Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Whoa, Momma! | Main | YES! »

April 17, 2007

Comments

Tim J.

I have voted in every presidential election since I turned 18, but if the GOP puts forward a pro-abort candidate in '08, I will happily stay at home with my feet up on the couch and encourage others to do the same.

Just so they know.

It's looking more and more like, once you get past the campaign rhetoric, the GOP and the Dems are just two wings of the same party.

Smoky Mountain Third Party Candidate

If only people would collectively act on their frustration about our two-party tyranny, then maybe a good third party or two could enter the scene.

J.R. Stoodley

I feel the same way, but can we really just not vote? I thought we had a responsibility to vote, even if only for the less bad candidate.

If Giuliani wins the nomination though I'll have a hard time decideing who to vote for. He might ultimately be a better president than Hillary or Obama, but I don't like the direction he'll take the Republican Party if he wins.

SDG

I have voted in every presidential election since I turned 18, but if the GOP puts forward a pro-abort candidate in '08, I will happily stay at home with my feet up on the couch and encourage others to do the same.

Not me. I'll vote for whatever pie-in-the-sky third-party pro-life candidate stands absolutely no chance of winning, so that the Republicans can see the vote they didn't get and understand exactly what they need to do if they want that vote. :-)

J.R. Stoodley

I was responding to Tim J there.

I think a two party system is probably the best way to go if you are not to have the crazy coallition stuff some countries like Israel experience. Of course it becomes a problem when neither party is any good.

Perhaps the best thing would be for the Republican party to just keep decining, and after a rocky period with the Democrates firmly in control have a new conservative party take their place.

J.R. Stoodley

SDG, I might do that, except will there be any such candidate?

Brian Day

I too have voted in every election (except one local special election in 1989) since I turned 18. Not voting is not an option.

That is why I voted for Buchanan in '00 and for Peroutka in '04. There is nothing wrong with voting a third party. (Oh yeah, and Ross Perot twice before that.) :)

Smoky Mountain Helping Hand

J.R., a friendly tip: to avoid "race conditions" where it becomes unclear to whom you're responding due to intermediate postings, you can always post the quote that you're responding to in italics at the top of your post. Then it's clear to everyone.

Smoky Mountain Elephant

That is why I voted for...Peroutka in '04. There is nothing wrong with voting a third party.

There is if you voted for Peroutka :). I looked with great interest at the Constitution Party in 04, but was disturbed enough at parts of their platform to vote Republican despite my distaste for W.

David B.

One of the most annoying thing about this is that the Repubs apparently didn't get the memo that America doesn't like spineless girly-men running this place. How much further can they bend over backwards before they snap in two?

David B.

Brian Day,

Ross Perot!?! The fiscally conservative(?) version of William J. Clinton!?!

Tim J.

I'm sure willing to vote for what Mark Shea would call a Quixotic third party, but only if I really agreed with their platform.

I could also write-in Alan Keyes! Thing is, if all the protest votes are spread out over a wide range of little third parties and also-rans, the effect is pretty much lost. Perot at least provided some focus for those fed up with the Two Shades of Grey parties, even if he was a wingnut.

Is voting, itself, morally mandated in order to be a good citizen, if one is otherwise active and aware of the political process? I don't know that I could really cast a vote for either Pilate OR Herod.

Eowyn

Jimmy, could you please run for president?!!! I need a candidate I can vote for in good conscience!

David B.

I got it! Keyes/ Steele '08! the 'dream team.'

Tim J.

"Keyes/ Steele '08! the 'dream team.'"

And Bill Cosby as Press Secretary. Heh.

Smoky Mountain Abstainer

Is voting, itself, morally mandated in order to be a good citizen, if one is otherwise active and aware of the political process?

I have no idea if there is an official Church position on this; but, in my opinion, consciously abstaining from voting based upon a thorough examination and rejection of all candidates is a perfectly valid and even responsible choice.

J.R. Stoodley

I know EWTN has claimed that it is a responsibility to vote, even if only for the candidate you think is less bad. I'm not sure what their source for that was though.

Monica

I'm voting for Smoky Mountain Schizophrenic!

bill912

It would be nice to be able to have a choice between good and better. But I've voted in every presidential election from 1972 on, and have never had that option. I'v only had 2 where I thought the choice was between good and bad. All the others were choices between bad and worse. My thought each time was to try to prevent the election of worse.

Paulo Gaucho

You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere and not vote for the lesser of two evils. Playing the lesser of two evils has allowed the Republicans to count on the pro-life vote, based on the small difference between Republican and Democrat, at the same time they chase votes from more liberal minded people. We have to make abortion a major issue again by refusing to vote for any candidate who is not pro-life.

SDG

My thought each time was to try to prevent the election of worse.

I agree with that logic up to a point. At some point, though, I think it makes sense to refuse to support the lesser evil, even at the cost of the greater evil winning a battle, in order to make it clear that the lesser evil isn't good enough.

I want the Republicans to know that if they ditch the pro-life plank, they lose my vote, even if that means the Democrats win. A Democratic victory might be a serious setback, but a worse setback would be for both major parties to become effectively pro-choice. I won't cast my vote for that outcome.

I vote pro-life. If the GOP wants my vote, they'll put forward a pro-life candidate. If they decide they don't need to put forward a pro-life candidate, they'll lose my vote and hopefully lose the election. It's that simple.

Jon

Just another reason to get involved in the PRIMARY elections. Sorry, but I just don't have much patience for folks who wait until the general election then complain about the candidates and stay home "on principle".

Esau for Smoky Mtn Pres Candidate 2008

I'm voting for Smoky Mountain Schizophrenic!

Hear, Hear, Monica!

Vote for: SMOKY MOUNTAIN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE!

David B.

I hope Billary doesn't win. If she does, I'm wager she'll demand the tax-exemption of churches be revoked, illegal aliens be given voter cards, nuetering of wealthy white Catholic Conservative native born men, etc...(okay, maybe not the last one)

Ed S

I think a massive write-in vote is a great way to let the political parties know that they are missing the boat with their nominees. For example, think of the power of all Catholics writing in Sam Brownback. I have even written in Maximilian Kolbe for a Chicago aldermanic race where there was no "lesser of two evils," and, therefore, it didn't matter who won.

Smoky Mountain Write In

Monica writes:
I'm voting for Smoky Mountain Schizophrenic!

Esau writes:
Vote for: SMOKY MOUNTAIN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE!

I'll run if I get enough support on this blog. But you should know that my platform basically consists of spinning the Smoky Mountains off as a sovereign nation, abdicating the U.S. presidency, and then declaring myself Smokski I, Emperor of Smoky Mountainia.

Leo

Whether you vote or not someone will get elected.
As Bill912 says we often have to choose the least worst candidate.

Abortion is not the only important issue, or even the only pro-life issue. If the candidates are equal on eg abortion then weigh them on other important issues.

The Catholic Bishops offer guidance on the main issues.

Kasia

I for one wouldn't mind voting for Jimmy Akin (or for Sam Brownback)...if I was sure it wouldn't nullify my ballot, I'd even write in Maximilian Kolbe.

But Giuliani? ...I don't know...

Ozark Mountain Agi-tater

And what of the Ozarks, Smoky? You expect us to sit idly by and let you consolidate your power in that fashion? Feh!

My spies are already at work...

Tim J.

"I for one wouldn't mind voting for Jimmy Akin..."

Jimmy has already put the kibosh on that, seeing himself as unqualified, but I really believe (seriously, now) that we would likely be better off to fill every seat in Washington with randomly picked U.S. citizens. Heck, use a random number generating program, pick them out of a phonebook, roll the 10-sided die, whatever (though the citizen ought to get a shot at a saving roll - maybe they don't WANT to be president... after all, what kind of job is THAT for a Beeblebrox?).

J.R. Stoodley

No southern mountains get to split off. You southerners had your shot at all that and lost.

I propose the Adirondacks split off if there's a Rudy vs. Hillary race. If we got all of northern New York or even all of Upstate New York we could be a real nation bordering both Canada and the US.

J.R. Stoodley

And we'd get to dump that city on our state's smelly posterior and exile Spitzer.

Smoky Mountain Yankee

No southern mountains get to split off

Don't worry. Smoky Mountainia will quickly annex the rest of Appalachia. It *is* an Empire, and Empires need room to breathe.

Kevin from Ohio in Virginia

Couldn't have said it better myself, but then again, I suppose that's why we come here, isn't it?

Kasia

Tim J,

My only concern about that is that I've seen some of the folks who get called for jury duty. Of course, I was living in Detroit proper when I was called, and over fifty percent of the adults in the city are functionally illiterate.

Not that Giuliani or Clinton is somehow morally superior to a functional illiterate, especially simply by virtue of their superior education - after all, we are all precious in the sight of God. My concern is more imagining the policy decisions of the dear folks who skew the stats on high school seniors who can't find the U.S. on a map of the world.

"Eritrea? Where's that? I think you just made it up..."
"How many dollars are there in a billion dollars?"

Of course, on the other hand, we've got John Kerry.

Someone got a coin I can flip? ;-)

Esau

but I really believe (seriously, now) that we would likely be better off to fill every seat in Washington with randomly picked U.S. citizens. Heck, use a random number generating program, pick them out of a phonebook, roll the 10-sided die, whatever (though the citizen ought to get a shot at a saving roll - maybe they don't WANT to be president... after all, what kind of job is THAT for a Beeblebrox?).


Whatever happened to the "Mr. Smiths" (i.e., the caliber of 'Mr Smith Goes to Washington') of the world?

Was there ever one to begin with or could there ever even be one given the nature of politics?

That's probably why we end up picking the least worse rather than the better candidate.

Esau

SDG --

About your comment:
I vote pro-life. If the GOP wants my vote, they'll put forward a pro-life candidate. If they decide they don't need to put forward a pro-life candidate, they'll lose my vote and hopefully lose the election. It's that simple.


Less we forget, McCain is actually AGAINST abortion.

In fact:

McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned

Barbara

I don't want Rudy for President, but I want Hilary (or Obama) even less. I already have her for my Senator, the last thing in the world I want to see is Clinton redux.

If Rudy gets the nomination (and I'm still hoping Thompson will get in the race), I will hold my nose and vote for him.

Juli

I pray that Fred Thompson joins the race. He's a man I could happily vote for.

paul zummo

Every single candidate on the GOP side other than Rudy is pro-life (including Romney, even though some are suspect of his recent conversion). Quite simply, vote for any of these candidates other than Rudy, and we can avoid this impending disaster.

BTW, I duly acknowledge there are issues other than abortion to consider, but Rudy's lacking on most of these as well.

Monica

Smokski I, Emperor of Smoky Mountainia, works for me, so long as I get to do the same with the Olympic mountain range. Just call me Mountain Mama. Or 'Sierra Madre' if you like, but then I get that mountain range as well.

Brian Day

The Catholic Bishops offer guidance on the main issues.

I have never been that impressed with the Bishops' guidance. I am surprised though that no one has yet mentioned Catholic Answers' "The 5 Non-negotiables".
http://www.caaction.com/pdf/Voters-Guide-Catholic-English-1p.pdf

Brian Day

Dang. I thought the combox automatically generated hyperlinks.

Oh well. Cut 'n paste the above link. You know the drill.

Eileen R

I rather like the 'de facto' three-party system we have here in Canada at the moment. (There's a fourth party, but it's separatist and only in Quebec.) It splits the left beautifully to have the left party and the super left party competing for votes.

I'd recommend this to the United States.

bill912

Here in the U.S., unfortunately, we only have 2 major parties: the Evil Party and the Stupid Party(also sometimes known as the Spineless Party).

Marty Helgesen

I sent a letter to newspaper saying that his reply to a question about abortion, "Our party has to get beyond issues like that," is like a Republican in the 1850s saying "Our party has to get beyond issues like slavery. Slavery and abortion deprive some people of their basic human rights, the right to freedom in the case of slavey, the right to life in the case of abortion.

John E

Jimmy has already put the kibosh on that, seeing himself as unqualified

If candidates who are for abortion rights think they are qualified, I'll take unqualified any day!

SDG

I rather like the 'de facto' three-party system we have here in Canada at the moment. It splits the left beautifully to have the left party and the super left party competing for votes. I'd recommend this to the United States.

Here in the USA we are surprised to hear that the Canadian left is at such a disadvantage. :-)

SDG

Here in the U.S., unfortunately, we only have 2 major parties: the Evil Party and the Stupid Party(also sometimes known as the Spineless Party).

Oo oo! Which is which? I can never tell.

BrianC

As someone who is actually involved on the grass roots level in politics I am very concerned about Ruddy winning the nomination. I already have written my letter of resignation (I am a party leader) if he ends up being the nominee. I WILL NOT be part of a party that supports such a horrible act.

Dr. Eric "El Catolico"

Sorry to burst your bubbles Esau and Smoky Mountain Moniker Changer ;-) but I'm already on the ticket for Emperor/Tsar of Mississouri!

Kasia

Here in the USA we are surprised to hear that the Canadian left is at such a disadvantage. :-)

Alarmingly, it actually IS. My boyfriend is Canadian, and I am often shocked at the candidates who are considered 'mainstream' in Canadian politics.

Imagine what it would be like if the NDP and the Liberals could actually get along...

Esau

Smoky Mountain Moniker Changer

hehehe... nice one, 'El Catolico'! =^)

Although, Emperor/Tsar is so passe -- how about a more illustrious, near-egalitarian title for the office -- like "Lord Chancellor-Protector of the High Realm Magellanic, the 7 Summits of Tauri, the Highlands of Abydos and Altera, and All Far Away Kingdoms, Always August"?

Karl Keating

I think it would be hard to make the case that one is obliged to vote.

After all, after Italy became a unified country in the nineteenth century, the pope forbade Catholics to have any participation in politics at all--not only couldn't they vote, but they couldn't hold office. This situation lasted for decades.

JoAnna

If Guliani gets the nomination, I'm writing in Ed Peters.

Esau

Is that really Karl Keating????

(David B., is that you again????)

Monica

My preferred title is 'grand snark of the universe'; I find "Lord Chancellor-Protector ..." SOOOOO male dominant. :)

Esau Lord Chancellor-Protector of the High Realm Magellanic, the 7 Summits of Tauri, the Highlands o

I find "Lord Chancellor-Protector ..." SOOOOO male dominant. :)


Hey, I thought it rather gender-neutral! ;^)


Signed,

Esau

Lord Chancellor-Protector of the High Realm Magellanic, the 7 Summits of Tauri, the Highlands of Abydos and Altera, and All Far Away Kingdoms, Always August

{Place The Great Seal Here}

Esau for BobSponge SquarePants 2008!

If Guliani gets the nomination, I'm writing in Ed Peters.

I'm writing in BobSponge SquarePants!

Mary

Whatever happened to the "Mr. Smiths" (i.e., the caliber of 'Mr Smith Goes to Washington') of the world?

Was there ever one to begin with or could there ever even be one given the nature of politics?

Campaign finance "reform" didn't help at all. It greatly increased incumbency by making fundraising more difficult

bill912

McCain-Feingold? The Incumbent Protection Act?

Eileen R

Kasia, may that day never come. Because then we're sunk.

StubbleSpark

The Pro-Life plank is not without wheels, folks. I hear that James Dobson will call for a party split. If you ask me, he needs to make that split happen now. Better now and have at least a year to recover than to threaten until the last minute and lose all hope of getting a full-fledged party up in the running.

I would also like to see a split even if Romney gets the nomination because people who have materialistic values guided by relativistic truths enshrined in their theology (Liberals) are the biggest problem facing our country today.

I have just as much compunction to vote for a pro-life Scientologist.

J.R. Stoodley

Lord Chancellor-Protector of the High Realm Magellanic, the 7 Summits of Tauri, the Highlands of Abydos and Altera, and All Far Away Kingdoms, Always August

I'd prefer just King. I'll take King of Iroquois (aka Upstate NY). If ever my kingdom were to expand enough I'll be High King and have other states be their own kingdoms with petty kings.

What can I say, I like Kings. I agree I don't like Emperor. Way too Italian. Ick.

StubbleSpark

And of course the MSM coverage of Guilliani tries to sell him as a pro-lifer because he is against abortion personally but for it politically.

Well gee thanks Rudes for clearing that up. Let's see exactly HOW does that distinguish you from EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT who has ever run for office?

And I would like to know if it is possible to be personally against terrorism but politically for.

Or personally for low taxes but politically against.

No, the personal/political dichotomy only comes into play when said idiot politician wants to tell off his constituents as politely as possible "what you want does not matter."

If you ask me, the Democrats could start saving a lot of face right now if they all said they were personally for an Iraq pull-out but politically against surrender.

J.R. Stoodley

StubbleSpark,

But how many Republicans would switch over to this new party? Probably only those who are really into pro-life and don't mind their vote not going to a potential winner (at least this year, but after that it will be self-reenforcing). It would probably just become a national equivalent of the Right to Life Party we had in New York until a few years ago, and will probably suffer the same fate.

I think we should try to keep one of the major parties pro-life as long as there's a chance. Everyone Republican should vote for McCain in the next primary. He bairly qualifies as pro-life but he's close enough that the party can keep some semblance of being the pro-life party.

Rick

All the candidates are pro-life. But some aren't pro-choice.

Dr. Eric

I like Tsar, not Italian, Slavic.

Eric "Katolykyj" Tsar of Mississouri

Lee Darnell

Pro-Life is still Pro-Death Penalty if you're an American Republican. Lets not forget that. And Pro-Life if you're a republican has never been about pro-social justice either, so it's only pro-life for the upper-middle class, lets not forget that either. So really, who is being honest. I really think the republicans need to adopt truth in labeling, it's not abortion that I have a problem with, that is an issue of personal conscience ( heck if you can vote for the war, then how can you call yourself pro-life).

Before you have a problem with a republican calling himself pro-life, you should have issues with a republican calling himself honest on these issues.

Re Brian day:


Dang. I thought the combox automatically generated hyperlinks.

Oh well. Cut 'n paste the above link. You know the drill.


---- Yes, I automatically ignore the fact that there is a war on, and vote against my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Even though GLBT folk are fighting and dying for this useless war. After what "Catholic Charities" did in Boston and around the country re: adoption for gay people, I don't think so. Consider this a big middle finger pointed in the pope's direction on that one - AND WITH GUSTO!

StubbleSpark

Lee Darnell,

I generally agree with your criticisms regarding some of the logical inconsistencies of the Republicans but I have to disagree on your stance against war.

War is not evil. As a matter of fact, there are times when one is morally obligated to wage war. An absolutist stance against war is not only against the teachings of the faith, but it would leave you with no moral grounds upon which to defend yourself or others worthy of being defended.

To fight a war against the forces of terrorism is good but the way it has been handled has been bad.

But we must be the most spoiled children in the world if we demand nothing but logistical and moral perfection in our leaders and suddenly want to beat tail the moment things start to look like they are being handled by men of the Fall.

StubbleSpark

I wonder which of the following reactions the cowardly drive-by comment by Anon was meant to elicit:

1) Squeal "Oh my!" while swooning.

2) Revolver click.

3) Bible beat.

Too bad it actually elicited this reaction:

4) (Sarcastic tone) Oh my how unpredictably original. (Yawns)

Tim J.

"it's not abortion that I have a problem with, that is an issue of personal conscience"

What a cop-out. Everything is "an issue of personal conscience".

paul zummo

Pro-Life is still Pro-Death Penalty if you're an American Republican.

Hmmm. I'm pro-life, an American citizen, and a Republican . . . and anti-death penalty. I hope Karl Rove doesn't come to my house tonight to revoke my membership.

And Pro-Life if you're a republican has never been about pro-social justice either, so it's only pro-life for the upper-middle class, lets not forget that either.

Wow. Deep.

JoAnna

Yes, I automatically ignore the fact that there is a war on, and vote against my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Even though GLBT folk are fighting and dying for this useless war. After what "Catholic Charities" did in Boston and around the country re: adoption for gay people, I don't think so. Consider this a big middle finger pointed in the pope's direction on that one - AND WITH GUSTO!

"AND WITH GUSTO" - but you're too scared to post any way but anonymously?

I'm sorry you're reacting with such venom against the Truth. I think that you know in your heart that the reason your reaction is so strong is because you KNOW the Church teaches the Truth, but admitting so would mean sacrificing earthly pleasure for heavenly gain. I hope and pray you will some day come to see that the heavenly gain is what's worth striving for in this life, not the earthly pleasure.

J.R. Stoodley

Being pro-death penalty or in support of a given war should not disqualify you from being called pro-life.

Those who have commited murder (and certain other crimes I think) have revoked their own right to life, and the State has the right to execute them if desired. Recent Church leaders have, probably rightly, said that the State should not excercise that right if a more merciful means of removing the person from society can be used without endangering innocents. In practicality this may mean a virtual elimination of capital punishment in this country, but this is not a right to life issue.

When it comes to war the war is either just or unjust. If it is a just war the moral and I dare say pro-life thing to do is to go to war to protect innocent lives. If it is an unjust war it is wrong and anti-life. The specific case of Iraq is far from being a textbook example of either. My own opinion is that it was probably an unjust initial invasion but now that we are there the only thing that might make it an unjust war or indeed a war that we do not have a moral responsibility to wage would be whether we have a reasonable chance of success.

On the other hand, those politicians who call themselves pro-life but support abortion in unusually nasty cases (like our President) or embryonic stem cell research (like many Republican congressmen) probably don't deserve the title. They are just inconsistently pro-death. That is still a more desirible quality though than those who want to continue Roe v. Wade's level of legalized abortion.

Esau

On the other hand, those politicians who call themselves pro-life but support abortion in unusually nasty cases (like our President) or embryonic stem cell research (like many Republican congressmen) probably don't deserve the title. They are just inconsistently pro-death. That is still a more desirible quality though than those who want to continue Roe v. Wade's level of legalized abortion.

Please provide documentation/sources on your claims for the above.

As far as the president goes, I don't recall him actually being pro-death, pro-abortion, as you seem to be claiming here.

Though I do recall folks actually detesting him so much due to his adamant stand against abortion and stem cells.

Of course, there is the matter of the Iraq war, but that's a whole other story.

StubbleSpark

Yes, Anon, and I would appreciate it if you were to leave my favorite family-style restaurant in Japan out of this!

http://www.skylark.co.jp/gusto/

Esau

J.R. Stoodley:

Further to my comment above, if the Republican party is so morally-detestable (as your comments seem to suggest), kindly cite examples of folks of such high moral integrity as far as the Democratic Party is concerned.

I would really like to know how saintly the Democrats are as compared to the Republicans.

I admit the Republicans do have their issues, but the Democrats aren't the Saints you seem to make them out to be by merely addressing Republicans in your comments.

William

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Kasia

Esau,

I can't speak for J.R., but I will say that part of the reason I am more apt to criticize Republicans for moral transgressions is that the Republican party has sought to define itself as the party of morals. As such, I'm more apt to hold them to the standards they set.

While I was disgusted when Clinton had his notorious liaisons, I couldn't help thinking "Well, we knew (or should've known) what we were getting when we elected him." Remember Gennifer Flowers? We had pretty solid evidence he was a philanderer from before the '92 election.

However, when Newt Gingrich (as an example) lambasts Clinton for his (considerable) moral failings, then is revealed to have had extramarital affairs too, he fast loses credibility. I guess it goes back to the 'glass houses' bit.

Make any sense?

Bill Hoog

And the "Demon-rats" get off scott free!

derringdo

Does a certain expression about "the tribute vice pays to virtue" mean anything to y'all? Anyone? Bueller?

paul zummo

However, when Newt Gingrich (as an example) lambasts Clinton for his (considerable) moral failings, then is revealed to have had extramarital affairs too, he fast loses credibility. I guess it goes back to the 'glass houses' bit.

The problem with this example is that Gingrich went after Clinton not for having the affair, but for lying under oath about it. But your point is still a decent one.

And while I'll let JR defend himself, I hardly think he was saying the Democrats were saints. In fact, he seemed to be defending some Republican positions. He was just noting his disappointment with the failings of some members of the GOP, which is a fair criticism.

One more thing on the death penalty. It's not like there's that deep a division between the parties as there is with abortion. John Kerry was the first Democratic presidential candidate who opposed the dp since Doukakis, and I believe Hillary is pro-dp as well. I'd say that the GOP leans slightly more pro-dp than the Democratic party, but again, it's not quite as stark a difference as it is with abortion.

And let's not even discuss the difference in the way the Church treats the two issues, because that is a whole 'nother topic.

Brian Day

derringdo,

No. Please explain.

paul zummo

BTW, a huge victory at SCOTUS today (how rarely do we get to say that?) The Court has upheld the ban on partial birth abortions. Here are the opinions.

Michael

Just out of curiosity, which of the announced Republican primary candidates for the 2008 election are actually pro-life? Does anyone know?

derringdo

The full saying, attributed to I think Lord Acton goes: "Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue."

The point being (aside from a salient comment on the psychology of people like Gringrich), that a hypocrite at least knows what is right and might be capable of doing something about it.

Michael: depends on your definition of "actually pro-life": McCain has a fairly high but not infallible voting average on the subject, ditto Brownback, most of the others say they are with varying degrees of convincingness. None are as liberal-or as openly liberal-as Giuliani on the subject.

Esau

The lesser of two evils is still evil.


William:

Then I take it that voting for the lesser of two evils wouldn't make any difference at all and just as bad as voting for evil itself?

In that case, why vote at all?

Also, need I remind you that 2 of the Justices appointed by the President were known to be against abortion (thus, one of the reasons for their appointments) and that the Republican Party has done more AGAINST ABORTION and Pro-Life issues than the Democrats.

Among other things, had we been under a Democrat (in particular, a liberal), stem cell research would've perhaps become a 'full-blown' endeavor 'blessed' with the President's utmost approval.

The President and the Republican Party deserves criticism for many, many things, but I find the current stand of the Democratic Party as hardly acceptable in comparison.

Esau

I can't speak for J.R., but I will say that part of the reason I am more apt to criticize Republicans for moral transgressions is that the Republican party has sought to define itself as the party of morals. As such, I'm more apt to hold them to the standards they set.


Kasia:

The same exact statement can be made with regards to Catholics!

Now, that doesn't necessarily make what they stand for wrong (as well as its base) -- just the actions of a certain of their party.

Also, as regards Gingrich, I did hear from a political commentator from one of the news stations out here that it was Clinton' perjury that Gingrich actually had an issue with at the time of the scandal. Certainly, that doesn't absolve him of his sin.

I will just say though that even in spite of the personal moral failings of some of the individuals in the party, the base itself, in comparison to the Democratic Party, has a far better stand on some of the issues (e.g., Pro-Life) and done more for such than the Democrats.

Esau

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

...

The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.


Okay -- now wait a minute, I thought that the President and the Republican Party were politicians who call themselves pro-life but support abortion and, thus, don't deserve the title?

Dr. Eric "Katolykyj"

It doesn't matter who wins, because we will lose.

Elect me for Tsar!

I'll quash all opposition and end the political bickering.

I'll end all abortion and contraception in the public marketplace. I'm also for Universal Healthcare!

I'm for a strong military, a strong, central government and a return to Catholic morality!

Those of you who know, ask Aristotle which is the best form of government... it's not democracy.

Michael

Okay -- now wait a minute, I thought that the President and the Republican Party were politicians who call themselves pro-life but support abortion and, thus, don't deserve the title?

Oh come on now. Who would Bush's nominees have been if not for massive pressure from the pro-life base? Harriet Myers and Alberto Gonzales - two pro-aborts.

Esau

Michael --

The two in the latter is hardly worth mentioning especially considering the fact that what matters is that the President selected individuals that would do right by the Pro-Life effort in a position where such efforts would matter most -- ON THE COURT!

Thank God!

However, when a Democrat becomes President in 2008, this might be all for naught.

Esau

It doesn't matter who wins, because we will lose.

Elect me for Tsar!

I'll quash all opposition and end the political bickering.

I'll end all abortion and contraception in the public marketplace. I'm also for Universal Healthcare!

I'm for a strong military, a strong, central government and a return to Catholic morality!

Those of you who know, ask Aristotle which is the best form of government... it's not democracy.


Dr. Eric "Katolykyj":

I would've voted for you if you included as part of your platform the restoration of the Papal States and, above all, Temporal Power to the Pope, as it used to be in olden days!

Jim Whall

Wow. I'm stunned.

I'm really surprised that Kennedy was in the majority.

Darth Ginsburg's opinion strikes me as somewhat humorous. 'The decision refuses to take previous court decisions seriously'. According to the non-originalist types, it doesn't really have to do so. Unless of course its your tail getting twisted.

Kasia

I think I'll vote for Dr. Eric anyway!

Michael

Just to be clear, Fred Thompson is also pro-choice. http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/04/fred-thompson-pro-choice-republican.html

On Abortion: "Government should stay out of it... The ultimate decision must be made by the women... Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own." -- Fred Thompson, July 1994

Esau

Oh come on now. Who would Bush's nominees have been if not for massive pressure from the pro-life base?


Michael:

Let's just see how much influence the Pro-Life base will have over the anticipated 2008 Administration of the Democrats.

I can't wait to see what wonderful fruits the Democrats will bring forth in terms of 'Pro-Life' *cough* (or should I say 'Pro-Death') measures.

Eileen R

Michael, I don't know if it's fair to quote Thompson in 1994. He claims to have changed his mind since.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31