[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Good points on all sides, I especially like how AlexM summed it up for me regarding the three viewpoints.

I understand that the President wouldn't be able to institute a national ban on abortion, but he could certainly push for it if he so wanted.

However, the thread kind of derailed a little. I was more interested in your opinions of whether or not he should be making this an issue. I think it hurts his electability because a decent portion of the populace that might like his platform will be turned off by this one issue (not saying that there is merit to this position). He needs to realize he's reaching out to a much larger segment of the population, some of which are very socially liberal.

There is already a thread to discuss abortion being a state's rights issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you. It's a huge campaign blunder. On the other hand it shows he sticks with his principles regardless, which has value, I just don't think it outweighs the negatives he'll get from talking about watering down Roe-v-Wade. I think he'd get a lot farther by pushing the notion that the court's reasoning on Roe should apply generally to everything related to personal decisions. (ie. drug laws, FDA laws, health food restrictions, seatbelt laws, smoking laws, financial restrictions, etc)

natedogg