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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (4206)	9/21/1998 3:32:00 PM
From: j_b	Respond to of 67261

<< some here have accused Clinton of "waffling" on issues etc. - personally, thats fine with me. I want a president to listen to me not preach to me.>> Interesting editorial in this weekends SJ Mercury about Lundgren and Davis, especially as regards abortion. Lundgren bases his policy decisions on his philosophy (obviously heavily shaded by his religious feelings) where Davis bases his decisions on positions on each issue. As regards abortion, since Lundgren considers it to be murder, no abortion would be allowable other than to save the life of the mother (he calls that self-defense). No exceptions regarding rape or incest would be allowable. The approach is internally consistent, even if you disagree with it. Contrast that with Davis' approach. You might like where he ends up better, but there is no could have abortions for some circumstances but not others, okay up to a certain stage of the pregnancy but illegal afterward, etc. He logic to how he gets there. He doesn't really stand for anything - he will vote however he thinks his constituents want him to. You doesn't really stand for choice, or he would oppose restrictions at all stages of the pregnancy. He is always willing to compromise because he doesn't really have any convictions, only positions. I think that's where so many of the disagreements come from. It's hard for someone that has a philosophical approach to all aspects of making policy to understand how his opponent ever comes to his positions, since they're based on opinion polls or representing special interests. I wouldn't have a problem with the House being that way, if the Senate would take the other approach. I would rather the Senate was not influenced by special interests, but weighed everything against some philosophies that were central to the nation, to see if the laws being proposed were actually in the best interest of the country. That way, you get a feel for what the people want, but balanced by thoughtful, reasoned discussion, to prevent the minority from being trampled by the majority, and to prevent passion and emotion from causing long-term problems.