Gingrich: John Bolton will be my secretary of state

[CMatt25]

Cmatt, since you seem to want to defer to the USCCB then read this and let me know what you think:

*"Most Americans believe that abortion should be illegal except in certain limited circumstances; an overwhelming majority agrees that unmarried minors should not obtain abortions without parental knowledge or consent. Nonetheless, pro-abortion or so-called “pro-choice” groups have mounted a campaign to convince legislators and others that Americans want abortion on demand. These organizations have formed new political arms and have intensified efforts to defeat politicians who do not support permissive abortion. Because of the critical importance of the issue and the need for a timely response, we wish to reaffirm our conviction that all human life is sacred whether born or unborn. With the Second Vatican Council we declare that “from the moment of conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes” (Gaudium et Spes, para. 51). *

old.usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/resabort89.shtml

So do you, with your allegiance to the USCCB agree then that the pro-choice politicians are really pro-abortion politicians as the quote says they are?

Ishii

Ishii, I think the first sentence shows most Americans do not agree with the Catholic Church on that issue. And I have voted for parental notification. It passed in my stste so it is not on demand. I also know there are pro choice people who would never choose abortion after conception. So no they are not pro abortion. They just don’t believe their beliefs on that issue should be forced upon everyone in a democracy of plural beliefs on the issue. But this thread has so strayed off topic. It is not about whether I defer to the USCCB. I merely quoted the bishops saying their guide does not offer a voter’s guide, nor issues scorecard, nor does it give direction on how to vote according to the bishops. And the bottom line is the Catholic Church does not say Catholics must be registered Republicans and must only vote for Republicans or for Gingrich if he’s the nominee who wants to name Bolton Sec of St, who was the topic of this thread. So to be baffled how a Catholic could vote for a liberal Democrat could seem to be putting Republican politics first. And I’ll leave it at that. As I have nothing further to say on the thread because I have nothing further to say about Bolton.

 

[ishii]

 Thanks for responding, nonetheless!! :)

You’re welcome.

If abortion is the litmus test, I get it. Fair enough. Personally, I can't see letting everything else go, but I understand what you're saying.

No, don’t let everthing else go. But all rights flow from the right to life.

Nor does it require that you vote for a “pro-life” candidate. You needn’t be a single-issue voter.

On the contrary, I think it does. You see, abortion is not “just another issue” to be considered along with healthcare reform, school lunches for kids, and unemployment benefits. The problem is when people consider the sanctity of life, that is, the right to an unborn child to not be snuffed out pre-birth, to be of equal gravity to the issue of economics and such. They aren’t of equal gravity.

I'm well acquainted with subsidiarity. It's not just about politics! It's about economics as well!! Thus, it's at odds with the big-gov't supporters, and at odds with those who support a global free-market capitalism!! This is why I mentioned above that I empathize with both the Tea Party and the Occupy-Wall Street movement.

I brought up the principle of subsidiarity because you said the Democrat party is much closer to Catholic teaching than GOP economic policies. But Democrat left/liberal statist policies are at opposition to subsidiarity. Democrats don’t seem to know any problem that doesn’t require a federal solution with a huge bureaucracy and lots of funds to support it. And the bureaucracy won’t solve anything - it will make matters worse.

It's "bleeding" heart liberals. Why take a swipe like that? Hardly the Christian thing to do, eh?

What? I was using the words you used to describe yourself politically.

 We needn't go over the lies that went into the Iraq war build up. The point is the support of the war rather than the support of the politicians, and everyone I know personally who supports the war is Republican.

Well, it is a fact that many liberal Democrats voted for the war. If you want to change the discussion to that of who we know personally who supports the war, fine, but I thought we were talking about the politicians.

On economics, generally speaking, there’s no contest–Dems are closer.

Right. Why does supporting failed, statist policies that have created more poor when they were supposed to help the poor make it more catholic? Or is it only intentions that matter, not results?

Please. Don’t accuse me of making straw man arguments, because I’ve made none. I’m not interested in the insults. If you persist, I’ll simply ignore you. I don’t want to be pulled in, and I will get pulled in if I continue to read insults.

You accused the posters of supporting “unrestrained free-market capitalism”. I don’t know of any posters who don’t believe in any regulations whatsoever. I know of a lot of poster who thing there is too much regulation, but that is far from believing in “unrestrained capitalism.” If you don’t want to be accused of making straw man arguments, then don’t make exaggerated, hyperbolic statements with no evidence to back them up. Ignore me if you want, but if I think you’re unfairly characterizing the posters on this forum I’ll call you on it.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Ishii, this thread has so strayed off topic. It is not about whether I defer to the USCCB. I merely quoted the bishops saying their guide does not offer a voter’s guide, nor issues scorecard, nor does it give direction on how to vote according to the bishops. And the bottom line is the Catholic Church does not say Catholics must be registered Republicans and must only vote for Republicans or for Gingrich if he’s the nominee who wants to name Bolton Sec of St, who was the topic of this thread. And I’ll leave it at that.

So you can invoke the USCCB when its convenient for you and what you want, but whenI turn it back on you, its “I don’t defer to the USCCB.” YOu can’t have it both ways.

Once again, you use the convenient excuse, “now we’re off topic”. You seem content to argue until you’ve been proven wrong, then you invoke the stay on topic of the thread rule as an escape. I didn’t claim that the Church says we all must be registered Republicans. I challenged you with a quote from a USCCB statement and asked for you response to a specific part of it. You have refused to answer or respond to my challenge. All this dancing around on your part tells volumes about how illogical and morally bankrupt your position is. The position of the liberal pro-abortion catholic is untenable.

Ishii

 

[CMatt25]

Once again, you use the convenient excuse, “now we’re off topic”. You seem content to argue until you have no answer, then you invoke the stay on topic of the thread rule. I didn’t claim that the Church says we all must be registered Republicans. I challenged you with a quote from a USCCB statement and asked for you response to a specific part of it. You have refused to answer or respond to my challenge. All this dancing around on your part tells volumes about how illogical and morally bankrupt your position is. The position of the liberal pro-abortion catholic is untenable.

Ishii

Perhaps you missed my edit.

 

[Raskolnikov]

How did *this *topic end up in a discussion about abortion?

Did someone actaully dare to equate opposition to John Bolton’s ludicrous views with support for abortion? It seems the ongoing agenda of some is to equate every facet of ther politics with their faith so as to make ‘illegitimate’ opposition to those views. I find Bolton’s positions repulsive, and I fear the possiblity of him dictating American foreign policy. Perhaps that makes me part of the ‘secular left.’

 

[Raskolnikov]

What we live under is more like global corporatism. The government(both parties) favors corporations to the point that true free market capitalism can not work properly.

Arguing is what we do best around here.

Free markets very often *lead *to corporatism. It is cheaper per unit of product for Walmart to mass-produce than for a small competitor to so, making Wal-mart (representative of the big corporations) more competitive, driving smaller and medium-sized businesses out of business. The history of capitalism has been one of businesses getting progressively bigger, not in spite of, but because of free market capitalism. This in itself I don’t think is so problematic, but when we start doing away with laws like the Glass-Steagall Act or doing away with limitations on corporate political donations, both od which have been done in recent years in the name of ‘free market capitalism,’ then we pave the way for these gigantic corporations to garner unprecedented influence on governments.

The idea that less regulation is ipso factor good for the economy is as ridiculous as the idea that more regulation is ipso facto good for the economy.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I’m currently in RCIA classes. I’m a pro-life bleeding-heart-liberal. I feel strongly compelled to become Catholic–as though I’m Catholic already, and just never realized it. Should I be turned off by the fact that so many American Catholics are Republicans first, Catholics second? Or should I just see that as exemplifying what a big tent Catholicism really is?

Visualize yourself being as an impartial third-party observer being inside a womb during an abortion. You can hear and feel what the baby is experiencing and thinking.

Now, expand that to being present at every abortion.

Then, listen to what the abortion advocates are saying and writing.

Today is Saturday … and today we pray the Joyful Mysteries … the Holy Family and Jesus being conceived and being born and having a childhood.

So, you may not be able to do much about abortion, but you can vote.

You have ONE vote.

YOU need to make a decision.

How will you use your vote to eliminate abortion?

Maintaining abortion and even funding it have consistently been part of the Democrat Party platform and they ARE TODAY advocating for and pushing the pro-abortion agenda.

Voting third party ASSURES that the Democrats will win re-election.

The Republicans [even with the defection of some RINO wobblies] have been consistently pro-life; there is a list of their pro-life accomplishments … including in the international sphere of influence … [Bolton, et al.]

So, if you say you want to be Catholic … [and some Catholics to their shame do embrace being pro-abortion] … then how will YOU cast YOUR vote in December?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

How did *this *topic end up in a discussion about abortion?

Did someone actaully dare to equate opposition to John Bolton’s ludicrous views with support for abortion? It seems the ongoing agenda of some is to equate every facet of ther politics with their faith so as to make ‘illegitimate’ opposition to those views. I find Bolton’s positions repulsive, and I fear the possiblity of him dictating American foreign policy. Perhaps that makes me part of the ‘secular left.’

Bolton’s nomination to be U.N. Ambassador from the United States was opposed by the Democrats, so George Bush installed him as a “recess appointment” … which meant that it was a time-expired position. The Senate refused to confirm him by imposing a 2/3 voting requirement.

So, if someone wants to oppose Bolton, perhaps they could provide specifics instead of generalities.

If you want someone to oppose U.S. interests, then vote for the current administration to continue its present course in international affairs … including the various international political and bureaucratic measures to continue to expand abortion.

Bolton has consistently supported life, although not as fully focused as I would like. He may not be Catholic and he may not be Teddy Kennedy, but he has consistently supported life. Whereas the current administration, throughout its structure, has supported and advocated for abortion in all its forms.

So, where are YOU today?

Will you vote for Gingrich or for Obama?

 

[Jocko_VT]

What we live under is more like global corporatism. The government(both parties) favors corporations to the point that true free market capitalism can not work properly.

Okay. I can go with this. And, if we could eliminate the externalization of costs (including those for pollution and increased health risks, and much much else), perhaps capitalism would be viable. I don’t think so, though, because *nothing *(politics, economics, social life generally) works very well on the large scale. And nothing works at all on a global scale. The free market is amoral, and makes many of daily life’s transactions amoral, too (e.g., what we eat, what we wear, what we produce, what we consume, are no longer taken to be moral questions by most people, because they can escape the consequences of those decisions).

Arguing is what we do best around here.

Ha. Very true!

 

[Jocko_VT]

I’m applying subsidiarity to the American political system. What political system do you think I should apply it to?

Fair enough. My point is that we should be looking beyond established political systems. I think Catholics in the US who vote party-line, whether dem or repub, are perpetuating a system that is distinctly non-Catholic. There must be somewhere upwards of 70 million Catholics in the US–imagine the power that a Catholic party (in name or just principles) would have!! Imagine the good that could be done, not just regarding abortion, but regarding everything!!

Regarding family/community to all consumption and production, the Church doesn’t teach that…I have no idea where you are coming up with that idea. Could you cite something that gave you that impression? There is nothing wrong with buying clothes made in another country, for example, from a Catholic perspective. There is nothing wrong with global corporations from a Catholic perspective.

I know for a fact that the way we produce and consume food on a global level generally, but very specifically on an American level, causes bad health and causes the destruction of the environment and puts us at greater risk of ecological catastrophe–including global famine. This is a direct consequence of economics practiced on a large scale. The particular economic philosophy/doctrine is irrelevant to the outcome. When we remove the consequences of our action from our proximity (spatially, temporally, or bureaucratically), anything goes. This, in a nutshell, is what’s wrong with proximity.

I know for a fact that the way we produce and consume clothing on a global level leads directly to the exploitation of third-world labor (including children) by consumers in the so-called developed world. Again, scale is the problem. There are plenty of other examples (precious metals and gems, energy production–including the extraction of fuels and their combustion, etc.)

Subsidiarity is a position that encourages the small-scale–the individual, the family, the community. These examples are a good defense of subsidiarity. Thus, I think the Church does teach that. And, I’d bet money that as Latin-American and African Catholics become and even larger part of the worldwide Catholic population, those teachings will be increasily recognized.

I do put the Catholic answer first, as do many Catholics. You are making generalizations based on your own personal assumptions.

Not exactly, but point taken. This is why I asked my initial question here.

 

[Jocko_VT]

On the contrary, I think it does. They aren’t of equal gravity.

If abortion outweighs everything else combined, fair enough.

I brought up the principle of subsidiarity because you said the Democrat party is much closer to Catholic teaching than GOP economic policies. But Democrat left/liberal statist policies are at opposition to subsidiarity. Democrats don’t seem to know any problem that doesn’t require a federal solution with a huge bureaucracy and lots of funds to support it. And the bureaucracy won’t solve anything - it will make matters worse.

I agree that economic as well as political life should be kept local (family and community) to the extent possible. In global economy, to restrict politics to the locale would be to give global economic powers an even freer reign than they already have. Monsanto can not be undermined by a local government, and without protection from a Monsanto-type company, we’ll all be dependent on global corporations for every daily material need.

Subsidiarity doesn’t say everything must be local–period. It says that things should be as local as possible. In the ideal world, politics and economics are local. However, in a global economic world, politics must work at a larger scale in order to cope with the economics (it’s the primary argument for the need of a legitimate global governing body).

Pull economics back to the local level, and there’s no need for extralocal politics (at least not much need). On the other hand, if we do as the other side wants, and pull politics back to the local level, we’ll all be destroyed by economic forces beyond the control of anyone.

What? I was using the words you used to describe yourself politically.

“bleeding” vs. “bleating.” Makes all the difference.

Well, it is a fact that many liberal Democrats voted for the war. If you want to change the discussion to that of who we know personally who supports the war, fine, but I thought we were talking about the politicians.

You’re ignoring points I already made. I’m not interested in going over the same points again and again.

Right. Why does supporting failed, statist policies that have created more poor when they were supposed to help the poor make it more catholic? Or is it only intentions that matter, not results?

If you believe that to be a correct characterization of things, then I understand why you’d see the Republican party as a viable Catholic Party.

You accused the posters of supporting “unrestrained free-market capitalism”. I don’t know of any posters who don’t believe in any regulations whatsoever. I know of a lot of poster who thing there is too much regulation, but that is far from believing in “unrestrained capitalism.” If you don’t want to be accused of making straw man arguments, then don’t make exaggerated, hyperbolic statements with no evidence to back them up. Ignore me if you want, but if I think you’re unfairly characterizing the posters on this forum I’ll call you on it.
Ishii

You’d do well not to accuse others of making exaggerated, hyperbolic statements with no evidence after making exaggerated, hyperbolic statements with no evidence.

I think your position is that the Democrats are, effectively, a Party that at least almost completely is opposed to Catholic principles. In contrast, you see the Republicans as largely in sync with Catholic principles. (maybe my characterization of you is incorrect here). I don’t agree with you. Hence my original post. Your response to me is that I’m wrong. Fair enough.

 

[Jocko_VT]

So, you may not be able to do much about abortion, but you can vote.

You have ONE vote.

YOU need to make a decision.

How will you use your vote to eliminate abortion?

Maintaining abortion and even funding it have consistently been part of the Democrat Party platform and they ARE TODAY advocating for and pushing the pro-abortion agenda.

Voting third party ASSURES that the Democrats will win re-election.

The Republicans [even with the defection of some RINO wobblies] have been consistently pro-life; there is a list of their pro-life accomplishments … including in the international sphere of influence … [Bolton, et al.]

So, if you say you want to be Catholic … [and some Catholics to their shame do embrace being pro-abortion] … then how will YOU cast YOUR vote in December?

In the US, abortion will never be made illegal under any and all circumstances. Because it’s completely politicized, there are only two political options–either all abortions are made illegal, or (virtually) all abortions are legal. Because of Roe v. Wade and subsequent legal/political action, the current landscape is that abortion be legal in virtually all circumstances (or is it all?).

If the goal is to eliminate abortion in the US, the more realistic approach is to convert everyone to Catholicism–and that ain’t gonna happen! Thus, there’s no way abortion will be eliminated completely. Thus, voting one way or the other in our current political landscape will have no impact on abortion! It may be worth it to vote on principle, but it will never achieve the intended goal…not in today’s landscape.

Imagine a world where Republicans *never *try to move for a law that makes abortion illegal even in cases of rape and incest and serious risk to the mother’s life. In that world, Democrats will become less militant, and compromise will be found. Abortions will decrease drastically. Late-term abortions will virtually disappear. etc., etc.

I tend to look at things from the perspective not only of the unborn, but the already born. Thus, economic justice (which, mind you, is not separable from the abortion issue) is a major concern. I also tend to look at things from an environmental perspective (which is also a very human perspective). Should my vote be wasted (or based merely on principle) trying to eliminate abortion in such a way that will perpetuate the status quo and actually result in more abortions over the long term, or should it be applied to issues that I believe have hope? To my eye, there are no really good options politically in the US. But, if it’s Obama vs. any of the current Republican candidates, I’ve got to go with Obama. Not only do I believe Obama a morally superior human being compared to Gingrich or Romney, but I think his economic policies and his foreign policy are themselves morally superior.

 

[rlg94086]

Jocko_VT;8704577I know for a fact that the way we produce and consume food on a global level generally:

You are applying the idea of subsidiarity to something the Church doesn’t apply it to. It doesn’t mean it can’t be done, but it is not a moral imperative. The teaching of subsidiarity is referenced in relation to societal interaction between the individual, community and the State. The primary purpose is to protect people from abuses by higher-level social authority.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

 

[Monte_RCMS]

In the US, abortion will never be made illegal under any and all circumstances. Because it’s completely politicized, there are only two political options–either all abortions are made illegal, or (virtually) all abortions are legal. Because of Roe v. Wade and subsequent legal/political action, the current landscape is that abortion be legal in virtually all circumstances (or is it all?).

If the goal is to eliminate abortion in the US, the more realistic approach is to convert everyone to Catholicism–and that ain’t gonna happen! Thus, there’s no way abortion will be eliminated completely. Thus, voting one way or the other in our current political landscape will have no impact on abortion! It may be worth it to vote on principle, but it will never achieve the intended goal…not in today’s landscape.

Imagine a world where Republicans *never *try to move for a law that makes abortion illegal even in cases of rape and incest and serious risk to the mother’s life. In that world, Democrats will become less militant, and compromise will be found. Abortions will decrease drastically. Late-term abortions will virtually disappear. etc., etc.

I tend to look at things from the perspective not only of the unborn, but the already born. Thus, economic justice (which, mind you, is not separable from the abortion issue) is a major concern. I also tend to look at things from an environmental perspective (which is also a very human perspective). Should my vote be wasted (or based merely on principle) trying to eliminate abortion in such a way that will perpetuate the status quo and actually result in more abortions over the long term, or should it be applied to issues that I believe have hope? To my eye, there are no really good options politically in the US. But, if it’s Obama vs. any of the current Republican candidates, I’ve got to go with Obama. Not only do I believe Obama a morally superior human being compared to Gingrich or Romney, but I think his economic policies and his foreign policy are themselves morally superior.

Two parts to this issue:

1. And first … in importance … is the Supreme Court … to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s NOT a law … as voted on and passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Let us be clear about that.

It is a Supreme Court decision.

And can only be turned around by the Supreme Court … and justices on the Supreme Court are appointed by the President and “voted upon” by the Senate … or by a small committee of Senators.

This is a very critical issue … and has some very important component issues.

Whoever controls the Executive Branch and whoever controls the U.S. Senate … thus controls the abortion issue.

1. Historical pro-life issues:

Elections Have Consequences

[Click here for a PDF version of this article.]

Does it matter to the pro-life cause whether a President is pro-life or not? Does it matter how many pro-life people are elected to Congress?

Part of the responsibility pro-life educational organizations like Priests for Life is to familiarize people with the electoral process and its implications.

The present document, therefore, explores the progress made for the pro-life cause under a pro-life administration, and the possible impact of a pro-abortion one.

PRO-LIFE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

1. Appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. The appointments resulted in the upholding of the federal partial-birth abortion ban by a 5-4 decision.
2. Reinstituted the Mexico City Policy, begun by the Reagan Administration and reversed by the Clinton Administration (when Congress tried to reinstitute the policy, Clinton vetoed the bill), that bars foreign aid funding to groups that perform or advocate for abortions. In 2003, the Bush Administration expanded the Mexico City Policy to include not just funds dispensed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), but also the State Department.
3. Discouraged advancement of pro-abortion legislation by announcing early in his administration that he would veto legislation that threatened pro-life policy.
4. Signed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, which made it a federal crime not to treat babies who survive abortion.
5. Signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003.
6. Signed Unborn Victims of Violence Act, recognizing the unborn child as a separate crime victim if injured or killed during an assault.
7. Cut off all federal funds to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for its involvement in China’s one-child policy which includes forced abortion and sterilization. President Bush sent a fact-finding mission to China which found that the nation’s one-child policy was indeed coercive in nature and that the UNFPA was an integral part of implementing that policy, placing the UNFPA in clear violation of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment that prohibits any aid to any program that involves forced abortion or forced sterilization. Tens of millions of dollars that otherwise would have gone to the UNFPA were redirected to maternal and child health programs.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

1. Thwarted efforts at the United Nations to promote abortion by instructing U.S. delegates to state at every appropriate opportunity that America does not regard anything in any document before the U.N. to establish any international right to abortion.
2. Issued Executive Order banning the use of new lines of embryonic stem cells in federally funded experiments. Later vetoed legislation passed by Congress to permit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
3. Signed the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, which will fund research using umbilical cord and adult stem cells. The measure provides funding to increase the inventory of cord blood units available to match and treat patients and to link cord blood banks so that doctors have a single source to search for cord blood and bone marrow matches. It also reauthorizes the National Bone Marrow Registry.
4. Launched public awareness of adoption campaign, working with the National Council for Adoption and pregnancy help centers across the country. The campaign sponsored conferences encouraging faith based communities to promote adoption and produced public service announcements featuring the First Lady urging the adoption of foster children.
5. Established the first federal government and national website listing and showing children available for adoption across the country (www.AdoptUSKids.org).
6. Increased the tax credit for adoption related expenses from $5,000 to $10,000; for special needs children, the credit was raised from $5,000 for qualified adoption related expenses to $10,000 for any adoption related expenses. This was done as part of the President’s tax relief bill.
7. Annually declared Sanctity of Human Life Day.
8. Issued a federal regulation allowing states to include unborn children in the federal/state S-CHIP program, which provides health insurance for children in poor families. This allowed states to include pre-natal care in the health insurance they offer to poor children under the program.
9. The Bush Administration did what it could to stop assisted suicide from taking further hold in Oregon. The state of Oregon passed an assisted suicide law that allows doctors to prescribe federally controlled drugs in lethal amounts to certain of their patients who say they want to die. Federal law holds that federally controlled drugs may only be prescribed for legitimate medical purposes. During the Clinton Administration, Attorney General Janet Reno decreed that assisted suicide was a legitimate medical purpose in those states that permit it.

During the Bush Administration, Attorney General John Ashcroft changed that ruling, saying that assisted suicide was not a legitimate medical purpose, thereby barring doctors from prescribing lethal drugs. A lawsuit was filed and ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing the drugs to be used for assisted suicide.

1. Signed legislation making it possible for a federal court to hear whether Terri Schiavo’s constitutional rights had been violated by being denied hydration and nutrition.
2. Dramatically increased funding for abstinence education through the Department of Health and Human Services, although Congress did not approve the full amount the Bush Administration requested.

 

[CMatt25]

Voting third party ASSURES that the Democrats will win re-election.

Chuck Todd and former RNC chairman Michael Steele were among those discussing this yesterday on MSNBC. The consensus was it could depend on who the 3rd party candidate was. Ron Paul for instance could hurt the GOP nominee because his supporters among the conservative base like his anti government approach. On the other hand a Huntsman running 3rd party could take moderate Independents away from Obama. Especially I’d say if a Newt Gingrich who wants John Bolten as his Secretary of State, is the nominee rather than someone with perhaps a bit more moderate Republican overall career record or reputation such as a Romney.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Chuck Todd and former RNC chairman Michael Steele were among those discussing this yesterday on MSNBC. The consensus was it could depend on who the 3rd party candidate was. Ron Paul for instance could hurt the GOP nominee because his supporters among the conservative base like his anti government approach. On the other hand a Huntsman running 3rd party could take moderate Independents away from Obama. Especially I’d say if a Newt Gingrich who wants John Bolten as his Secretary of State, is the nominee rather than someone with perhaps a bit more moderate Republican overall career record or reputation such as a Romney.

Paul won’t run as third party.

 

[CMatt25]

Paul won’t run as third party.

I didn’t say he would or wouldn’t. He himself when asked about it recently said he would give the same answer he has for the last 39 times. That he’s not planning to do it.

 

[ishii]

Subsidiarity doesn’t say everything must be local–period. It says that things should be as local as possible. In the ideal world, politics and economics are local. However, in a global economic world, politics must work at a larger scale in order to cope with the economics (it’s the primary argument for the need of a legitimate global governing body).

Pull economics back to the local level, and there’s no need for extralocal politics (at least not much need). On the other hand, if we do as the other side wants, and pull politics back to the local level, we’ll all be destroyed by economic forces beyond the control of anyone.

You know sometimes, when I say something like, “I believe in the principle of subsidiarity” another poster comes back with, " Subsidiarity doesn’t mean everything is dealt with at the local level." Or if I say, “I am pro-life” then another poster comes back with: “Abortion will never be completely eliminated.” I think we all need to be more careful with our responses to not misinterpret what others are saying. Of course I never implied or said that subsidiarity requires everything to be done at the local level or that our aircraft carriers should be built at the local dock and take ten years to make. I never said or implied that abortion will be completely eliminated if we vote for the GOP. Therefore I think its pretty misleading to come back with those kinds of statements.

“bleeding” vs. “bleating.” Makes all the difference.

Sorry, just my lame mispelling of the word. I didn’t intend to offend anyone.

If you believe that to be a correct characterization of things, then I understand why you’d see the Republican party as a viable Catholic Party.

As one of the great GOP presidents used to say, “there you go again.” I never said that the GOP is the Catholic party! I merely believe that we have to vote for the candidate that comes the closest to Catholic teaching in these matters. If that means voting for the candidate who is 50% close to Catholic teaching over the candidate who is 5% close to Catholic teaching, then so be it. Not the best scenario, but this side of paradise, it is the reality.

You’d do well not to accuse others of making exaggerated, hyperbolic statements with no evidence after making exaggerated, hyperbolic statements with no evidence.

I believe when you accuse posters of believing in unrestrained free-market capitalism, then you’re are engaging in exaggerated, hyperbolic statements. I don’t think there are too many posters (if any) who don’t believe in any restrains on capitalism.

I think your position is that the Democrats are, effectively, a Party that at least almost completely is opposed to Catholic principles. In contrast, you see the Republicans as largely in sync with Catholic principles. (maybe my characterization of you is incorrect here). I don’t agree with you. Hence my original post. Your response to me is that I’m wrong. Fair enough.

I’m not sure that I’d say the GOP is largely in sync with CAtholic priniciples. Some are on some issues- but then they probably fall short on other issues. I think, on balance, right now, the GOP has more candidates and politicians whose positions on the non-negotiable issues come much closer to Catholic moral teaching than that of Democrats. When I say “non-negotiables” I mean mainly the social/life issues. Issues such as how much to tax, how much to regulate, etc. are ones that honest people can disagree on and still call themselves good Catholics. I would agree with you that war/foreign policy is a life issue and one that we need to look at from a catholic perspective rather than a GOP or typical American conservative perspective. I don’t know if John Bolton’s rather brash, blunt style would be good or bad. In any event, I don’t think he’ll be the next secretary of state because I don’t think Gingrich will become the nominee.

Your comments are generally reasonable and I enjoy the back and forth, thanks.

Ishii

 

[Carlan]

I’m currently in RCIA classes. I’m a pro-life bleeding-heart-liberal. I feel strongly compelled to become Catholic–as though I’m Catholic already, and just never realized it. Should I be turned off by the fact that so many American Catholics are Republicans first, Catholics second? Or should I just see that as exemplifying what a big tent Catholicism really is?

Jocko I am just most happy you are wavering Peace, Carlan
PS, I saw it coming , way back,