 |
 |
JoAnn Coen wrote: >Darwin - Yes, yes, yes. I agree wholeheartedly about voting or not >votingfor a person based on one thing. I posted it twice on the >listserve, and both times got lambasted. We have to think what is best >for the country. Although my love has PSP and CBGD, he agrees that the >country is worse off then the patients. Come on gang. Think beyond >stem cell research, because that's going to come anyway, and probably in >your lifetime, because of all the publicity. Jo Ann from Houston Remember folks that even the President is just one person, and remember how politicians frequently act very differently once elected. Even if a candidate pledged his or her hearty support for stem-cell research (or whatever), that doesn't mean electing that person will necessarily result in any change in the status quo of the research. There's the congress and senate to consider too. There's other political deals to be made and various lobbiests to pay back. There's so many things that figure into how a candidate will behave later and what influence they can have even if elected. And there's a huge, huge, entrenched machine there to keep the status quo where it is. It's very effective at beating down any single person who tries to change it. There's always hope, and you should always vote your heart, but don't think electing a person who professes support for one issue that's important to you will ensure that issue is adequately addressed later on. You need to keep putting pressure on all areas, and elect a LOT of people who feel the same way you do about the issues. And there are so many issues that no matter how you vote, you'll always need to make compromises. -- garyZ cynic ;-)