 |
 |
President Clinton removed the ban on fetal tissue research, I believe, his first day in office. In my estimation, that outweighed all of the "bad" things that he did. I don't think that this represents a majority view, even among the U.S. citizens on this list. I have issues that are more important to me than the disease that is slowing me down - though not many. I'm sure that everybody has their own special list of priorities, and Parkinson's is not at the top of everybody's list. Close? Maybe. But not always the top. I'd be all for stating that the politics of some candidates are friendly or inimical to us PWP's, and I would consider noncommittal as inimical. But I would not be willing to endorse a candidate just because he is a friend of Parkinson's and his opponent is not. We have enough diversity of views among ourselves that it is not likely that we could agree on a candidate - with even near unanimity. I'd be happier to have this list remain an information exchange, which it does well, rather than try to use it as a political action group involved in U.S. politics, which is not, I suspect, what Barbara intended when she founded it. I share your interest in getting elected officials friendly to the movement to wipe out PD, and I feel that your idea of getting the candidates to address this list would have several advantages. But I don't feel it wise that we should try to endorse any candidate. Art At 02:17 PM 9/22/99 , Dr. William Heitman wrote: >Is there such a thing as "the sense of the list"? If there is, I want to >appeal to it that we ought to at least investigate the following: >