J
jlw
Guest
He was afraid (and maybe rightly so) that the anti-catholic bias in the protestant electorate would sink him if he was “too Catholic”.
- Status
J
jlw
Guest
A VERY good distiction.
To further the thought, could it be said that a man who prevents evil, but does nothing to promote good is a better man than that one who let’s evil happen, without promoting good??
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Brad,
I agree that a person must do something to stop evil if they are aware of that evil. Yet, consider these points:
(1) One cannot know if most dems are aware that abortion is truly evil.
(2) One must also take steps that will actually help stop that evil…if the repubs do nothing, then that means voting for either the dems or repubs are the same thing (neither party will do anything for life). Therefore, imo, if the repubs do nothing real to save lives this term, then Catholics should not vote for the repubs or the dems, because they have both proved they will not even try to stop the evil. One can try to say the dems are worse, yet in the final analysis we must have open eyes, and there has not been one baby in the United States saved with the repubs in power…which tells us that for both parties the unborn is merely political tools.
There is only one way to make change, we must send all our politicians the neverending mesage that they will never get our votes so long as they do nothing to save lives…if all Catholics did that we would see an end to legal abortions.
I agree that a person must do something to stop evil if they are aware of that evil. Yet, consider these points:
(1) One cannot know if most dems are aware that abortion is truly evil.
(2) One must also take steps that will actually help stop that evil…if the repubs do nothing, then that means voting for either the dems or repubs are the same thing (neither party will do anything for life). Therefore, imo, if the repubs do nothing real to save lives this term, then Catholics should not vote for the repubs or the dems, because they have both proved they will not even try to stop the evil. One can try to say the dems are worse, yet in the final analysis we must have open eyes, and there has not been one baby in the United States saved with the repubs in power…which tells us that for both parties the unborn is merely political tools.
There is only one way to make change, we must send all our politicians the neverending mesage that they will never get our votes so long as they do nothing to save lives…if all Catholics did that we would see an end to legal abortions.
M
miguel
Guest
The Communist party comes to mind.
M
miguel
Guest
Republicans keep forgetting they can’t win without conservative support. I hate to say this. But if we don’t get our pro-life judicial appointments, and if Congress doesn’t act to restrain the out-of-control judicial branch, conservatives will stay home in '08 just as we did in '92 and '96. But this time it will be Hillary for 8 years instead of Bill. The GOP needs to decide now what it hates more: a pro-life judiciary or life in a marxist state under Hillary.
B
Brad
Guest
Yes. But even after he was president he made clear the distinction to which many Democrats still cling too.
J
jlw
Guest
A distiction that has been *TWISTED *by democrats, not clinged to.
B
Brad
Guest
I don’t disagree that we need changes among Republicans. But I don’t think you are understanding the distinction I made. It does make a difference. Just one example. With Democrats in power, abortion funding abroad was far greater than it is now. Less babies being killed abroad on the American dollar because there is not a promotion of this evil. Also, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was passed. Less domestic abuse leading to killed babies as a result. Also, Democrats go around to “pro-choice” groups and drum up support for abortions all ove the land. This is promotion of evil - it is worse than doing nothing. Doing nothing allows evil to happen. But evil is still worse than doing nothing. You cannot equate the 2 parties.
B
Brad
Guest
Hard to twist these quotes:
“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant ministers would tell their parishioners for whom to vote.”
“I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish–where no public official either requests or accepts instruction on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source.”
“Whatever issue may come before me as President–on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject–I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.”
“Whatever one’s religion in his private life may be, for the officeholder, nothing takes precedence over his oath to uphold the Constitution and all its parts – including the First Amendment and the strict separation of church and state.”
J
jlw
Guest
Was John F Kennedy for abortion?? Was it in the democratic party platform?? I don’t think so. WHY??
Because the conscience of America was still rightly FORMED at that time. Abortion-on-demand and gay “rights” were (and still are) OBJECTIVELY, and REASONABLY, wrong on it’s face. Civil Rights were necessary (though actively promoted through religious lens by MLK) because of NATURAL LAW. These are (and were) objective truths that were recongnized without having to get overly “religious” about it.
Democrats today don’t have formed consciences. So those quotes from JFK take on waaay different meanings. Make sense??
J
jlw
Guest
From Jim Geraghty at nationalreview.com/tks/tks.asp
IS IT TOO EARLY TO DECLARE “FRIST 2008” OVER?
Every once in a while, you hear Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s name come up as a possible presidential contender for the election three years from now. (In fact, I recently was talking about American politics with a Turkish official, who asked who the likely GOP candidates would be in 2008. When I mentioned Frist, the official said, “I haven’t heard of him.” He had heard of Guiliani and McCain. In fact, he asked about Condi Rice running and whether Dick Cheney might change his mind.)
A smart NRO reader at David Frum’s event on inauguration day made the persuasive case as to why Frist would have the inside track in 2008.
Your typical GOP primary voters are not inclined to support dark-horse candidates, relative unknowns, out-of-the-blue fresh faces. In fact, they’re pretty much the opposite, generally preferring a well-known, established, “safe” figure who can project the aura of “it’s his turn.” Think George W. Bush with his family pedigree in 2000, Bob Dole in 1996, George H.W. Bush in 1988. One could argue that Reagan was a bit of an upstart in 1980, but he had running for the nomination since 1976. In fact, GOP primary voters are so inclined to back the established favorite that they ultimately backed clumsy, dull Gerald Ford over Great-Communicator-in-training Ronald Reagan that year. (Had I been out of diapers at that time, I would have objected.)
So you’re not going to see some little-known governor or senator suddenly leap to the front of the pack.
Bush can’t run again; Cheney’s answer, no matter how many times he is asked, is ‘no.’ There is no designated successor. Bill Frist, as the next-highest ranking Republican in government, and one of the most high-profile party officials, would seem well-positioned to sell himself as an extension of Bush and Cheney. “I’m the guy who helped pass their agenda,” he could argue. “I’m the next best thing to another four years of Bush and Cheney.”
Of course, to do that, he has to help pass the Bush agenda, particularly on hot-button issues like judges. And some folks are getting irritated with what they see as Frist’s mishandling and passivity on this.
Captain Ed:
That’s the Frist Era for you: The Age of Lost Opportunities. This Hill report shows that Frist doesn’t have the capacity to lead the majority in the Senate. Frist must step down immediately and the Republicans need to replace him with someone who doesn’t get clammy at the sight of Harry Reid wiping his glasses. If Frist isn’t man enough to resign, the GOP should remove him anyway. Pssst. Sen. Frist, this is the same Captain Ed who is taking down the Canadian government day by day.
Continued…
IS IT TOO EARLY TO DECLARE “FRIST 2008” OVER?
Every once in a while, you hear Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s name come up as a possible presidential contender for the election three years from now. (In fact, I recently was talking about American politics with a Turkish official, who asked who the likely GOP candidates would be in 2008. When I mentioned Frist, the official said, “I haven’t heard of him.” He had heard of Guiliani and McCain. In fact, he asked about Condi Rice running and whether Dick Cheney might change his mind.)
A smart NRO reader at David Frum’s event on inauguration day made the persuasive case as to why Frist would have the inside track in 2008.
Your typical GOP primary voters are not inclined to support dark-horse candidates, relative unknowns, out-of-the-blue fresh faces. In fact, they’re pretty much the opposite, generally preferring a well-known, established, “safe” figure who can project the aura of “it’s his turn.” Think George W. Bush with his family pedigree in 2000, Bob Dole in 1996, George H.W. Bush in 1988. One could argue that Reagan was a bit of an upstart in 1980, but he had running for the nomination since 1976. In fact, GOP primary voters are so inclined to back the established favorite that they ultimately backed clumsy, dull Gerald Ford over Great-Communicator-in-training Ronald Reagan that year. (Had I been out of diapers at that time, I would have objected.)
So you’re not going to see some little-known governor or senator suddenly leap to the front of the pack.
Bush can’t run again; Cheney’s answer, no matter how many times he is asked, is ‘no.’ There is no designated successor. Bill Frist, as the next-highest ranking Republican in government, and one of the most high-profile party officials, would seem well-positioned to sell himself as an extension of Bush and Cheney. “I’m the guy who helped pass their agenda,” he could argue. “I’m the next best thing to another four years of Bush and Cheney.”
Of course, to do that, he has to help pass the Bush agenda, particularly on hot-button issues like judges. And some folks are getting irritated with what they see as Frist’s mishandling and passivity on this.
Captain Ed:
That’s the Frist Era for you: The Age of Lost Opportunities. This Hill report shows that Frist doesn’t have the capacity to lead the majority in the Senate. Frist must step down immediately and the Republicans need to replace him with someone who doesn’t get clammy at the sight of Harry Reid wiping his glasses. If Frist isn’t man enough to resign, the GOP should remove him anyway. Pssst. Sen. Frist, this is the same Captain Ed who is taking down the Canadian government day by day.
Continued…
J
jlw
Guest
Continued…
Hugh Hewitt:
THE VOTE ON THE RULING ending the filibusters could wind up being the most important vote having to do with domestic politics in a generation. The GOP’s continued majority hangs in the balance. But do Republican senators and strategists understand its importance?
There seems to be a great temptation among the elected to confuse what they wish to be the case with the actual facts on the ground outside of Washington. Outside of the war on terrorism, there are few issues that the base of the Republican party deem more significant than the selection and confirmation of judges. It is far more important than tax cutting, far more important than energy policy, far more important than curbing trial lawyers — because the courts ultimately play decisive roles in all of these areas, and more.
The postponements of the confrontation are already having a terrible effect on the Republican base. It is time for Senate Republicans to lead, or to stop pretending to.
Pssst. Sen. Frist, this is the same Hugh Hewitt who loves a good public crusade, whether the target is Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, or you. And he’s got a radio show. And he bet a lot of chips on the idea that Arlen Specter as Judiciary Committee Chairman would turn out okay, and that Bush would get his judges appointed.
If the perception grows in the GOP grassroots that First lost his nerve in this confrontation, his presidential aspirations are over.
UPDATE: Gerry Daly writes in, “Frist is a dead man walking regarding 2008. Simply put, leadership. It is what Reagan had in spades. It is what Bush has. What do we have to go on for Frist’s leadership? He’s allowing a minority of Senators to dictate the judicial agenda. And he is allowing a minority of his own caucus to prevent him from doing anything about it. And I don’t think one can seriously argue that he has been effective at getting the President’s social security agenda through the Senate either.”
Hugh Hewitt:
THE VOTE ON THE RULING ending the filibusters could wind up being the most important vote having to do with domestic politics in a generation. The GOP’s continued majority hangs in the balance. But do Republican senators and strategists understand its importance?
There seems to be a great temptation among the elected to confuse what they wish to be the case with the actual facts on the ground outside of Washington. Outside of the war on terrorism, there are few issues that the base of the Republican party deem more significant than the selection and confirmation of judges. It is far more important than tax cutting, far more important than energy policy, far more important than curbing trial lawyers — because the courts ultimately play decisive roles in all of these areas, and more.
The postponements of the confrontation are already having a terrible effect on the Republican base. It is time for Senate Republicans to lead, or to stop pretending to.
Pssst. Sen. Frist, this is the same Hugh Hewitt who loves a good public crusade, whether the target is Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, or you. And he’s got a radio show. And he bet a lot of chips on the idea that Arlen Specter as Judiciary Committee Chairman would turn out okay, and that Bush would get his judges appointed.
If the perception grows in the GOP grassroots that First lost his nerve in this confrontation, his presidential aspirations are over.
UPDATE: Gerry Daly writes in, “Frist is a dead man walking regarding 2008. Simply put, leadership. It is what Reagan had in spades. It is what Bush has. What do we have to go on for Frist’s leadership? He’s allowing a minority of Senators to dictate the judicial agenda. And he is allowing a minority of his own caucus to prevent him from doing anything about it. And I don’t think one can seriously argue that he has been effective at getting the President’s social security agenda through the Senate either.”
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
brad,
*Less babies being killed abroad on the American dollar because there is not a promotion of this evil. *
==> Not true. Planned Parenthood and groups like them made up for the money lost. Abortions have not been lessened at all.
Also, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was passed. Less domestic abuse leading to killed babies as a result.
==> It has not saved any lives.
This is promotion of evil - it is worse than doing nothing. Doing nothing allows evil to happen.
==> You said it: “Doing nothing allows evil to happen.” The repubs have done nothing real and they know it. I had desperately hoped and prayed they would take real action, they have not, they are using the unborn as politcal tools just like the dems do in reverse. It was very hard for me to see this and to admit it.
*Less babies being killed abroad on the American dollar because there is not a promotion of this evil. *
==> Not true. Planned Parenthood and groups like them made up for the money lost. Abortions have not been lessened at all.
Also, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was passed. Less domestic abuse leading to killed babies as a result.
==> It has not saved any lives.
- Also, Democrats go around to “pro-choice” groups and drum up support for abortions all ove the land.*
This is promotion of evil - it is worse than doing nothing. Doing nothing allows evil to happen.
==> You said it: “Doing nothing allows evil to happen.” The repubs have done nothing real and they know it. I had desperately hoped and prayed they would take real action, they have not, they are using the unborn as politcal tools just like the dems do in reverse. It was very hard for me to see this and to admit it.
- But evil is still worse than doing nothing. You cannot equate the 2 parties.*
P
Peter_Atlanta
Guest
You need to learn the concept of Pluralism.
Libertarians aren’t FOR the things you list, they just don’t believe government has any business meddling in the personal lives of the individual. And they are right, to a degree. Where they over do it is their rabid adherence to the rights of the individual even when the individual is clearly a danger to themselves.
It’s easy being Libertarian, meaning a chronic complainer, since they never get elected to anything they’re policies are never really tested because they’re never enacted!
J
JakeW
Guest
TPJCatholic, any?? Not any?? ANY?? Not one??
Firstly: proof, please…
So, cutting of MY and YOUR tax dollars from abortion mills…all for naught?? Worthless policy??
You seem like a smart person, but that is just shrill rhetoric. Not one life?? Your discontent with the GOP has valid points, but you sound bad when you write this.
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Jake,
Shrill? Hmm, thanks for letting me know how you feel.
Shrill? Hmm, thanks for letting me know how you feel.
- Status