In focusing on the wire and 'need wood', you're missing the big story

[JPJones]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1020746
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/9/16460/5820

George Bush admitted at the debate that Roe v. Wade would be a litmus test for Supreme Court judges.

[ewagner]

1. 100% Correct

I'm in the process of writing a LTTE based on the finidngs in your post. It's tricky to expose the fact that Dubya was speaking "in code" to his base and hiding his intentions from the vast majority of Americans who want Roe v. Wade kept just as it is.

I'll post it here when I finish this afternoon.

[BeFree]

2. Yeah, but it's old (k)news

Everyone knows how the parties stand.

The Dems may have a personal distaste for abortion, but are against the government telling a woman how to run her life...Pro-choice

The Pubs, not only want to control a women's most unique, personal decision, they essentially want the government involved in everything she does in her own house.

[ewagner]

3. The news is

that Bush* tried to conceal his position of appointing judges who oppose Roe v. Wade from the public.

[GoBlue]

4. So the really BIG story is...

That a woman's uterus is NOT personal property but rather belongs to the state. VERY INTERESTING, NO?

[JPJones]

8. I think it is - woman's uterus belongs to the states

but I could be wrong. The comparison isn't the actual rulings, but the idea of 'strict constructionism'. Not to mention that Dred Scott was strict constructionism, since racism was written into the constitution.

[Tesibria]

5. I agree -- something like 35+% of "Republicans" are pro-choice

IF the media -- and that's a big IF -- IF the media picks up on the Dred Scott = Roe v. Wade -- i.e., actual overturning of RvW, I predict a Kerry win hands down !!!

[many a good man]

6. FOUR MILLION more fundies could vote this time

Its Rove's contention that four million fundamentalists did not turn out to vote in 2000. His goal is to reach that four million without alerting the rest of the electorate overtly to his intentions.

The main issue is bush*s subterfuge on the Supreme Court issue. What sounded like babble to the rest of Americans was actually codespeak to his base. He is hiding his true intentions through double-speak.

It may fortuitous to the Kerry campaign to expose this secret deal and rupture bush*s fundamentalist-moderate coalition. If Democrats can rupture this alliance the Republicans will lose all chances of attaining a majority.

Exposing the extremists at the centers of power in bush* administration on social, economic, and geopolitical issues will peel off moderates and lead to a Kerry landslide.

[sundancekid]

7. Hidden in Plain View -- here's my attempt at a LTTE

on edit: corrected url

Dear Editor,

When the President raised the over-100-year-old U.S. Supreme Court Dred Scott decision in answer to an "appointment to the SCOTUS" question, I ran for Google. His response seemed so illogical and disconnected to me. But then, I saw it. There it was: hidden in plain view. Among similar search returns, I found the connection touted on the National Right To Life website. The Dred Scott decision is CODE for overturning Roe v. Wade. Here are a couple of paragraphs from that website that actually "break the code."
http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL699/slave.html

~snip~
Court Blunders on Slavery and Abortion

One of the more frequently used arguments to defend abortion goes like this: The United States Supreme has settled the issue. Because the Court has ruled that abortion is legal, it must therefore be a correct and moral act beyond challenge.

In an 1857 court case, known as the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that slaves, even freed slaves, and all their descendants, had no rights protected by the Constitution and that states had no right to abolish slavery. Where would Blacks be today if that reasoning had not been challenged?

The reasoning in Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade is nearly identical. In both cases the Court stripped all rights from a class of human beings and reduced them to nothing more than the property of others. Compare the arguments the Court used to justify slavery and abortion. Clearly, in the Court's eyes, unborn children are now the same "beings of an inferior order" that the justices considered Blacks to be over a century ago.
~snip~

Well, Mr. President, I think you tried to hide your "code" agenda, but consider yourself googled out, with one less vote to count on.

Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXX