For some strange reason my internet blocker will not allow me to get into the page of "Decisions, Decisions" but I really wanted to say something on this...I honestly can not believe that many of you have touted support for John McCain.

I was a Steve Forbes supporter here in Iowa and voted for him in our Caucus, but when he dropped out, my support went straight to Bush. Now Bush isn't the perfect candidate, but on THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE: Abortion, he's much stronger than McCain. I don't honestly give a rat's rear-end about McCain's military service if he doesn't care for the unborn...and the simple fact of the matter is - he doesn't. He tries to throw the pro-lifers a bone by saying he's against partial birth abortion, but yet his track record shows he is not against abortion on demand.

Go check out the Right-to-Life's site, they had some voting facts on McCain that you should inform yourself of. My vote is for Bush...he ain't perfect for sure, but he's much more pro-life than McCain!

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

Answers

Mark Whiz brings up a good point.

It is estimated that the next Prez.....could appoint as many as 5 Suprmeme Court justices.

That alone ought to be enough to convince anyone how important this vote is.....especially to the pro-life cause.

However, I also agree with Mark Whiz that there are a number of other issues at stake here.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

Brett....

Thanks a lot for bringing up that interview last night.

One of the criticisms I had heard from Washington "insiders" was that he was a hot head. When he doesn't get his way....he is just downright ugly.

Now it is no longer "hear-say"....last night was a perfect demonstration of it.

So far.....in my opinion....Bush has done a far greater job of being a "statesman" in this process.

That is the kind of dignity that needs to be restored to the Whitehouse.

Scott......

I know what you are saying about Keyes. But he hasn't got a chance in the world.....so we are left dealing with what we have.

One thing Alan needs to work on is his demeanor. He came across too often as being angry....and a couple times he even tried to play the race card....which flopped.

Now the bright spot is this.....he did much better this time than he did last time around.

Who knows??

One more thought.......McCain literally scares me. To the state....the man has yet to win a majority of the Republican vote. That alone speaks volumes.

His attack against the "Christian Right" also showed his true colors in addition to showing his ignorance. You see.....there is no such thing as the "Christian Wrong."

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

Mark,

I may be wrong....but my guess is your source is the liberal media.

Just like I don't trust McCain.....I don't trust anything the media says about Bush.

The media has had a "love feast" with McCain.

Here's my prediciton. It will be all over by next Tuesday and we can get on to the serious business of getting rid "Alpha Gore" and those who have disgraced this nation for the last 8 years.

By the way, did anyone catch Bush on the O'Reilly Factor tonight?? He was brilliant. He is going to punish "Alpha Gore!!!"

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

Thanks for the articles Duane. I didn't realize their was anyone in the press being gracious to Bush.

Put all this aside for a moment.

Does it bother anyone besides me that religion has entered so much into this Repulican primary?? I feel a certain "un-easiness" about it. I dont' know why....but in the back of my mind.....I don't like it.

What are your thoughts??

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

The question that should be answered is "how much influence can a President have on the abortion debate?". With the checks and balances our system has (senate approval of Supreme Court Justices, etc), it isn't worth picking a President over one, single, issue!

BTW, tell me Michael, do you spend as much effort on behalf of and contribute as much to "alternatives to abortion" as you do trying to ban abortion? Why aren't we asking which President will do the most to curb the number of abortions while legal efforts continue? By that, I mean which candidate through tax breaks, deregulation (or regulation waivers), etc would do the most to discourage pre-marital sex, and when pre-marital conception does happen, encourage women to carry the child to birth and keep it or place the child with adoptive parents?

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

Come on Mark...you don't know me from Adam (and I am not talking about Adam Chambers!) You said, "BTW, tell me Michael, do you spend as much effort on behalf of and contribute as much to "alternatives to abortion" as you do trying to ban abortion?"

You bet, my money, time and effort are for this, my friend. My wife and I work every Tuesday night (along with several from our church) at Ruth Harbor (a home for unwed mothers here in Des Moines). Don't judge my views, when you don't know who I am...thank you!

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

Michael,

That is why I asked the question! I don't know you from Adam (Chambers or otherwise).

I am glad to hear that you are consistent. Way too many aren't, and often don't even realize it.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

Mark,

I think you do well to mention the issue of "alternatives to abortion". It is irresponsible to support Pro-life, yet not help provide for that life. Though I don't necessarily see it as the Federal Govt.'s job to provide such support - that would put us back into the Liberal Give-away Programs that have brought us to the point that we are now.

You might want to check the most current statistics on abortion and teenage pregnancy though. I believe that, percentage wise, pregnant teenagers do not make up the majority of the abortions that occur each year. That distinction belongs to older (20-30ish), middle to upper-class women who can easily afford to care for a child, but don't want that burden in that lives. No President or any other Govt. authority can change that kind of thinking - only the love of Christ can accomplish what is needed there.

<>

Actually the President can make a big difference on this issue. Who appoints the Supreme Court Justices ? The President If he had been of a mind to do so, who could have signed the Bill to end Partial-Birth Abortions? The President Who has the power (both through political and media avenues) to sway the opinions and votes of many of those in the Congress & Senate The President.

True, he can't do it today, all by himself. But he can set into motion thoughts, ideas, & laws that can have a big impact later on down the road. We have to always keep the Big Picture in mind. Micro-management is usually the result of micro-minded individuals (of which Washington, DC is already full of these days).

Michael,

I'm not sure if I would consider Abortion as the "Most Important Issue", as there are a lot of other Biblical considerations & issues involved. But I do agree with you and Scott on the fact that once one looses his respect for the sanctity of Life, it is all downhill from there.

Voting in a Democratic Society has always been a great privilege and responsibility. We, as Christians, in order to live up to that responsibility, have got to start voting with our Bibles instead of our wallets - or else things are going to get a lot worse than they are now. Scary thought, isn't it?

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

I certainly do not hold up abortion as the ONLY issue. But it is where I begin. Danny, you were the one who first pointed out Keyes to me back in '95. I really regret that he does not get more attention. I digress...

There are many other issues - the military, welfare, education, Tax reform, judicial reform, etc. ad nauseum. But all of these other issues will come from that candidates view of the sanctity of life.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

Oh Danny,

You da man, back at ya!

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

The selection of Justices is an excellent point. In fact, that's what Michael Reagan was asking McCain about in his interview with him last night. Rudman, who was instrumental in forwarding David Souter to Bush as a recommendation, works for McCain, of course. Reagan asked McCain if we can expect Rudman to have similar influence in the selection of his judges, were McCain to become president. McCain came unglued and steered the interview instead to an attack on Pat Robertson and wouldn't let it go even when Reagan tried to move on to education in America. This lack of statesmanship on a couple of simple media questions ought to bring to question every ability this man has to adequately work with others, domestic and foreign alike. He was a guest on a radio show getting free air time, for crying out loud. And this isn't the only time he's been charged with an inability to work with others - several in Congress have leveled that one as well.

Where does he stand on the issues? Beyond pointing to his war record and his conservative label, where does he stand today? What would he do about appointing justices? Education? Does anyone really know? Or is all we hear simply rhetoric about his record and attacks on his rivals? How would he handle China? Or attacks on Christians worldwide?

Lots of questions, few answers. He said in an interview within the last two years that he takes a different on issues than most Republicans. How then is he a Republican? I would suggest that this could be why he isn't getting the Republican vote.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2000

ok, clearly many of you think that a prolife position significantly impacts positions on other issues. I am more than willing to agree to that.

HOWEVER, (and by saying this, I don't mean to sound naturally distrustful, but we are talking about politicians) -- how do we know a public position of prolife is sincere. If it is sincere, then I would agree on the point of other positions on other issues flowing in such a way as to be in agreement. Yet, until the Reagan years, there were plenty of prolife Democrats and prochoice Republicans. George H.W. Bush was one of them, but had an election year (1980) conversion. To this day, his wife is still prochoice. Perhaps the Souter appointment wasn't as it seems?

How do we tell if a position on abortion is politically expedient? In the case of the former president Bush, I am convinced it was expediency. How do we know it isn't so in the case of Dubya?

---

You may have missed it with all the attention spent on the McCain-Bush battle, but Gore got bashed for not being pro-choice enough. Seems he got a fairly good score from some right to life group when he was still a senator, at least until he started getting ambitions for higher office. I don't know if it is related, but in a mailing list I am in, there was a request for prayers for Al Gore. This request came from someone with a relative on Al Gore's campaign staff. It seems Al has been struggling with his faith some, having to do with compromises he feels he has had to make between his faith and his politics. That was all that was said, nothing about if it was a particular issue like abortion or if it was just the nature of politics or what. Just interesting.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

We have four major candidates for president. Each has some positions that scare us. But ONE of those men WILL be president. I think its time for us to begin regular and fervent prayer on behalf of each one. The wishes of the American public will not change the heart of a presidential candidate, but Heaven can. Indulge me in a fantasy... Imagine, thousands of Christians praying daily on behalf of messrs. Bush, McCain, Gore and Bradley. Now imagine those prayers of blessing and intercession being answered. All four men bow before the cross in humble repentance and become obedient to the Gospel. I wonder what the media and various special interest groups would do then. I do know there would be major partying in Heaven. I read it in a Book.

Its just a thought!

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

Mark Win.

I'm glad to hear that Gore is struggling with his faith - He Should Be. Any man who claims that he believes in God and His Word, and then promotes and allows the abominations that are the agenda of the Liberal Democrats, is faced with a definite conflict of truth & morals.

He faces the same deliemma that all men do at some point in their lives - "What is truth, God's Word or man's word?" I pray for his sake and for the sake of his family and our nation that he can come to the right conclusions before it's too late for all of us.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

THIS TIME YOU HAVE GONE TOO FAR, MR. BUSH. "HAVE YOU NO SHAME, SIR?"

"Wednesday the Bush campaign started running ads in New York which accused McCain of opposing federal funding for breast cancer research in a New York hospital. In the interim Salon revealed that breast cancer is a subject close to McCain's heart and Friday the Associated Press discovered that Bush denied $40 million in funding for breast cancer screening while governor of Texas because "most of the money comes from the federal government." --Salon, 3/3/00

"The latest misportrayal of McCain deserves more notice than it's getting, especially as a window on the man with the smirk whose weird, college boy mind-set led him to chuckle through a question and follow-up on the death penalty during the recent debate here.

"The breast cancer canard...is a direct Bush...fraudulant... operation. In a commercial that was followed by a personal appearance at a cancer center on Long Island, Bush uses a cancer survivor to charge McCain with fighting funds for breast cancer programs. With horror, she intones, ''That's shocking; America deserves better.'' The survivor, Geri Barish, doesn't disclose that she is a major crony of New York's top Bush-backer, Governor George Pataki.

"The truth is that McCain is a solid supporter of research and treatment programs for breast cancer, and always has been, especially when what's before him in Congress are the bills that actually produce the money as opposed to publicity stunts for the folks back home. What he opposes is pork-barrel. In this case, Bush has seized on votes against amendments to extraneous legislation purporting to increase funding, usually with juicy allocation formulas that make the sponsoring senator look generous. These kinds of proposals are made only in the confident expectation that they will not become law. "If what is involved is an actual appropriations bills for health programs, McCain is a reliable yes vote when the bills conform to congressional budget rules. The facts, however, are irelevant when Bush Rules are operating. So also is the more relevant fact that Texas is one of the most dangerous places for a woman to live. It ranks 50th in its percentage of women with health insurance; the figure of 21.9 percent without any coverage compares with 13.8 percent nationally. And one study found that nearly half the Texas women over 50 had not had a mammogram and breast exam in the last two years. Attacking someone on an issue where you are the bad guy has got to be a new low. The tactics used against [McCain] should be remembered as the year goes on; they were dirty and dishonest." --Thomas Oliphant, 3/5/00

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2000

IF JOHN MCCAIN proposed rounding up ethnic minorities into concentration camps, would anyone have the cheek to oppose him? He would undoubtedly respond by saying, as he did to Alan Keyes the other night: "I've seen enough killing in my life, a lot more than you have. I know -- I know how valuable and precious human life is, and I will not listen to your lectures about how I should treat this very important issue of the sanctity of human life."

OK, fine. John McCain was shot down in Vietnam and held as a prisoner of war for five years, and Alan Keyes and George Bush weren't. We know that. It's impossible not to know that since McCain reminds us of it every time he doesn't have a substantive answer to a question, which is becoming increasingly frequent.

Does being a war hero mean you get to be president? Apparently not -- it didn't work for Bob Dole. And if an honorable war record is not enough, we really do have to choose from among McCain, Keyes and Bush on some basis other than the fact that McCain was a prisoner of war, and Bush and Keyes weren't.

One of those alternative bases on which voters might want to choose a nominee is the candidate's position on abortion. Another is the candidate's position on the truth.

Back when John McCain was the senator from Arizona, he had a moderate pro-life voting record. (Despite being the senator from conservative Arizona, he did vote for federal funding of medical experimentation on the body parts of aborted babies.) Since becoming the senator from The New York Times, however, he's been back-pedaling on abortion every chance he gets.

Most recently, when campaigning in New Hampshire in January, he said that if his 15-year-old daughter, Meghan, became pregnant, "(T)his would be a private decision that we would share within our family. ... The final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel, and I think that's such a private matter."

Before getting to Alan Keyes' implacable deconstruction of McCain's answer, why on earth would any Republican candidate answer such a stupid question? This is abortion on liberals' terms. The unspoken assumption is that, even apart from rape cases, "unwanted" pregnancies are things that could strike anyone, just befalling wholly unsuspecting girls, like leukemia. As columnist Joe Sobran says, the very term "unwanted pregnancy" is preposterous. It always sounds like someone complaining about an "unwanted hangover." Gee, that's too bad. Do you know how you got it?

The real answer is: "Well, actually I've taught my daughter to keep her knees together before marriage. And even if she were to disobey me, I'm pretty sure she has an IQ above that of a toaster, and has heard of birth control pills." Only for fear of offending the loose or the stupid do Republican politicians give straight-faced answers to such inane questions about their daughters.

How about this for an abortion question: If your 15-year-old daughter, Meghan, were in the womb, but the womb's owner couldn't fit in to her prom dress, would you approve of Megan being killed? Would you approve of taxpayer dollars being spent to experiment on her body parts after she was killed?

Hours after McCain proposed a family rap session on having an abortion, the magnificent Alan Keyes shot a cannonball through McCain's statement. Keyes said: "(I)f your daughter came to you and said she contemplated killing her grandmother for her inheritance, you wouldn't say 'Let's have a family conference.' You'd just say 'no' because that is morally wrong."

Keyes is right; McCain's position doesn't make any sense. Either it's a life or it isn't. And if it isn't a life when it comes to his daughter -- if abortion is just like a nose job -- then denying that medical procedure to other women really is pure woman-hating sadism.

That isn't to say political compromises can't be made. If it were politically feasible to enact a bill that would, for example, ban the roughly 1.5 million abortions a year that do not result from rape or incest, but not ban the couple hundred of abortions per year that do - - of course a pro-lifer should agree, with enthusiasm and alacrity.

Bush's position of favoring exceptions for rape and incest seems perfectly acceptable to me as a political compromise. It's illogical, of course: No one thinks we have a right to murder or maim full-grown humans whose conceptions happened to have resulted from rape or incest. But that's what political compromises do. They join two inexorably opposed beliefs into a single awkward agreement, not completely satisfactory to either side.

That's what's so interesting about McCain's response to the "daughter" question. It has nothing to do with political compromise. It tells you what he really thinks. But we're not allowed to talk about his views. He was a prisoner of war, you know.

By Ann Coulter.........http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter.html

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

-- MANY OF US are looking forward to the "Super Tuesday" primaries today --- not because we know what is going to happen, but because this may settle the issue and put a stop to all the media hype we hear every time we turn on the TV.

It is frightening to think of the voters who choose someone to become President of the United States on the basis of superficial images, casual impressions or catchy slogans. This is someone whose policies and actions can make the difference between life and death for your nearest and dearest-- and yet choices among candidates are made with less thought than would go into buying a used car.

The media, so quick to talk about "the public's right to know," seem to think that the public needs to know only sidebars and trivia when it comes to the election campaign. The talking heads do not devote even half as much time to discussing the pros and cons of any serious issue as they do to discussing the spin, the polls, the strategy, and the "base" of each candidate.

Does anyone seriously believe that the future of this great nation is in any way affected by what flag flies over the state capitol in South Carolina or what the founder of Bob Jones University once said?

In this atmosphere of glibness and superficiality, a candidate who can maintain a pious facade for a couple of months can be well on his way to having our lives in his hands in the White House, with the future of this country being his to preserve or poison. Senator John McCain has played this game to the hilt, all the while calling his bus the "straight talk express."

Straight talk? What about McCain's guilt-by-association attacks on Governor Bush for giving a talk at Bob Jones University, because its founder had made anti-Catholic remarks? Insinuations of racism or religious bigotry are too serious to be made recklessly in a political campaign. If anyone knows a single statement or a single act of George W. Bush that was anti-Catholic, let him put up or shut up.

Bush's own brother is Catholic and he is not the only Catholic member of the family. There isn't the slightest indication that Catholics would be worse off under a Bush administration in Washington. If anything, they are likely to find an administration more sympathetic to their views on abortion, the family and fundamental moral values in general.

McCain has not only imitated the Democrats in denouncing "tax cuts for the wealthy" and in advocating government restrictions on campaign contributions, he is also imitating them in promoting group polarization. McCain's scorched-earth policy may be his last desperate chance for the Republican nomination. But an explanation is not an excuse. It is certainly not an excuse for someone whose facade and personal image constitute most of what he has to offer.

We caught a revealing glimpse of the real McCain when he delivered his ugly and bitter concession speech after losing the South Carolina primary. It also tells you a lot when the people who have actually dealt with McCain on a day-to-day basis during his 17 years in Washington are overwhelmingly supporting his opponent.

A President of the United States has to get cooperation from many other people-- in Congress, in the states, and among sovereign nations around the world. Someone who has repelled the people he has worked with for years is not the person for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

McCain seems ready to tear the Republican party apart with internal religious strife and deny it the funds needed to defend itself from the onslaughts of the media, the labor unions and academia-- all of whom are overwhelmingly for the Democrats-- by promoting so-called campaign finance reform. The only explanation that makes sense in all this is McCain's promotion of his own political ambitions, even if it ruins the party that he belongs to. If this isn't wanting to win "in the worst way," then what is?

Add to this McCain's direct personal attacks, not only on Governor Bush, but on conservative religious leaders as well, and you have a rule-or-ruin candidate, following a scorched-earth policy. In this effort, truth is a sometime thing, as when he depicts Bush as a regional candidate, following a "Southern strategy." Since when are North Dakota, Washington state, Iowa and Nebraska in the South? Yet Bush has beaten McCain in all these states.

by Thomas Sowell

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Danny,

I too feel a litte uneasy over the "religious" focus of this election. On one hand, it is nice to see matters of faith being brought before the public; but now those matters are being twisted-around like saltwater taffy by the media & the candidates.

If such is allowed to continue unchecked, the beautiful things of God will be turned into the dark and dank issues of Satan. Faith is a personal matter, between each person and God. When we make it a political issue only, we cheapen the value of what God has so graciously given us.

As an electorate, we have the responsibility of voting according to our moral and spiritual conscience and those who are elected have the responsibility to administer their office in the same manner.

Dragging one's Faith through the mud does no good to anyone - not to the voters, not to the elected leaders, and certainly not to God.

All these discussions on religion & politics have gotten me so high up on my soapbox - I don't know if I can come down anymore. How about fellows (and fellettes) Anybody ready to vote for an old, gray-headed Polock Preacher for President? :~)

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2000

Texas Rankings Under Bush:

1st in Children without Health Insurance %...1st in Toxic Air Releases...1st in Smog Days (Houston)...1st in poorest counties(3)...3rd in Hunger %...5th in Highest Teen Birth Rate...41st in Breast Cancer Screenings...45th in Mothers Receiving Pre-Natal Care...46th in Public Libraries and Branches...46th in High School Completion Rate...46th in Water Resources Protection...47th in Delivery of Social Services...48th in Literacy...48th in Per Capita Funding for Public Health...48 in Best Place to Raise Children (29th before Bush)*...48th in Spending for Parks and Recreation...48th in Spending for the Arts...49th in Spending for the Environment...50th in Women with Health Insurance...50th in Teachers' Salaries plus Benefits... *Children's Rights Council. further documentation Only one accredited child-care center exists for every 2,637 children. A fourth of children still are not immunized by age 2. --Texas Freedom Network.

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

Mark,

Being a Texas native, I can verify the fact that Bush isn't entirely responsible for the dismal rankings you quote. I think if you ran those statistics back for the last 15 - 20 years you would see little change in them either up or down. The Liberals have been alive & well there for a long time causing many of those problems.

For example, concerning the public schools there, I knew a very fine Christian, young lady who (13 years ago) applied for a position teaching disabled & handicapped kids (a position she was well-qualified for). They turned her down because she was not "attractive enough" for the position. That school district only hired the best-looking personel.

This is not speculation, but fact, as my wife had connections with some in that particular district. By the way, that particular school district (which serves the area including NASA south of Houston) had, at that time, the highest student suicide rate in the country. We lived inside that District - Is there any wonder why we moved to Florida & began homeschooling our kids !

If G.W. had been the Governor during the last 20 years I would blame him for those statistics you quoted. But as it is, he is only one cog in the machine that is dragging this country into the mud.

All said though, your research should be commended - I wish more people would take their vote that seriously.

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000

I lived in Texas from 1995 until last year.

Bush wasn't contributing to the solutions, I can say that for him. Bush's first political office is the one he is in now. And after a mere 5-6 years of being a caretaker governor in a state system that some political scientists rate as having the weakest governor position of the 50 states, we are preparing to promote him to President.

What has the world come to? Why didn't Jack Kemp run? ;-)

-- Anonymous, March 10, 2000