Candidate evaluation form

[ABostonCatholic]

The 2008 presidential race is already moving along, so I want to lay out, for my own sake, what my priorities are and compare them to the candidates. In general, everything is laid out in decreasing order of priority.

I would like whatever comments you have. The form is not complete and I have not applied it to any specific candidates. I’d like to know what you think about the issues I’ve included and the priority of which I’ve ranked them.

Certain issues I have labeled as [NON-NEGOTIABLE]. By that I mean that I will automatically disqualify a candidate on the basis of one of these issues. If it happens that all candidates have at least one non-negotiable stance, I will reexamine those with the least amount. Based on the sheer number of non-negotiable issues, I have ranked them from “” which is less important, and “” which is more important. Three stars, “”, means that the issue is so important that if I do not know the candidate’s position, I will assume that they are on the WRONG side of the issue.

There are many other important issues out there than what I have below, and there are probably other non-negotiable issues. But I think that if I know the candidates positions on the following issues, I can make a fairly good judgment on their overall quality.

I have deliberately neglected issues like environmentalism, education, and crime, as those issues become too specified based on locality and candidate.

1. Most Important: Religious Freedom
   • I had abortion at the top of the list, but then I realized something even more fundamental: religious freedom. All of our present efforts to end abortion rely on this basic guarantee.
2. Does the candidate support the notion that persons and institutions of faith in the medical industry should be able to conscientiously object to offering medical treatments that s/he/it believes are immoral? (In particular, I am thinking of Catholic pharmacists and hospitals being forced to offer contraception, abortions, etc.) [NON-NEGOTIABLE]**
3. Does the candidate support the notion that persons of faith should be able to conscientiously object to medical treatments that s/he believes are immoral? (In particular, I am thinking of cases of forced abortion, sterilization, etc.) [NON-NEGOTIABLE]**
4. Does the candidate support the right of religious businesses and institutions to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs? (In particular I’m thinking about the right of the Catholic Church to refuse to hire or ordain gays, or to perform gay marriages.) [NON-NEGOTIABLE]**
5. Does the candidate support the right of Christian churches to carry out their ministry as described in the New Testament? (In particular, I’m thinking of legislation that would have prevented churches from giving food and shelter to illegal immigrants) [NON-NEGOTIABLE]**
6. Does the candidate support the right of government officials to appeal to their religious beliefs when making decisions? [NON-NEGOTIABLE]**
7. Does the candidate support the right of individuals to freely practice their religion in public? (In particular, I am thinking of a situation a few years back when a Baptist minister was kicked out of a city park for baptizing in the river.)
8. Does the candidate support the right of students in schools to freely express their religious beliefs? (In particular, I’m thinking of the “War on Christmas”)
9. Does the candidate support the right of governments and centers of government to express the community’s religious beliefs in various ways? (In particular, I’m thinking of Nativity Scenes in government buildings. But, since I live in a largely Jewish community, I would not object either if the police station or town hall had a menorah, ten commandments, etc., in the building.)

 

[ABostonCatholic]

1. Abortion & Sexuality
   • We must never vote for legalized abortion or any measure which prevents it, nor should we vote for a candidate because they support abortion. To do so is sinful, perhaps mortally so.
2. Does the candidate think that abortions should be reduced (ultimately to none at all)? This is the most fundamental question relating to abortion. It is different from the “personally opposed, but…” rhetoric, though some politicians might use that phrase when they would like to see abortions reduced. I consider this more important than the candidate wanting to see abortion made illegal. The latter is a result of a disordered politics, not disordered morality. [NON-NEGOTIABLE]***
3. Does the candidate oppose forced abortions, contraception, or sterilization, whether here or abroad? [NON-NEGOTIABLE]***
4. Does the candidate oppose fetal research on deliberately (as opposed to spontaneously) aborted children? Or does the candidate justify it by saying that the children are already dead? (The latter will lead to an “end justifies the means” mentality.) [NON-NEGOTIABLE]**
5. If applicable, will the candidate be open to appointing (or confirming) judges who are pro-life? [NON-NEGOTIABLE]**
6. Does the candidate seek to reduce abortions by means of increasing funds of various social programs, whether government or private charity, which aid the poor and thus relieve for many a chief reason for procuring an abortion, without creating dependency on such programs?
7. Does the candidate seek to reduce abortions by means of legitimate instruction on sexuality, namely, abstinence? Or does the candidate chiefly want to increase contraception? (The latter is a false means of ending abortion, as it promotes the very promiscuity that leads to abortion.)
8. Does the candidate seek to reduce abortion by preserving the institution that children are best to be raised in, namely, marriage, by opposing same-sex marriage, “civil unions,” and same-sex adoptions?
9. Does the candidate seek to reduce abortions by removing funding for abortion providing institutions such as Planned Parenthood?
10. War & Peace
11. Does the candidate think that war should be avoided whenever possible, and is only an extreme last resort in resolving crises? [NON-NEGOTIABLE]*
12. However, does the candidate acknowledge that war is sometimes necessary? [NON-NEGOTIABLE]*
13. Does the candidate support a responsible withdrawal from Iraq that most benefits both Americans and the Iraqi people?
14. Scientific Technologies
15. Does the candidate oppose the destruction of innocent human lives in their earliest stages, namely, as embryos? [NON-NEGOTIABLE]**
16. Does the candidate oppose the cloning of humans for any purpose whatsoever? [NON-NEGOTIABLE]**
17. Does the candidate oppose funding of any technology whatsoever with the explicit end of which is immortality? [NON-NEGOTIABLE]*
18. Does the candidate support funding of legitimate means of health-related research, including, but not limited to, research into adult and umbilical stem cell research?
19. Does the candidate oppose funding of nanotechnology research?
20. Immigration
21. See 1.4.
22. Does the candidate support immigration reform which will prevent exploitation of immigrants? [NON-NEGOTIABLE]**
23. Does the candidate support immigration reform which will prevent families from being disunited, or help reunite families, as decreed by the USCCB? [NON-NEGOTIABLE]*

 

[dafalax]

As far as candidates go, I am sadly leaning toward Mitt Romney. He seems to understand that terrorism is a threat, not something Bush and Cheney made up so they could get rich through Halliburton. I feel he understands that extreme Muslims are evil and you cannot negotiate with evil. I also believe that he has had a true conversion of heart with regards to abortion. The fact that he’s a mormon indicates he will probably fight for religious freedom given all the static he has already gotten for his faith.
I’m not going to lie. I would rather vote for little Sammy Brownback. He’s Catholic and i would rather promote a Christian than a non-Christian candidate. However, I don’t feel at this point that he’s being realistic about the threat of extreme Islam, but maybe that will change by the time the primaries come aboot. He is so strong on social issues, like supporting General Pace, that I sincerely hope he does.
On immigration, I want someone who is going to get our border closed. A president has an obligation to protect his citizens and right now many of our citizens are being murdered by illegals coming across the border. Thirty percent of illegal immigrants use our welfare system, which hurts the citizens of this nation. If it is truly that bad in Mexico and other South American countries where these people are coming from, then we need to change the laws to allow more of them to come in legally. However, we cannot help people or reunite families if we don’t know who they are. Glenn Beck had a good analogy. It’s like being a store keeper and wanting people to come in during your posted store hours. Right now we have people sneaking in at night. Some of them are leaving money for what they’re taking, but many of them are not and some of them are wrecking up the place. If we need to extend store hours, let’s do it. But it’s false compassion to pretend like every person who crosses the border is a victim. Many are murderers and drug dealers who are eroding our society. The corrupt Mexican government doesn’t really have any incentive to stop the dregs of their society from leaving, so it’s up to our leaders to put a stop to it. I want a candidate who knows that. I love and respect our bishops (even the bad ones), but they don’t seem to understand what kind of a policy we need in place to both protect Americans and protect immigrants from exploitation. That policy would be one where we demand they be here legally. How do you protect someone you don’t know about?

 

[ABostonCatholic]

So far I am liking Brownback the best. I think his social concerns are just what this country needs. But as far as the war and Islam goes, your concerns reflect mine. I don’t want Giuliani, and I’m afraid McCain is just too Bushy. I think some of the Democrats might be better on this issue (certainly not Obama! I don’t like the war, but I think an immediate withdrawl is irresponsible both for our sake and for the Iraqi’s sake! We need time table, yes, but a non-binding one.)

I will not vote for Obama, Clinton, or Giuliani. I will weap greatly if I have to vote for Romney. A vote for McCain will be like my vote for Bush in 04: I hated doing it, but look at the alternative!

 

[vern_humphrey]

I just recently received an invitation to join “Team Rudy” – that is, contribute money to Rudy Giuliani’s bid for the presidency.

I used the franked envelope provided with the invitation to send him the following letter:

Rudy Giuliani Presidential
Exploratory Committee Inc
P.O. Box 1023
Merrifield, VA 22116-9565

Dear Mr. Giuliani:

I have received your invitation to join Team Rudy. I have read your letter carefully. I must tell you that I am impressed by your accomplishments as Mayor of New York. I also agree with virtually everything you said in your letter.

I am, however, disturbed by the things you did not say.

Like myself, you have taken the oath prescribed in Article 6 of the Constitution, to support that Constitution, Yet you have supported “a woman’s right to choose” – a concept found nowhere in the Constitution and one that denies the 5th Amendment right to life to the unborn.

You have also pushed aside the 2nd Amendment. Today we see many rights being curtailed or eroded because unscrupulous politicians have found they can drive through the hole that was left in the Bill of Rights when the 2nd Amendment was – not repealed, but simply ripped out and violated.

I am sorry that I cannot support you.

Regretfully,

Vernon W. Humphrey
Chairman
Stone County Republican Committee