Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: arun gera who wrote (44742)	9/17/2002 10:10:01 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Bush family and birth control issues have an interesting history. One concise tidbit buried in the google cache: Bush's [GWB,43] dad [GHWB, 41], during his four years in Congress in the late 1960s, was such a supporter of family planning -- including making birth-control counseling and devices available in public hospitals -- that the late Wilbur Mills, Ways and Means Committee chairman at the time, nicknamed him 'Rubbers.'" [editorial, Austin American-Statesman, 1/29/00] 216.239.51.100 GHWB was able to jettison that particular line fairly easily when the time came, though. And his original "family planning" kick allegedly had a strong eugenics component to it anyway. Just for entertainment, here is the editorial refered to above: Bush waffles on abortion stance Austin American Statesman; Austin; Jan 29, 2000; DAVE MCNEELY; Gov. George W. Bush has tried to avoid the abortion issue for the most part, but in trying to win the Republican nomination, he's finally stepped partly out of the caution box. And that could come back to haunt him in the general election. After incessant hammering from staunchly pro-life GOP competitors in Iowa, Bush finally criticized the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling threw out state laws that prohibited abortions. "Roe vs. Wade was a reach (and) overstepped the constitutional bounds, as far as I'm concerned," Bush said Jan. 21, responding to a question about what his potential judicial appointees would think of the decision. That drew immediate fire from the Democrats, whose platform endorses a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. "If Bush appoints judges and Supreme Court justices who share this view, then the law that protects women's reproductive freedom would be jeopardized," said a press statement from the Democratic National Committee. "Women would lose the right to make their own decisions about their personal medical care." Running for governor in 1994 against pro-choice Democratic incumbent Ann Richards, Bush said he personally opposed abortion except in cases involving rape, incest or the mother's health. The Supreme Court had begun to backtrack on Roe vs. Wade by 1989, when it upheld Missouri's effort to begin to re-regulate abortion. Even so, while Bush said he wanted parental notification before abortions, he said he would not seek to overhaul Texas law, which essentially tracks Roe vs. Wade in allowing abortions through the first trimester. "I will uphold the law as governor," Bush said then. "There are going to be abortions when I'm governor of Texas." However, when asked this year about the Republican Party's platform plank that calls for a constitutional amendment to outlaw all abortions -- with no exceptions for rape or incest -- Bush replied, "I want to keep the platform the same. My position has not changed." The 1996 GOP platform says: "The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. . . . "We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life." Bush's hesitation to talk about abortion is an acknowledgment of how divisive a political issue it is, a lesson he could have learned from watching his father's career. The desire to steer a middle course between polar views is a major reason he focused his abortion efforts on parental notification -- which he finally got the Texas Legislature to agree to last year. Bush's dad, during his four years in Congress in the late 1960s, was such a supporter of family planning -- including making birth- control counseling and devices available in public hospitals -- that the late Wilbur Mills, Ways and Means Committee chairman at the time, nicknamed him "Rubbers." In those days, abortion was against the law in Texas and not yet a consuming issue nationally. In that context, Bush's description of a fellow congressman's argument for legal abortions as "most enlightening" was pushing the envelope for a Republican. A little more than a decade later, when Ronald Reagan offered Bush the vice presidential nomination, he endorsed Reagan's pro-life stance. When the elder Bush was running for president in 1988, his campaign manager, the late Lee Atwater, tried to talk Republicans into adopting a "Big Tent" attitude that allowed divergent beliefs about abortion. But it was rejected then and has been since. And federal law through the Bush administration and since outlaws use of federal money for abortions. And so on. . . . Bush rival John McCain's statement that his 15- year-old daughter could decide for herself whether to have an abortion -- amended later in the day to say it would be a family decision -- was reminiscient of former Vice President Dan Quayle in 1992. Quayle told a TV interviewer his daughter could decide for herself.

To: arun gera who wrote (44742)	9/17/2002 10:10:13 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

Do you really believe people who pay the money expect nothing? Of course not. In the main, what happens is that people give money to candidates that represent their views. What the bigger givers want to buy is "access," the ability to get the Politician on the phone or meet him at his office. "Money is the Mother's Milk of Politics." The big Corporate givers give to both Parties, and even to individuals who do not agree with them, just to make sure they can see them when they want to. We have developed a "Check and Balance" system by default. Since we have a "one man, one vote" system, we would be subject to the total robbery of the rich by the poor though the ballot box without some way to stop it. We use two methods to correct this. Our Constitution, and Money. The Rich pay Politicians to protect their interests, and have some Constitutional protection. The poor use the ballot box to influence what they want the Politicians to do. This results in the constant Political struggle that we witness daily. (Hey, I started this whole conversation with a comment on "Bakeesh")

To: arun gera who wrote (44742)	9/17/2002 10:38:52 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

Do you really believe people who pay the money expect nothing? When I give money to a political campaign, I don't expect that I will benefit personally in any way. Of course, I am not a multimillionaire. But even if I were, I wouldn't expect any favors. Where I come from originally (Louisiana), it's a different story. Politicians hand out stacks of $20 bills to campaign workers who drive around and gather as many people hanging out in bars that they can buy. In places like that, good government types try to get the bars closed down when the poll booths are open. In Chicago, the aldermen make sure their supporters get the snow plowed from their streets before anybody else.