roguenuke

I know the candidate's party matters in that people look at it when voting because they figure the party they most associate themselves with candidate's views are probably going to be closest to their own. I do understand that part. But I can't agree that whichever party's candidate is elected, that is the exact platform that we are getting. The President is most likely to sign/veto bills according to his own beliefs with possible input from his cabinet and mostly in line with his party politics, but not strictly according to his party's platform. If every President signed/vetoed bills according to his political party's platform, this would definitely be a different country. Look Clinton gave us DADT, even though his party probably wanted no discrimination at all (unlike most Republicans, I believe gays should be allowed in the military openly and full marriage rights). I liked Clinton. I hoped Gore would get elected in 2000 but wanted Bush reelected in '04 (I only voted in '04 but not for Kerry or Bush, and was out to sea for both elections). The only reason a President would vote closer to his party's platform even when it went away from his own would be if he felt that it would truly cost him votes for a second term. I could see this possibly happening for an issue like giving illegal immigrants amnesty but not for abortions for women when it threatens their life. Even many hardcore prolifers accept that as an acceptable reason. I think any President would be stupid to try to get something like that through Congress, not that it would get very far anyway. And the amount of negative backlash toward such a President would be very bad for any reelection attempts. He would look like an uncaring heartless jerk to even a lot of pro-life people.

American

Danarhea, Obama will be killing babies as they leave the womb.

__________________
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." -- Thomas Jefferson יהוה

Marilyn Monroe

I think the Pubs are just throwing this into their platform to please the Evangelicals, it has no chance of ever changing IMHO. I don't agree with McCain on this issue, but it will be how he stands on ALL the issues that will determine how I vote.

__________________
"It's not that I'm afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens." Woody Allen.

Jerry

IMO, since McCain is a RINO Republican who nearly left the party, selecting a far rightist is a suitable counter balance. The fact that Palin is a woman is just gravy. Mc.Cain+Palin≠total ban of abortion. McCain+Palin=balanced republican judicial nominees.

I’m Anti-Abortion (to be distinguished from Pro-Life), and I’m here to tell you that first-term elective abortion is never going away. It sucks, but that’s the way it is.

__________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
~~Thomas Jefferson

Truth Detector

Great commentary; top the above off with Obama's promises to:

(1) Create 5,000,000 high paying jobs
(2) Make the US energy independent
(3) Reduce taxes for everyone below the $250K threshold (even though he is planning to allow the Bush tax cuts to lapse which will mean an automatic increase to EVERYONE)
(4) Healthcare for every person in the US.

While we hear all the skepticism, criticism and character attacks by the media on Pahlin, a mother that epitomizes the Women's movement, not a word of skepticism about Obama's promises. Not one peep questioning how in the hell he plans and bringing this about.

When you ask Democrats, the response is that it is just campaign speak. Say what? So promises made in Obama's speeches are not intended to be taken seriously? Then why take his candidacy serious at all?

Truth Detector

Why do people like you think that the ONLY answer is abortion? Why is the choice that we need to make equates to murdering an innocent life?

Abortion on demand is a Democrat platform and one that Obama claims is above his pay grade?

Why do we argue this issue when the issue is painfully clear; rather than murdering an innocent life, why is it we can't make the choice for life, there are millions in this country that would love to have a child but cannot. These unwanted children, which are a travesty in itself, would be adopted into these families and have a chance to develop into highly productive citizens.

I find the argument that this nation has to provide women with the singular choice even over the men who helped to create the child, fascinatingly ignorant. Why would we continue to empower irresponsible behavior?

It honestly makes no sense to me and I haven't been to a church since Jr. High school. But I do see the moral outrage of abortion on demand.

The bottom line on this debate is how a Liberal Supreme Court created a right and law where none existed before. And now, thanks to these activists judges who divined a right to abortion in the Constitution, which is absurd considering the founders positions, have created the right to kill on demand an unborn child.

Goobieman

From the GOP Platform:

http://www.gopplatform2008.com/2008Platform.pdf

Not sure how you translate all that to "No abortion - Period"

__________________
Artificially supporting the weak, slow, sick and stupid strains already limited resources and weakens the species as a whole.
-Goobieman

Tucker Case

Actually I've always though it was "No period = Abortion"