R
Richardols
Guest
Yes. I believe you, yet, given the close numbers, neither side swayed Catholics too much. Bush won for more reasons than “Catholic” issues.
- Status
J
jlw
Guest
Economy: going downhill prior to the election of Bush or Gore. 9/11 happened. Trillions left our economy in two hours. Even if Gore was in office, the resulting recession was unavoidable. Public funds HAD to be spent to get us back on our feet. Enron/ArthurAndersonGate was another that would have come to light REGARDLESS of who was in office. The cooking of the books also happened prior to the election of 2000. Tax cuts DO work. It worked for JFK and Reagan. Before the election, unemployment was trending downward and the economy growing at a robust 3+%.
War: Well, we can agree to disagree, but the WOT had to happen. Given that we haven’t had another 9/11 in 3 years, and democracy is occupying the news more than terrorism, you might begrudgingly agree??
Deficits: It annoys me too. BUT, 9/11 happened. The WOT had to happen. Homeland Security had to happen. Debt is “repayable”. And that’s why tax cuts will ultimately prove to have been the catalyst to erasing the deficit (provided that we don’t incur another terrorist attack that erased any “surplus” that was “projected” prior to 9/11. Bush passed the overinflated NCLB education bill that KENNEDY basically wrote. Yes, he campaigned on the Pescription Drug Benefits bill that was passed that will cost waaaay too much, BUT can you say, with a straight face, that the democrats ever, ever have proposed something that would have cost less??? Hardly, and you know it.
R
Richardols
Guest
You needn’t write an apologia for your candidate. He won.
I believed Kerry to be the lesser of two evils and voted for him. Maybe both parties will be more moderate in '08.
I believed Kerry to be the lesser of two evils and voted for him. Maybe both parties will be more moderate in '08.
B
buffalo
Guest
Now you are starting to open the debate all over again. Before you do so, do a search on these forums. Use keywords: Kerry, Bush, abortion, war, stem cell, five non-negotiables. Better yet browse the Politics threads.
R
Richardols
Guest
In that case, I apologize. We each voted for whom we though best or least bad. The results are in. No need to revisit that debate again.
B
buffalo
Guest
By browsing the Politics threads you will find the five non-negotiables and how they should be applied the next time you enter the voting booth.
J
jlw
Guest
As a Catholic, is the guy voting for partial-birth abortion a lesser of two evils?? How about the guy being open to publicly funding abortion?? How about the guy who told the Advocate that his mind “could be changed down the road” about gay marriage??
J
jlw
Guest
And no I am not “rehashing” the past debate. I am looking forward to the next time you vote as a Catholic and wondering how you might look at the candidates.
R
Richardols
Guest
You chided me for opening the debate again. Surely you’re not starting in yourself?
And I don’t mean this harshly - but I do my own thinking on how to vote - which I’ve done since 1963 - I don’t need some Internet forum, either left or right wing, to guide me.
R
Richardols
Guest
First, we’ll have to see who the candidates are. I suspect that they’ll be more centrist - the Dems because they don’t need to lose again, the GOP because their possibilities seem to be more to the center.
But, that’s enough political talk. In '07, we’ll know more.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yeah, I know. :tsktsk:You chided me for opening the debate again. Surely you’re not starting in yourself?
And I don’t mean this harshly - but I do my own thinking on how to vote - which I’ve done since 1963 - I don’t need some Internet forum, either left or right wing, to guide me.
Would you agree you should vote consistent with your Catholic faith?
J
jlw
Guest
Hey, a related question: Most lawyers vote for democrats right??
The only ones that vote GOP are maybe…tax lawyers?? Maybe more prosecutors, but still, they still vote dem more, rigth??
The only ones that vote GOP are maybe…tax lawyers?? Maybe more prosecutors, but still, they still vote dem more, rigth??
R
Richardols
Guest
I think we should all do so. I did note that Catholic clergy were in both GOP and Dem camps. I belong to Democrats for Life so my position on that is settled. I found no problem voting for Kerry because I firmly believe that abortion will still be with us in '08, Bush’s declared “three-exception” anti-abortion position not withstanding. And I was solidly against the war - in light of the Pope’s position on the war, that weighed most heavily in my vote.
But, again, Mr. Bush is president and I can live with that.
F
fix
Guest
The Pope is solidly against abortion, homosexual acts, embryonic stem cell reseach, yet Kerry supported them all.
R
Richardols
Guest
And those were factors in his defeat, indeed. I trust my party will learn from its loss. BTW, the GOP wasn’t against abortion; they provided a broader tent for those on both sides of the issue. The Dems should have been more accomodating to those of us Dems who are pro-life. It might have changed the outcome of the election.
R
Richardols
Guest
I don’t know. I’d think that the corporate lawyers and those representing big business are GOP; public defenders and union lawyers Democrats, but beyond that, I haven’t any guess.
F
fix
Guest
I am not a republican. It is true both parties are impure. The fact is there were only two choices.
J
jim_orr
Guest
Just in trying to understand more clearly your decision, and in light of it, how do you respond to Pope John Paul II’s admonishment and that of the US Bishops:
- As to the role of the Church in this process:"…The political community and the church are autonomous and the indepedent of each other in their own fields. They are both devoted to the personal vocation of man, though under diffenent titles…[yet] at all times and in all places, the Church should have the true freedom to teach the faith, to proclaim its teaching about society, to carry out its task among men without hindrance, and to pass moral judgement even in matters relating to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it.
- Pope John Paul II elaborates on this responsibility in his 1988 appostolic exhortation, The Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World (Chrisitifideles Laici): “The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolabiltiy of God finds its primary and fundamental expresion in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights - for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -** is false and illusory**if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination…The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death: and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor…{Moreover, if,] indeed, everyone has the mission and responsibility of acknowledging the personal dignity of every human being and of defending the right to life, some lay faithful are given particular title to this task: such as parents, teachers, healthworkers and the many who hold economic and political power.” (Living The Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics, A Statement From The US Catholic Bishops 1998)
R
Richardols
Guest
jim orr:
Bush’s attack on Social Security and his support of the revision of the bankruptcy laws in favor of the credit card companies and banks have confirmed for me that I did right in rejecting him at the polls. As for pro-life, I honestly don’t believe that abortion will be abolished during his presidency so a vote for him on that count wouldn’t make a difference.
I believe that one can work within the context of either major party to promote a pro-life attitude. There are pro-abortion Republicans and pro-abortion Democrats, so neither has a monopoly on the virtue of being pro-life. In so far as the national Democratic Party is more pro-abortion, it does, IMO, more good to work from within to effect change than to abandon the party to vote for a party more hostile to the good of most Americans .
Bush’s attack on Social Security and his support of the revision of the bankruptcy laws in favor of the credit card companies and banks have confirmed for me that I did right in rejecting him at the polls. As for pro-life, I honestly don’t believe that abortion will be abolished during his presidency so a vote for him on that count wouldn’t make a difference.
B
buffalo
Guest
Do we have an icon for boiling blood?
Attack on SS? This has been going down for twenty years. Finally someone is taking steps to try and resolve the issues. 10 years ago the Dems were all in the camp of reform. You will not get away with too much rhetoric here.
- Status