no confidence. I have trouble with third party dudes who decry those who cast their non-votes, because a non-vote is less damaging than the third party vote that is geared to simplistic, one-issue-only idealogy.

 

mudmon

[theist]

And how do they feel about abortion?

 

War is caused by animal slaughter and abortion to a great degree. People that pass themselves off as anti-war and pro-choice are highly confused and ignorant of the facts.

[Kulapavana]

no vote perpetuates the 2 party system - period. special interes people just have to bribe 2 sides = cheaper vote buying. I used to vote republicans in the past, but they have also shamelessly sold out to special interests in a wholesale matter.

 

libertarians are mostly pro-life, pro-gun and anti-big government, anti-free trade.

[Guest guest]

Haribol, theist. War has many symptoms, and many comparisons. The animal slaughter you mention is not a cause for war. Srila Prabhupada noted that the feelings of mother cow at the loss of her offspring to the slaughterhouse is not unlike mothers losing their children to war. Abortion is a war in itself, not a cause for other wars. Abortion is a war between mankind and those unborn who threaten imagined resources.

 

Srimad Bhagavatam notes Bhumi (Mother earth) lamentation about war. I dont know the actual citation, but I remember something about lies being the cause of war. This seems quite accurate in todays wars. The lies orf democrats and republicans alike lead to such wars. Bush is a liar about saddam having anything to do with 911. LBJ was a liar about the gulf of tonkin incident because the USS Turner Joy was 1000 miles away from the lie that plunged US into Vietnam and brutally murdered 5,000,000 people from 1964-1977 (the war brutally murdered that many, US responsible for onlu half that, but their boy pol pot did the others.

 

libertarians dont get in the way of decisions of the individual. I have heard one lib being greatly against abortion, saying the preborn deserve such liberties as well.

 

I reject the term Pro-choice in favor of pro-abortion. There are those who say they are pro-life who are the greatest murderers of humans walking the face of the earth, our own goon administration frinstance.

 

Pro and anti abortion, has nothing to do with choice or life.

 

But I agree, that said, that one cannot be anti war and pro abortion. Abortion is a heinous war against those who have no weapons, the most criminal application of war. But it is based on the lie that genitals have purposes other than procreation. Why are they called genitals, fools.

 

haribol, ys, mahak

[stonehearted]

What's this post responding to? I see no direct mention of libertarians in Mahaksa's post. He does say, though, that he's not impressed by any third-party candidates (that would include Libertarians).

 

I have never registered as either a Republican or Democrat. My first presidential vote (1968) was for Dick Gregory, who was the Peace and Freedom Party's candidate in Virginia. It was a none-of-the-above vote (as much as I respected Gregory, I couldn't really see him as president). In 1976, I helped establish a third party in Hawaii called Independents for Godly Government. Mahaksa and I were reunited by that effort, inspired by Siddhasvarupananada. We had devotees as candidates all over the state. Our candidate for US House of Representatives from the 1st District (Honolulu and urban Oahu) got over 27,000 votes. This was hardly enough to win, but it was a good showing.

 

I like the idea of third parties challenging the chokehold the two major parties have on US politics, but there are none since IGG whose entire platform I can endorse. I like a lot about the Green party, but, as teist will be quick to point out, their stand on abortion is repugnant to us. In fact, many, many US Greens are uncomfortable with that, but too many Greens see abortion rights as part and parcel of gender equality. the party recognizes that many Greens see abortion rights as inconsistent with the nonviolence plank of the party's platform. I think change in this regard would require a concerted effort, maybe even a good-cop/bad-cop targeting of the Green heart (Babhru and theist double-teaming). I admit to a great relief when my Nader vote in 2000 had no part in Bush's victory, since all of California's electoral votes went for Gore. Again, as much as I admire a lot of Nader's work over the last 40-odd years, I couldn't see him as President, and I didn't buy his Teedle-dee/Tweedle-dum(b) argument. No vote on president would have been okay, but I have long wanted to help rattle the two biggies.

 

The Natural Law Party has some good characteristics, too, although I admit I'm suspicious of its close connection with TM.

 

I also respect the refusal to vote for anyone unworthy. I've done that a lot over the years, and my daughters both do that quite a bit.

[theist]

The post was in reference to Kulyapayana's mention of himself as voting Libertarian. I don't know that much about them but have never heard one speak that would prohibit abortion.

 

There are so many issues in society. No onem person or party will represent us 100%. So I have to break it down as best I can. Prabhupada's teachings most match up with the Republicans at this point.

 

The Democrats are the party that is sold out to ensuring this so-called right to choose on abortion. All other issues take a back seat to the slaughter of babies in the womb in my opinion. Animal rights also but that is many moons away.

[Guest guest]

Haribol,gotta run, but gotta say that Im glad gore lost. but bush, as well as he means, is dumb and controlled by others with serious demoniac motives.

 

Prabhupada's teachings have nothing to do with any party, republican or otherwise. There is no republican platform that jives with promoting the samkirtana movement. There is no compatibility between bush and prabhupada in any way shape or form. Only jimmy carter was warm to the krsna devotees. The only christian sect with any tolerance to the movement is the presbeterians.

 

attachment to governmental affairs is an anartha to spiritual life. Srila Prabhupada is clear on this point in his many discussions about his meeting with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur. Prabhupada tried to state Gandhi's mission and the positive effect he would have on the world, and Bhaktisiddhanta "soundly defeated all my proposals." Republicans come nowhere near the standard of Gandhi, and have nowhere near the piety of this man of democratic and liberal idealism, and they are soundly defeated as well.

 

After all, all these party-politics are only on the surface of the earth, one inch above the surface, there is no such nonsense. But that gets back to simultaneous reality and multiverse theory.

 

haribol, ys, mahak

[theist]

did you start this thread?

 

Why is there varna-ashram?

 

I don't see trying to inject some basic principles of human life into govt. as being an anartha.

 

Thinking you have to free India before you can preach Mahaprabhu's message would be an example of an anartha.

 

Anyway I am off this thread.

 

Hare Krsna

 

 

attachment to governmental affairs is an anartha to spiritual life.

 

 

[stonehearted]

theist: The post was in reference to Kulyapayana's mention of himself as voting Libertarian.

 

Oh. I only asked because your post is presented as a response to Mahaksa's post. If it had ben linked to Kulapavana's, there would have been no confusion. And, I guess, no need for me to go on and on boring readers about my own involvement in politics.

 

I think your characterization of the Democrat party is an oversimplification, but I know why you see it that way and don't fault you for that perspective in any way. The Republicans are similarly completely sold out to the ideal of keeping power in the hands of rich capitalists. Both parties are centered on demoniac ideals.

[Guest guest]

Haribol, why politics? Why sports, why rock and roll music, why movies. I am in maya, that is all. I like a break now and then, talk a little story. It is not to be confused with krsna katha, but in the context of talkin story, a little friendship and intellectual stimulation may take place. Like swimmin or wrasslin, maya, but maya can be used in krsna's service as well. Srila Prabhupada confronted the mundane conversation of his disciples, he simply wanted us to try to inject reality within the confines of our impossible to break gossip sessions.

 

So I talk politics, and I do note bush's good qualities. In fact, I note bush's good personage beiong destroyed by the horrible association he has with fundamentalist fanatics who are denying the authority of their guru, Lord Jesus Christ. Bush may be innocent, but he is greatly unfortunate (and in extreme risk).

 

Haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

 

PS as with all the dems too.

[theist]

So I am back afterall. I'm simply out of control.

 

You see Mahak I don't fault you for an interest in the affairs of the world. I just don't see it as an anartha or maya when connected up with Krsna. That was my point.

 

Social progress (towards Godhead) is the point of varnashrama. It's the point of government. The Pandavas were involved. Krsna Himself is involved. The brahmana's who got rid of Vena were involved and so was Maharaja Prthu.

 

The way i see we are not going to be able to impose some romanticized version of Vedic culture on Western society. We have to work with what is actually before us to move society towards some essential principles that are laid out in the shastra without worrying about the externals too much.

 

For one thing there is no more monarchy. The idea of a saintly king may be best but its time is gone for this age. So we are left with this democracy with all its faults.

 

I see the nexus between animal slaughter abortion and war as brought to light by Srila Prabhupada. As these predominate in society self realization because a near impossibility.

 

To deny some soul a human form which is the one form from which self realization can be realized is to me the height of demonic acts.

 

The Democratics are sold out to the abortion rights lobby 100%. therefore I oppose them. Other reasons also.

 

They are all sold out to hard core capitalists. Kerry who wants to be President is married to the heiress of the Heinz catsup fortune. The Rockefellers are Democrats. The Kennedys' are Democrats. To think the Demos are the peoples party and the Republicans are the rich capitalists is really too simplistic.

[stonehearted]

theist: To think the Demos are the peoples party and the Republicans are the rich capitalists is really too simplistic.

 

Well said. The Republicans like Limbaugh accuse the Democrats of being a party of elites and claim that the Republicans are the working people's party, and the Democrats say the same. They're both on the right track about the other party and lying through their blood-drenched teeth about themselves. They are both parties of the demoniac elite and they work hard to perpetuate their own power. Limbaugh says that the Dems are all about regaining power and nothing else. That's also just as true of the Republicans when they're out of power. And now their focus is retaining power, whatever they have to do, whoever they have to kill, whatever lies they have to perpetuate. That's one reason I like the idea of third parties to challenge this (I think I said this before) stranglehold on American life. I'm just not nuts about any of the third parties.

[mahak]

I agree with your points, theist, it is what I was saying about the often losing proposition of a devotee trying to inject some reality in the illusion.

 

I differ from you in some regards. Im about as anti-abortion as can be, but as an industry, it will not go away, either by republicans or democratic leadership.

 

As in a previous post, i noted another lie of the republicans. They OWN all three arms of our system, executive, legislative, and judicial, so why is not roe v wade overturned? The idea that denies the "ghost in the machine" is denied by all regardless of the rhetoric they spew, so, another tactic must be taken.

 

I hate democrats generally because of their cold-heartedness about life from conception, but some democrats have social programs that may cut down on the actual event of abortion. Social programs, despite the vehement opposition of republicans, are the way of godly government. The leaders must take care of the people, especially the downtrodden and needy.

 

So, though a candidate may be opposed to overturning r v w, if he wants to provide a reasonable living to single parents, a certain benefit to families that choose to have one parent at home, etc, Ill certainly support. Same with meat eating. I will vote for a hamburger head because vegetarians dont run for office on that level. And if they did, they would not get my vote because they did not eat cows, because some of the most horrible people have been non-cow-eaters, like hitler, charlie manson, and some of our own demoniac folks who pretend to be devotees.

 

I bring up kicinich again, and this is because of a stand he has taken against something that I cannot, for the life of me, understand why conservatives and constitutionalists support. Kicinich has promised that on the day of his inauguration, he will cancel the patriot act and any other nonsense that bush has made pretending to protect us from the so-called terrorist. The founding fathers have stated that to trade rights for security is to end up with neither.

 

But alas, I am a realist. Kicinich is too good for the USA. Hell never make it. Hillary or gore or other money muck corporate goons will get the nomination.

 

Ya see, I remember eugene mcCarthy. He was a heavy cat, way righteous. He stopped the liar LBJ cold, but the dems put RFK in there to slow him down, and when he was offed, HHH was artificially called the peoples choice, and heads were cracked on the bloody streets of chicago to pave the way for the idiocy of the nixon era. Nothing is different today, 40 years later. The assassins are now the terrorists, but the fact remains that the only ones profitting from 911 are the corporate goons, the same profiteers from nam, korea, wwI and II. The corporate exploiters, the hiranyakasipus, dont take sides. Ford and GM and GE made most of the machines that killed our soldiers in the mud of France in 1944, their allaince with the german industrialists IB Farbin, the italian giants, etc, this is well known.

 

In iraq, the same thing. The industrialists have their charts all made out much prior to 911, even prior to the kuwait invasion of 1990. Whoever is elected will be subserviant to such corporate industrialism, and a vote by an individual makes absolutely no difference.

 

When grass roots candidates get lucky, interferance ruins their plans, like carter, like clinton, like mccarthy. Now we see bushies whining about the criticism leveled at them, completely forgetting the unreasonable garbage they leveled on the previous administration. They cry "traitor" when someone does not support the office of their man, but did they support the office from 1992-2000? I dont care for Ms Clinton, but her treatment by the opposition was unheard of, and horrible in comparison to the other first ladies in our history. So all the whinin by the bushies about the pot-shots taken at him are the utmost in hypocracy.

 

Anyway, I appreciate theist views on the subject, as well as my friend from little chicago (honomu) in the old days. We talkin story here. Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[stonehearted]

mahak: Im about as anti-abortion as can be, but as an industry, it will not go away, either by republicans or democratic leadership.

 

Exactly. The only way to actually get rid of it is to induce a change of heart throughout our culture, even if we have to do it one heart at a time. And I think there's some room for a good-cop/bad-cop kind of thing--some of theist's Hellfire and brimstone and my trying to meet others where they are and help them discover humam life. It only really works, though, if we show them genuine spiritual life.

 

Kucinich may be cool; I like a lot of what I've heard from him, but where's he on abortion? That's a real question, BTW. Anyone heard? I think I always assumed he was on the wrong side.

 

I, too, remember Chicago '68. I was on leave from the Navy and watched pretty much whatever was on the three networks. I was so disgusted, I ended up voting for Dick Gregory for president. I admired him, and although I couldn't see him as president, I decided to make my statement. No regrets--I could never have voted for Humphrey after what happened in Chicago. And I voted for a third party in '84 because I couldn't vote for Mondale, mainly because I still associated him with the '68 election.

 

And Honomu is rather different from the Honomu we remember from the '70s. Plenty of artsy tourist shops and restaurants, a little more polite.

[theist]

 

Kucinich may be cool; I like a lot of what I've heard from him, but where's he on abotion? That's a real question, BTW. Anyone heard? I think I always assumed he was on the wrong side.

 

 

He is on the wrong side now.

 

Kucinich used to be pro-life. That is until he decided to run for the top office as a Democrat, so now he has changed to pro-choice. You can't be a Democrat and successfully run for office. being a Democrat means you have to go KA at NARAL.

 

Anyone who can change convictions on such an issue isn't worth 5 pieces of used toilet paper. He is also a vegan but once he got in their is nothing practical he could do to stop animal slaughter.

 

The difference Mahak on the abortion issue to animal slaughter is its just a matter of getting the right people in the Supreme Court. Right now I believe it is 5 to 4 abortion rights. We just need 1 judge.

 

That is why the Democrats blocked the recent nomination of Miguel Estrada by filibuster. They are afraid of his views on life and were also afraid he would rise from a federal judgeship into the Supreme Court some day.

 

Even though the Republicans hold a one vote majority it takes 60 of 100 votes to override a filibuster just to get to have a vote on the floor where a simple majority of 51 would have accepted him. This was ALL about abortion.

 

It is so close, but as long as Demoncrats keep getting elected it won't change.

 

During the dark Clinton years there were two bills that made it through Congess to stop partial birth abortion. Clinton vetoed them both. We still have partial birth abortions in the USA thanks to one disciple of Kamsa, Bill Clinton.

 

Babhru this is not hell fire. Abortion is hell fire.

[theist]

February 20, 2003, 9:10 a.m.

Kucinich’s Choice

Does the presidential contender mean what he says on abortion?

 

By David Enrich

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich022003.asp

 

If Dennis Kucinich has his way, he will use his long-shot presidential campaign to rail against war with Iraq and free-trade agreements like NAFTA. Conventional wisdom holds that if the Ohio congressman is to have any impact in the Democratic primary, it will be by pushing his more mainstream rivals to the left on war and trade issues.

 

But a less conspicuous issue — Kucinich's shifting stances on abortion — could come out of the woodwork to haunt the candidate, and perhaps his party.

 

During his first three terms in Congress, Kucinich compiled a consistently pro-life voting record, earning a 95-percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee in 2000. "He absolutely believes in the sanctity of life and that life begins at conception," Kucinich's spokeswoman explained last year.

 

But the feisty 56-year-old Catholic, whose political career is littered with upset victories, has changed course. "I support a woman's right to freedom of choice," Kucinich says now. "I do not believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned." He vowed last week to an Iowa audience that "as president, I would protect that right [to abortion], and I would also make sure that appointees to the Supreme Court protected that right."

 

Kucinich is following in the footsteps of Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, and other Democrats who flip-flopped on abortion shortly before launching presidential bids. Pro-choice groups are divided over whether the metamorphosis is genuine or a political ploy.

 

"He understands that this is a fundamental freedom. Do I think that's sincere? Yes I do," says Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. She says the transformations of Kucinich and past Democrats are "the opposite of being political. When they were being anti-choice, it was the political thing to do maybe. At that time, their position was expected of them to be anti-choice. I think they've thought a lot more about this issue and came to the decision after a great deal of thought and not as a reflex."

 

Others are not so sure. Kucinich's pro-choice makeover "is testament to the fact that he realizes the power of this issue, certainly within the Democratic camp," says David Williams, political director of Planned Parenthood. "This is something that remains a very powerful issue and will in time emerge in the selection process of a Democratic candidate." Williams says he isn't persuaded by Kucinich's recent pro-choice rhetoric.

 

Another possible sign that Kucinich's morphing position could push abortion into Democratic debates: Democrats for Life, a national group, is urging members to contact Kucinich to tell him "to stick by his principles and continue his strong pro-life advocacy."

 

Democrats could face growing pressure to confront the abortion question if Kucinich ever is seen as a relevant candidate. "The Kucinich position on abortion could have a real impact, but that assumes he becomes a factor," says Larry J. Sabato, the head of University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "The other candidates are going to let him get away with anything unless he becomes a factor, in which case they will unload on him, and so will the press." And Kucinich's candidacy probably will fizzle out if the economy recovers and a war with Iraq doesn't drag on.

 

But assuming that the war and economy are issues that resonate with Democrats this fall, protest candidates like Kucinich will not need outright victories to be successful. In Iowa, which holds its crucial first-in-the-nation caucuses in less than a year, Kucinich could exploit his strong labor ties to siphon votes away from Gephardt, widely considered the frontrunner in Iowa because of his 1988 victory and his union support. "If Kucinich gets two or three percent from Gephardt," Sabato says, "it could cost him the caucuses" — and the campaign. That scenario might not trouble Kucinich, because Gephardt infuriated many Democratic doves when he endorsed last year's congressional war resolution.

 

So far, Kucinich's abortion transformation hasn't received much attention from the media or Democratic activists in Iowa or elsewhere. The Des Moines Register, for example, has not mentioned his stand on abortion. But if his campaign gains traction, Kucinich's voting record probably will become more important, forcing some Democrats to balance their opposition to war against their support for abortion rights.

 

"I think that would be a real stumbling block for a Democrat," says Cary R. Covington, a political scientist at the University of Iowa. "The Democrats are trying to make domestic issues more prominent, so certainly if a candidate challenges one of the core constituencies of the party, that is something that would have to be resolved."

 

Iowa caucus-goers "tend to be more liberal-leaning, which means that pro-life is not necessarily a position given much consideration," says a Democratic-party official in Iowa. "His pro-life position is certainly going to hurt him among [unions'] rank and file." At the same time, the official says, Kucinich's abortion stance "may help him in other areas [such as Dubuque] where Catholic Democrats vote pro-life."

 

Ultimately, the biggest impact of Kucinich's handling of the abortion issue could be self-destructive, undercutting his from-the-heart appeal. "When he is forced to talk about [abortion], he's going to mouth the word 'choice,'" Sabato says. "He's going to try to fuzz it up and let the war [issue] satisfy the left wing. This fellow isn't exactly the straight-talker he says he is. "