D
diggerdomer
Guest
There is no proof. It’s a completely subjective opinion. I was only offering mine.
He got an award. Yep. Again, completely subjective. Just like Obama’s winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
- Status
He got an award. Yep. Again, completely subjective. Just like Obama’s winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
D
Della
Guest
The point is you asked for proof. Now you say it’s not needed?
Don’t back-peddle when shown you’re wrong–just admit it and get it over with. :bounce:
J
JimG
Guest
Here is the CNA news article about the award. President Bush was obviously more pro-life than President Obama.
It is noteworthy that a number of “progressive” Catholic organizations, i.e. pro-choice Catholics, have gone on record as opposing the award.
It is noteworthy that a number of “progressive” Catholic organizations, i.e. pro-choice Catholics, have gone on record as opposing the award.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
What was I objectively wrong about? thanks.The point is you asked for proof. Now you say it’s not needed?
D
Della
Guest
Not going to play this game with you. You know perfectly well what I meant. If you want to dodge the issue, that’s up to you, but you aren’t fooling anyone here. :tsktsk:
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Thanks for clarifying. That helps.
M
markomalley
Guest
I, for one, haven’t seen any indication that any American politician deserves any type of award for being pro-life. Regardless of party.
T
tafan
Guest
So I guess that we should never acknowledge all the pro-life stances politicians make until some politician(s) success it outlawing it. Lets forget all about showing any pro-life politician support in the meantime. No need to worry at all if they think their pro-life position is being ignored by pro-life americans. I am sure they would never give up in dispair.
Yea, that’s a strategy thats bound to help.
M
markomalley
Guest
Call me cynical, but I am not impressed by any politician I have heard or met to date. I personally think they are all a bunch of crooks that do what they need to do in order to be elected or re-elected.
I am reasonably confident that the Republicans would drop the pro-life plank on their platform in a New York second (no offense to New Yorkers) if they thought that action would gain them more votes.
D
Della
Guest
You’re a cynic, all right.
Maybe, but what we do know for sure is that many a Dem who was pro-life turned “pro-choice” when they saw all the support they’d be getting from NOW, PP, and NARAL if they bailed on their pro-life stance. Oh yes, do let’s be real here.
M
markomalley
Guest
I don’t place any Republican pol ANY above any Democrat pol in this regard.You’re a cynic, all right.
Maybe, but what we do know for sure is that many a Dem who was pro-life turned “pro-choice” when they saw all the support they’d be getting from NOW, PP, and NARAL if they bailed on their pro-life stance. Oh yes, do let’s be real here.
Well, maybe their first term, MAYBE their second, but no longer than that. Come live and work in DC for a couple of years and you will quickly be dissuaded from any naivete in regards to the purity of politicians’ intents.
Sorry, but I just speak from the voice of experience (living and working among them for too long).
D
Della
Guest
Which makes the case for limited terms, does it not?
M
markomalley
Guest
Indeed it does…Which makes the case for limited terms, does it not?
T
tafan
Guest
Possible convienient excuse for not voting for a pro-life candidate? One hears it a lot, “I can vote for a pro-choice politician, since the pro-life person running won’t help the situation anyway.”
M
markomalley
Guest
Actually, sir/ma’am, I have never voted for a socialist candidate in my life, thank you very much. Nor have I ever voted for one who has espoused the pro-death agenda.
The point is that there are scoundrels who work for us and scoundrels who work for the other side. And, frankly, I don’t presume that practitioners of the world’s second oldest profession are going to be any more loyal than those of the first. Just because they are bought and paid for doesn’t mean that somebody else won’t bid higher next time.
T
tafan
Guest
Did I mention socialist? It’s sir, BTW.
Well, it all started with reference to George W. He was very loyal to the pro-life positino through 14 years of direct public service. He was clear as day and acted consistently on this policy. Established pro-life policies with foriegn aid, appointed pro-life judges, spoke out consistently, banned funding of embryonic stem cell research. I could name other politicians who have been very loyal to the position (Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback come to mind). I have no problem presuming their loyalty to the pro-life cause. And they should be recognized and applauded for it from the pro-life populace. Last thing we want is for politicians to thing that people don’t care about the issue. Which seems to be where your position (espoused in post #24) would lead.
M
markomalley
Guest
Thanks. The profiles don’t specify and I couldn’t tell by way of your handle.
Part of the socialist agenda involves control of the population. Therefore, unless VERY EXPLICITLY STATED OTHERWISE, the given is that a socialist is pro-death. (BTW, in my parlance socialist = modern-day usage of liberal / progressive)
Thanks. And I understand, as far as so called pro-life politicians are concerned, GW Bush has about as good a record as any of them. No question on those lines.
But the fact of the matter is that they are all w****s. It comes with the job. Just as Teddy Kennedy used to be staunchly pro-life, just as Dennis Kuchinich was as well, and just as Mitt Romney was pro-abortion before being pro-life, any other politician could be counted on switching his position when he feels it is necessary. Nothing against any politician; that’s just the way it is.
I don’t see heroic action here by Bush. Where did he put his political career or his personal safety at risk for the unborn? Harriet Miers anybody (you can be pro-life and still support Roe)? and, btw, he didn’t prohibit federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, he limited embryonic stem cell research to existing stem cell lines…a very nuanced position, rather than taking the courageous position of banning federal funds outright and taking a position on outlawing it outright.
“Plan B” emergency abortifacient contraception became a nonprescription drug (behind the counter) in 2006 (and who was in office then??). No action was taken to withdraw RU-486 from the market, even though it was only approved for use in the waning months of the Clinton administration. And the famous Bush conscience clause: the rule was approved in December 2008. Why not December, 2001??? Or December, 2007??
Yes, Mr. Bush was the most pro-life president of our lifetimes, no doubt. But I don’t think he qualifies as having “heroic virtue” in the area. Sorry.
Here’s the bottom line truth of the matter: they work for us. Period. As long as we keep that rule straight, we can hold their feet to the fire. And that is what needs to happen with politicians, rather than awarding them Nobel prizes or Pro-Life prizes. The former keeps them honest. The latter makes them think they are our masters and are better than us.
T
tafan
Guest
A implies B does not mean B implies A. Socialists may all be pro-death, but pro-death folks are not all socialists. If they were, it would be easier to defeat, at least in the USA.
In my business experience, you get better results from employees when you reward them for doing good, than when you punish them for failure. Not that the latter is not often necessary. Its just that the former is very important. And since you admit Bush is the most pro-life president we have had, a little recognition seems to be in order.
As for Bush not putting his political career on the line, it is my belief that his pro-life positions had more to do with the hatred spewed at him from the left than anything else. This hatred from the left is what lead to the endless stream of negative media coverage which is what lead to his very low popularity numbers. Bush, IMO, was very willing to damage his legacy by being pro-life.
As to the nuanced problem with his stem-cell decision, that is correct. But, we must remember something important, he came from a southern evangelical background. Without meaning to slam evangelical protestants, it is a fact that they suffer from a shallowness of philisophical heritage on all most subjects when compared to the Catholic church. For example, they don’t have the equivilant of a Rerum Novarum in their social teaching tradition. So, it would have been hard to expect perfection. Secondly, he did a better job of articulating the issue in his speech (it was a classic as far as I am concerned) than almost any catholic leader I had heard up to that time.
M
markomalley
Guest
True enough, but that reflects back on my statement, I have never voted for a socialist candidate in my life, thank you very much. Nor have I ever voted for one who has espoused the pro-death agenda. That’s why I separated the two categories.
Recognition is that he was re-elected. And rightfully so, compared to the CINO, pro-death opponent he faced.
Mind you, I am not saying he should be demonized…but he also does not meet the criteria for beatification, either…
Uh, no he didn’t. He was a blue-blood eastern Episcopalian. He became a United Methodist when he married his wife.
He did apparently develop evangelical leanings when he quit drinking in the late 80s.
I don’t disagree with your statements regarding a shallowness of formal social doctrine in evangelical teachings. A lack of a formal magesterium will cause that.
The point is that I don’t see any politician deserving to be on the same award platform as Fr. Pavone, Fr. Euteneuer, and Jodie Brown (past recipients of the O’Connor award) unless their stance was as totally fearless as the stand taken by those three luminaries. I think it decreases the stature of the recognition given them.
Maybe there should be an award for pro-life politicians and public servants where their stand is measured in political terms and doesn’t tend to water down the contributions by true pro-life leaders. If that was the case, I would support Bush receiving that type of award.
But, please, don’t get me wrong. I am not trying to demonize the man. But he’s also not a candidate for canonization either.
D
Della
Guest
Of course, Bush would be the first to say he isn’t a gilded saint! No one is claiming that he is, here, either.
I have to disagree with you about giving him the same award as others who may be more worthy. Worthiness has to be judged according to the circumstances. Did Bush stand up to those who were determined to undermine his every effort to promote any kind of pro-life program? Yes, he did. Did he take a chance in his political life for his pro-life stance? Yes, he did. Did he do what he could according to the Constitution he swore to uphold? I think he did.
Apart from that consideration, we have to admit that Bush receiving this award has focused attention on it in quarters that would never have thought it of any importance. Getting the message out is just as important as the message itself. If no one hears it, what good can it do?
So, was Bush perfect? No, of course not. Did he deserve this award? Considering the circumstances under which he labored, I believe the answer is yes.
- Status