 |
 |
Well said Mr. Hirsch. I was about to reply myself in the same vein, you saved me a lot of typing and mine would not have been as good. Suffice it to say, I personally believe that anyone, regardless of the issue involved (with maybe one or two exceptions), who votes for a candidate based solely on a single issue is doing him or her self and the country a disservice. > ---------- > From: Arthur Hirsch[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 1:37 AM > Subject: Re: the "list candidate" > > 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: > > >