Meet the Next President: Kerry's Second Shot

[Jeffrey]

Bill Sammon, The Examiner
Sep 14, 2006 5:00 AM (15 hrs ago)

Current rank: # 1 of 5,766 articles KEENE, N.H. - Moments before Sen. John Kerry shows up to campaign for a local politician at a backyard rally here, voter Sue Borden wrinkles her nose at the mention of the man who lost to President Bush.

“You get one chance,” the Democrat tells a reporter. “If you can’t win, then it’s time to let someone else try.”

But less than an hour later, after she meets Kerry and listens to him deliver an impassioned speech from a wooden deck, Borden softens and says she would consider voting again for the Massachusetts Democrat.

examiner.com/a-284761~Meet_the_Next_President__Kerry_s_Second_Shot.html

 

[MikeWM]

No thanks.

Al Gore running again, on the other hand, would make me happy, at least for a while…

Mike

 

[mlchance]

Al Gore running again, on the other hand, would make me happy, at least for a while…

Because his rabid pro-abortionism is much more palatable than Senator Kerry’s.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[MikeWM]

Because his rabid pro-abortionism is much more palatable than Senator Kerry’s.

No candidate who will stand at the next Presidential election will put an end abortion, no matter how ‘rabid’ they are. (I’m not sure I’ve ever met a rabid pro-abortionist. I wonder what they are like?)

On that basis, I’d prefer a candidate who has a chance of delivering the kind of social justice that will reduce the abortion rate as much as possible - and have a commitment to looking after the planet so it is fit for future generations.

Mike

 

[Scottgun]

In other words, against the power of Mordor there can be no victory, so we might as well vote for Sauron’s not-quite-so-evil brother. Concupisence really does darken the intellect.

 

[MikeWM]

In other words, against the power of Mordor there can be no victory, so we might as well vote for Sauron’s not-quite-so-evil brother.

Au contraire. We need to get out of the mindset that we just have to elect the ‘right’ government and then abortion wil magically end. Making abortion illegal will not end abortion.

Mike

 

[Scottgun]

Au contraire. We need to get out of the mindset that we just have to elect the ‘right’ government and then abortion wil magically end. Making abortion illegal will not end abortion.

Mike

No. We have to do what is objectively right, which is not supporting people who advocate what is objectively wrong.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No. We have to do what is objectively right, which is not supporting people who advocate what is objectively wrong.

You said it to nicely.

We have to support the Truth, which is not supporting people who think that murdering people who are helpless and innocent is not only acceptable but a good thing.

 

[MikeWM]

No. We have to do what is objectively right, which is not supporting people who advocate what is objectively wrong.

Then you won’t be able to vote at all. No politician with the slightest hope of winning subscribes to the entireity of Catholic teaching.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

You said it to nicely.

We have to support the Truth, which is not supporting people who think that murdering people who are helpless and innocent is not only acceptable but a good thing.

I certainly don’t support anyone who is happy about abortions. I’ve not come across anyone who is, fortunately.

Mike

 

[sirduckjr]

Because his rabid pro-abortionism is much more palatable than Senator Kerry’s.

– Mark L. Chance.

Wow, it took three post before someone gets slammed with being pro-abortion. You can’t even talk about other issues. Since that is the case, maybe we should reclassify the political thread the abortion thread. Oh, that’s right, we already have a culture of life thread.

Memo to everyone. The democrats, whom ever they put out(President) will be pro abortion. Period. I am not arguing for or against that position at this point, but what I am saying is maybe, just once, the discussion about a political figure might just go beyond abortion.

 

[Lucania]

Kerry claims that the only reason he didn’t compete in more states in 2004 was that he ran out of money. I don’t know if I buy that. He was so arrogant , such a snob, I feel like he just KNEW he would win. Remember how he tried to come of as a “regular guy?” Remember him hunting up north? People saw through the phoniness. I don’t think anyone on the left actually thought that the American people would elect George Bush again. I mean after all, some people were just shocked that Kerry lost weren’t they?

 

[John28]

Wow, it took three post before someone gets slammed with being pro-abortion. You can’t even talk about other issues. Since that is the case, maybe we should reclassify the political thread the abortion thread. Oh, that’s right, we already have a culture of life thread.

Memo to everyone. The democrats, whom ever they put out(President) will be pro abortion. Period. I am not arguing for or against that position at this point, but what I am saying is maybe, just once, the discussion about a political figure might just go beyond abortion.

This IS the discussion of the political figure. There are several other fundamental Catholic issues on which the Senator fails, I suppose we could discuss those but it is difficult to get past this glaring one. Particularly when coming from a Catholic candidate.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This IS the discussion of the political figure. There are several other fundamental Catholic issues on which the Senator fails, I suppose we could discuss those but it is difficult to get past this glaring one. Particularly when coming from a Catholic candidate.

If you not only fail at one Catholic Church, but are even in to promoting it, then you are not a Catholic even though you may claim to be one.

And yes, I did say promoting it. By making sure that something stays legal you are promoting it and assiting in it and I would even dare say you are doing so happily regardless of what Mike has to say about it.

Keeping it legal and not standing up against it and saying it is immoral is not only giveing your assent to it but it is also aiding those to do it.

Even voting for someone who is for it means that you give your assent to the practice not matter what you might say. You speak loudly with your actions, your words mean nothing.

 

[John28]

If you not only fail at one Catholic Church, but are even in to promoting it, then you are not a Catholic even though you may claim to be one.

And yes, I did say promoting it. By making sure that something stays legal you are promoting it and assiting in it and I would even dare say you are doing so happily regardless of what Mike has to say about it.

Keeping it legal and not standing up against it and saying it is immoral is not only giveing your assent to it but it is also aiding those to do it.

Even voting for someone who is for it means that you give your assent to the practice not matter what you might say. You speak loudly with your actions, your words mean nothing.

In addition, immoral actions or beliefs promoted by high public officials lead others to occasions of grave sin.

 

[Scottgun]

Then you won’t be able to vote at all. No politician with the slightest hope of winning subscribes to the entireity of Catholic teaching.

Mike

There are plenty of politicians who do not advocate objective evils. “Happy” is wildly irrelevant.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Aside from political leanings, where is the basis that you get only one chance? That isn’t held up by the historical number of second tries at politics at all. Perhaps history isn’t her strong suit.

 

[Liberalsaved]

No candidate who will stand at the next Presidential election will put an end abortion, no matter how ‘rabid’ they are. (I’m not sure I’ve ever met a rabid pro-abortionist. I wonder what they are like?)

Mike

Exactly. It’s not going to happen, and people are voting in people who spread rampant social, economic, and political injustice in the vain hope that this one issue will be demolished, because apparently there’s not a thing more important in the entire world.

 

[vern_humphrey]

First you say this:

No candidate who will stand at the next Presidential election will put an end abortion, no matter how ‘rabid’ they are. (I’m not sure I’ve ever met a rabid pro-abortionist. I wonder what they are like?)

And then you say this:

On that basis, I’d prefer a candidate who has a chance of delivering the kind of social justice that will reduce the abortion rate as much as possible - and have a commitment to looking after the planet so it is fit for future generations.

Mike

The idea that abortion is not an evil in itself, but merely the product of social conditions – which can be changed by government programs (which of course will include taxpayer-funded abortion) – is part of the pro-abortion mantra.

 

[Jersey_Jeepster]

Exactly. It’s not going to happen, and people are voting in people who spread rampant social, economic, and political injustice in the vain hope that this one issue will be demolished, because apparently there’s not a thing more important in the entire world.

So much for the five non-negotiable issues. If you are not voting along the guidelines that are true Catholic doctrine, then you really need to stop calling yourself Catholic. Doing so is the height of hypocrisy.

I guess if we took the same point of view on the war on terror, that we cannot win and it will never end, then we all better get ready to be physically coerced into converting to Islam.

As for Kerry, he has every right to run again. The great thing about this is that voting under the guidelines for “serious” Catholics does not trump strength in the war on terror, political honesty, and/or the ability to implement social justice. Kerry possesses none of these.