http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/30/16331.aspxThe New York Times profiles new Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had been planning on being the new majority leader.  “[But] he is instead the incoming leader of the new Senate minority, albeit one who, with 49 votes in his pocket, willen-USCommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60608.1)http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/30/16331.aspx#16361Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:31:18 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:16361Stevev Turner Cedar Falls IowaThe GOP has staked out the "Barefoot and Pregnant" vote in '08.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/30/16331.aspx#16366Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:36:02 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:16366Robert Catalano, Salem, ORAnother empty gesture aimed at rallying religious conservatives but one that has anything to do with what this nation needs to address. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/30/16331.aspx#16386Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:40:34 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:16386Desmond That is why they are going to soon become the minority party.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/30/16331.aspx#16408Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:14:00 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:16408DorothyQ.) Where might a family values Republican go on a taxpayer-funded vacation after Congress has wrapped up for the year? A.) Gay Paree.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/30/16331.aspx#16421Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:35:49 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:16421Pat, Aiken, SCThis gamemanship is exactly the reason that the American voters rejected Republicans across the board in the last election. Republicans are slow learners and will never achieve majority status again until and unless they finally decide to do something for the American people instead of keeping all their focus on their fringe group loyalists. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/30/16331.aspx#16442Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:58:35 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:16442Desmond Kinda like the President. A Republican slow learner.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/30/16331.aspx#16480Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:55:47 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:16480AMACThe fetal pain bill is another example of a Republican Party pandering to the ignorant base. There is ABSOLUTELY no scientific evidence to support this bill, but science has never stood in the way of the Republican luddites. They have yet to learn their lesson that the American people want real progress not Rove inspired wedge politics. Trouble is Mitch McConnell is by far one of the most corrupt senators in DC. That he is another in a long line of stupid southern leaders does not surprise. The last Republican Senate leader practiced medical using 5 year old videotapes. I guess we should expect no less from the new fool on the block.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/30/16331.aspx#16520Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:24:35 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:16520Ryan, MichiganAMAC - I hate to step in front of your tirade but there actually is evidence that supports the bill. There is evidence on both sides of the issue. From what I have learned most scientists will say that depending on the development of the child they can feel pain starting as early as 16 weeks and as late as 28 weeks. Obviously this is an attempt to try to limit abortions in the U.S., something that I am in favor of, but there is evidence that supports this bill. Also, how is Mitch McConnell corrupt? I have not followed his career very closely so I don't know much about him.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/30/16331.aspx#16539Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:46:59 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:16539Dave Dubrowski, Tenton NJAs a Republican and a Christian, I am tired of being lumped in the same boatas the far right. Although I hold the same beliefs, i feel that if the LAW allows it, why do we struggle against it? If a state OKs same sex unions, but I do not, does this mean I can ignore the law? No. I feel that as a member of the GOP, I can pick and choose the party planks I support and planks I disagree with..and still be a Republican. I am not in favor with the Iraq course, i feel we need to watch our $$$$ better, clean up the criminals in Congress, make a SMART immigration plan, make our schools safe, modify both Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind, etc, etc. Some of the FAR RIGHT wing folks are blinded by doctrine and so exclusive that it scares me. Does this mean i will leave my party ( Mr Chafee); no. I will work locally to bring GOP supporters to the middle, to work for ALL AMERICANS.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/30/16331.aspx#16557Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:57:59 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:16557DesmondDave, I hope that works for you. I would like to see the Republican Party I grew up with. Not the same buddy, not the same.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/30/16331.aspx#16574Fri, 01 Dec 2006 00:46:09 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:16574Desmopnd Post a note. Ryan read Dave. Dave read Ryan.Hope that works for you all.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/30/16331.aspx#16676Fri, 01 Dec 2006 13:54:31 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:16676AMACRyan - most research proving pain at the threshold that the Republicans want to push is from biased sources. It is to sensationalize the issue; not promote knowledge. You need to look at the scientific knowledge from researchers that do not have a "cause" to promote. That research is far less certain. Again we have a bunch of political hacks getting involved in medical decisions. It's Schiavo all over again. Republicans fight environmental bills that would help make us all healthier and should be viewed as "pro-life" but champion these worthless attempts at devisive politics. As for McConnell you need to do your own research. He has been the number 1 point man in the Senate for killing all attempts at ethic and campaign reform. He lives for slime (the Tom Delay of the Senate). He likes and promotes the selling of Congress and has never seen K-Street $$$ he doesn't crave. If people thought Murtha was a terrble choice for Democratic Majority leader (which I did); McConnell should really make you gag on the Republican side.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/30/16331.aspx#16707Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:19:16 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:16707Ryan, MichiganAMAC - what makes you say they are biased sources? The fact that they don't agree with your view doesn't make them biased. Obviously the science on this doesn't really matter because in the end most conservatives would like abortion banned with some small expceptions (i.e. life of the mother, rape, incest etc.). That is what this is about. For years conservatives have been trying to chip away at Roe v. Wade. This is another attempt to do so. To you it might be a medical decision but to many other people, myself included, it goes beyond a medical decision and becomes a homicide decision. I find it ironic that you bring up the enviromental issues because I can make the same argument about that research as you made against the research I was posting about. Increased Hurricane activity? Global Warming. Decreased hurricane activity? Global Warming. Wait, now is it global warming or global cooling like most of the same scientists were calling for in the late 70's? http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/30/16331.aspx#16770Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:35:46 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:16770AMACRyan – your objective is different from mine – I want a medically brain-dead federal government to STOP mandating medical protocols on dubious data. Yours is to promote the anti-choice agenda. Our goals are too divergent to ever find agreement on. First, though, even while the Republicans were in absolute power in the House this bill could not clear out of the health subcommittee. That should point out its deficiencies. This legislature was written by Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life committee. I see neither a Dr. in front of his name or the assumption of an open mind. He wants to “enshrine” (his words not mine) the 20 week litmus test. Proof he doesn’t bother with. The law also states a doctor must declare “that there is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain." Why not add “or it is a bunch of medically suspect, morally subjective junk science foisted upon us by self-appointed moral hypocrites.” Let the patient decide. If he truly wanted to be pro-fetus, why doesn’t he sponsor the more medically supported 28 weeks? Is it because that moves it into the 3rd trimester and it wouldn’t rally the troops to send money? The use of the words “killed” is purposely inflammatory. This is religious dogma, not medicine, not science, not good government. My last comment on this is from another article concerning Obama visiting an Evangelical conference in Florida. The “oh so Christian”, Rob Schenck, denounces the visit. Their fear? That highlighting the devastation of AIDS, poverty, and the environment will dilute their money making message of anti-choice and anti-gay. Other Evangelists preach that they must stay on message to keep their base energized and to keep those checks coming. I see this and know how proud Jesus must be to see his message butchered by religious profiteers. Other Evangelists have decried this forced servitude to just these 2 issues and are called heretics. I respect your right to believe as you do and to try to “educate” others to your beliefs. I object to your movements desire to mandate their science and religious philosophy onto others. Your leaders have lost the moral foundation. I trust each American woman to make that difficult choice over political quacks and religious hypocrits. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/30/16331.aspx#16772Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:56:15 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:16772Ryan, MichiganAMAC - You're right we have two very different viewpoints. I wasn't necessarily coming out in support of the bill. In my original post I was just pointing out that there is science on both sides of the legislation. Since when did it become "my movement"? I'm not trying to mandate my science or religious philosophy on others I was just pointing out that, despite your initial inflamatory post, there is legitimate science that counters what you were posting.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/30/16331.aspx#16852Sun, 03 Dec 2006 01:45:00 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:16852Desmond Hey, Ryan, tried that on m., called me a whyying.Told me to stay on task. You need to take a hike on the A-Train.