"One Issue Voter"

[Rascalking]

I’d agree, in states where it would have made a difference. I sorta felt bad about it for a while, but adding up all of the numbers, at least in Michigan, Perot + Bush < Clinton.

LOL! Your right, but think of the nightmares you would have if Clinton won your state by **ONE ** vote!

 

[Newbie2]

LOL! Your right, but think of the nightmares you would have if Clinton won your state by **ONE ** vote!

Yikes.

 

[gamewell45]

I think most politicians, particularly on the Federal and State level, irrespective of their political pursuasion are crooks whose only goal after getting elected is to get re-elected into office by telling people what they want to hear. Hence thats why I normally write my name in as a write-in. I don’t know the first thing about running government, but at least i’m honest and thats more then they are and the Amercian people need more people of honesty serving them.

 

[Rence]

Or the more academic, but still clear US Council of Catholic Bishops
nccbuscc.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html

I found the above link easy to read and reasonable. It covers many important issues that voters look at and while they “strongly recommend” voters consider a list of issues, they don’t threaten hellfire and damnation over voting or not voting for candidates, and I appreciate that. The statement gives long list of political issues that they want Catholics to consider when voting, all important to consider, and of course there will be differences in where those issues lie on each person’s priority list — and I’m confident that everyone who cares about our country considers all the issues, and votes according to the big picture.

The recent Vatican statement on political life points this out:

[The Church] does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends–as is its proper function–to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good.10 We urge our fellow citizens "to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest."11 As bishops, we seek to form the consciences of our people. We do not wish to instruct persons on how they should vote by endorsing or opposing candidates. We hope that voters will examine the position of candidates on the full range of issues, as well as on their personal integrity, philosophy, and performance. We are convinced that a consistent ethic of life should be the moral framework from which to address issues in the political arena. 12

 

[elts1956]

Than great. We clearly disagree. It’s not hypocritical in the least-you want to throw you vote away, knock yourself out. I still have the right to my opinion, and I think third party people (for the most part) are self righteous and feel morally superior to others. That’s the third party radicals, which you probably aren’t, because you said you only voted with a third party from time to time.

Judgemental reasons? Sure, call them that if you wish. I call it the truth.

I won’t judge on the feelings of self rightousness and superiority of third party voters. Who is to say the reasons for their vote. But I personally feel, however, in matters of great importance, such as the last POTUS election, giving one’s vote to a third party is throwing it away.

 

[estesbob]

I found the above link easy to read and reasonable. It covers many important issues that voters look at and while they “strongly recommend” voters consider a list of issues, they don’t threaten hellfire and damnation over voting or not voting for candidates, and I appreciate that. The statement gives long list of political issues that they want Catholics to consider when voting, all important to consider, and of course there will be differences in where those issues lie on each person’s priority list — and I’m confident that everyone who cares about our country considers all the issues, and votes according to the big picture.

You have ignored the Churc’s explicit and repeated statements that no issue or combination of issues rise to the level of abortion.

 

[Rence]

You have ignored the Churc’s explicit and repeated statements that no issue or combination of issues rise to the level of abortion.

I have not ignored the Church’s explicit and repeated statements regarding the importance of abortion. I take into account the whole picture, which correlates with the statement from the Bishops. The unborn are so very important, but so are those who are already born and I have the need to find a balance between taking care of those unborn as well as those unborn. If I believe a candidate X is better for the country, but that candidate X is pro-choice, I would vote for that candidate X over Candidate Y who is anti-abortion but who would do bad things for our country and those already born into it. The already born are important too.

 

[estesbob]

I have not ignored the Church’s explicit and repeated statements regarding the importance of abortion. I take into account the whole picture, which correlates with the statement from the Bishops. The unborn are so very important, but so are those who are already born and I have the need to find a balance between taking care of those unborn as well as those unborn. If I believe a candidate X is better for the country, but that candidate X is pro-choice, I would vote for that candidate X over Candidate Y who is anti-abortion but who would do bad things for our country and those already born into it. The already born are important too.

You appear to be advancing the seamless garment argument. The church has repeatedly rejected this. No issue or combination of issues overcome abortion.

I am wondering exactly what candidates you are referring to that wanted to do such “bad things” to the country that made it acceptable for a to Catholic to vote for someone who supports the killing of 1.4 million children a year? The last election would be a good example-although many try to justify voting for Obama by building up a caricature of McCain as a person who was going to put the poor on the street and wipe out the world with nuclear bombs the church was clear that one could vote for McCain(but did not have to) but could not vote for Obama

 

[Rence]

The last election would be a good example-although many try to justify voting for Obama by building up a caricature of McCain as a person who was going to put the poor on the street and wipe out the world with nuclear bombs the church was clear that one could vote for McCain(but did not have to) but could not vote for Obama

If that were true, then the Church would be lying, and it doesn’t lie. The Church said:

The recent Vatican statement on political life points this out:

[The Church] does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends–as is its proper function–to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good.10 We urge our fellow citizens "to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest."11 As bishops, we seek to form the consciences of our people. We do not wish to instruct persons on how they should vote by endorsing or opposing candidates. We hope that voters will examine the position of candidates on the full range of issues, as well as on their personal integrity, philosophy, and performance. We are convinced that a consistent ethic of life should be the moral framework from which to address issues in the political arena. 12

 

[estesbob]

If that were true, then the Church would be lying, and it doesn’t lie. The Church said:

The church is does not endorse specific candidates. It does, however ,lay out the rules as to which candidate we can support and which we cannot.

For instance:

*I believe that Senator Obama, whatever his other talents, is the most committed ‘‘abortion-rights’’ presidential candidate of either major party since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973. Despite what Prof. Kmiec suggests, the party platform Senator Obama runs on this year is not only aggressively ‘‘pro-choice;’’ it has also removed any suggestion that killing an unborn child might be a regrettable thing. On the question of homicide against the unborn child - and let’s remember that the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer explicitly called abortion ‘‘murder’’ - the Democratic platform that emerged from Denver in August 2008 is clearly anti-life. *

Archbishop Chaput

*Him him him him

 

[Rascalking]

The church is does not endorse specific candidates. It does, however ,lay out the rules as to which candidate we can support and which we cannot.

But can a Catholic support Obama and say,“I despise his stance on Abortion, but I feel as though he is the best candidate”? I have no idea, I’m just curious.

By the way, I am a very, very conservative guy. I did NOT support Obama. I have many friends, some good Catholics, who did.

 

[estesbob]

But can a Catholic support Obama and say,“I despise his stance on Abortion, but I feel as though he is the best candidate”? I have no idea, I’m just curious.

By the way, I am a very, very conservative guy. I did NOT support Obama. I have many friends, some good Catholics, who did.

No-there is nothing in Obama’s campaign that could offset his supporting unrestricted taxpayer abortion on demand. Not one single member of the magisterium stated there were proportionate reasons that would’ve allowed a Catholic to vote for Obama, 62 bishops of the United States explicitly said there were not,

What is really sad is a number of Catholics who told us it was okay to vote for Obama because he was would get us out of Afghanistan, Iraq and close down GITMO. So here we are 18 months later -we still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan,GIMO is still open, we have two new pro-abortion justices on the Supreme Court, taxpayer-funded vivisection of children, under the guise of therapeutic cloning , has been approved and we have a mandated health care plan that forces taxpayers to pay for abortion. What is amazing is you will see Catholic still defending their vote for him,

 

[mary_bobo]

You appear to be advancing the seamless garment argument. The church has repeatedly rejected this. No issue or combination of issues overcome abortion.

I am wondering exactly what candidates you are referring to that wanted to do such “bad things” to the country that made it acceptable for a to Catholic to vote for someone who supports the killing of 1.4 million children a year? The last election would be a good example-although many try to justify voting for Obama by building up a caricature of McCain as a person who was going to put the poor on the street and wipe out the world with nuclear bombs the church was clear that one could vote for McCain(but did not have to) but could not vote for Obama

This was also the candidate that supports fetal stem cell research, gay marriage and redistribution of wealth.

 

[estesbob]

This was also the candidate that supports fetal stem cell research, gay marriage and redistribution of wealth.

Agreed-nearly everything t Obama has done since he entered office has violated the bedrock doctrine of Catholic social justice-subsidiarity,

 

[Rascalking]

No-there is nothing in Obama’s campaign that could offset his supporting unrestricted taxpayer abortion on demand. Not one single member of the magisterium stated there were proportionate reasons that would’ve allowed a Catholic to vote for Obama, 62 bishops of the United States explicitly said there were not,

What is really sad is a number of Catholics who told us it was okay to vote for Obama because he was would get us out of Afghanistan, Iraq and close down GITMO. So here we are 18 months later -we still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan,GIMO is still open, we have two new pro-abortion justices on the Supreme Court, taxpayer-funded vivisection of children, under the guise of therapeutic cloning , has been approved and we have a mandated health care plan that forces taxpayers to pay for abortion. What is amazing is you will see Catholic still defending their vote for him,

Huh. I didn’t vote for him for a variety of reasons.

 

[estesbob]

Huh. I didn’t vote for him for a variety of reasons.

I was not implying you did/. If I gave that impression I apologize

 

[Rascalking]

I was not implying you did/. If I gave that impression I apologize

Oh, goodness, no. I was just making it clear I didn’t-I don’t want rumors getting out! LOL

Actually, anyone who knows me wouldn’t belive you if you said I did vote for him!

 

[estesbob]

Oh, goodness, no. I was just making it clear I didn’t-I don’t want rumors getting out! LOL

Actually, anyone who knows me wouldn’t belive you if you said I did vote for him!

Reminds me of the story of the kid whose mother is arrested in front of him for prostitution charges. A Social worker takes him aside starts telling that he should not be ashamed or embarrassed because parents sometimes do things that are wrong. The kid turns red and says “how did you know my mom voted for Obama?”

 

[Rence]

The church is does not endorse specific candidates. It does, however ,lay out the rules as to which candidate we can support and which we cannot.

For instance:

*I believe that Senator Obama, whatever his other talents, is the most committed ‘‘abortion-rights’’ presidential candidate of either major party since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973. Despite what Prof. Kmiec suggests, the party platform Senator Obama runs on this year is not only aggressively ‘‘pro-choice;’’ it has also removed any suggestion that killing an unborn child might be a regrettable thing. On the question of homicide against the unborn child - and let’s remember that the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer explicitly called abortion ‘‘murder’’ - the Democratic platform that emerged from Denver in August 2008 is clearly anti-life. *

Archbishop Chaput

*Him him him him

That quote from Archbishop Chaput does not support the notion that Catholics can or cannot vote for a particular politician.

 

[estesbob]

That quote from Archbishop Chaput does not support the notion that Catholics can or cannot vote for a particular politician.

Looked to me like he was pretty specific. And the teachings on this are pretty specific Can you tell us what proportionate reasons would’ve allowed a Catholic to vote for Obama.? And if you can can you show is for any single member of the magestrium supported this view?