Republican voters??

[gam197]

I am in a predicament. It may be PRIDE.

I have voted for a Mormon for Governor. I have voted many times for pro-choice candidates using the lesser of evil theory because no one running was pro-life.

Now it appears that I will be forced to do the same. I have been having a real difficult time thinking that I will have to hold my nose and vote either for a Mormon whose faith I don’t agree with or a pro-choice candidate. I thought I was passed this. I thought I’d never again have to have to vote for a pro-abortion person for the presidency.

I like a number of the second tier candidates. I keep hoping a second tier candidate will come forth but that is almost impossible. I loved to see two-second tier candidates - one for president and one for vice-president but I am not hopeful.

If I don’t vote, that will ensure that another person I don’t want gets in. This is so difficult.

I keep thinking I won’t vote.

 

[Holly3278]

This will be a tough election unfortunately. I’d personally rather vote for a Mormon than for a pro-abortion candidate any day.

 

[Keikiolu]

I am in a predicament. It may be PRIDE.

I have voted for a Mormon for Governor. I have voted many times for pro-choice candidates using the lesser of evil theory because no one running was pro-life.

Now it appears that I will be forced to do the same. I have been having a real difficult time thinking that I will have to hold my nose and vote either for a Mormon whose faith I don’t agree with or a pro-choice candidate. I thought I was passed this. I thought I’d never again have to have to vote for a pro-abortion person for the presidency.

I like a number of the second tier candidates. I keep hoping a second tier candidate will come forth but that is almost impossible. I loved to see two-second tier candidates - one for president and one for vice-president but I am not hopeful.

If I don’t vote, that will ensure that another person I don’t want gets in. This is so difficult.

I** keep thinking I won’t vote.**

In this case (2008), it’s not who you’re voting FOR,…

…it’s who you’re voting AGAINST.

Are we REALLY confused as to where Hil/Bill is coming from?

I think not.

…and a vote not cast, is a vote FOR evil, in this case.

 

[marci]

I feel your pain. I’ll tell you what I will do. I will vote for a pro-lifer, even if that means the party I don’t want will come to power. The church tells us to vote our conscience using the 5 non-negotiables, life being the first and formost. If neither of the two main parties offers a pro-life candidate, then I will vote for a pro-life third party candidate even if it means I will be “throwing my vote away”. If enough of us did this, meaning vote on principles and not on party politics, what a difference we could make.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

If Hillary wins maybe we can get a pro-life Republican in 2012. If Guliani wins there will be no pro-life candidate in 2012. That’s not a reason to vote for Hillary, but a reason not to vote for Guliani.

 

[RenaissanceMare]

I can say I feel the same way, about feeling stretched as to who is going to get my vote. There’s no candidate on either side that fits all my criteria. Pro-life candidates are important, but also at the top of my list is dealing with Iraq and national security.

I didn’t vote in either of the Bush elections, but now I’m 25 and I do realize that even when you don’t like either candidate, it’s important to vote even if it’s against someone instead of for someone. Hopefully when the '08 candidates get down to the final two the answer will be much clearer.

 

[RenaissanceMare]

<<<I feel your pain. I’ll tell you what I will do. I will vote for a pro-lifer, even if that means the party I don’t want will come to power. The church tells us to vote our conscience using the 5 non-negotiables, life being the first and formost. If neither of the two main parties offers a pro-life candidate, then I will vote for a pro-life third party candidate even if it means I will be “throwing my vote away”. If enough of us did this, meaning vote on principles and not on party politics, what a difference we could make.>>>

In a pre-9/11 world, I would whole heartedly agree with this, but I can’t now. My first concern for this country is getting a resolution in Iraq that won’t hurt us any more then it already has and national security. So what am I supposed to do? If it comes down to a person who I feel can protect this country that is not pro-life versus a candidate who is? I’m very confliced on this issue, because I am very strongly against abortion. But I’m also quite concerned in keeping America safe and free. Any (name removed by moderator)ut guys?

 

[marci]

So what am I supposed to do? If it comes down to a person who I feel can protect this country that is not pro-life versus a candidate who is? I’m very confliced on this issue, because I am very strongly against abortion. But I’m also quite concerned in keeping America safe and free. Any (name removed by moderator)ut guys?

National security is a biggy for me as well. However, I think we are going to see that as far as the republicans are concerned it will be more of the same in Irac. A certain former mayer of New York will do nothing different to protect our borders, or to stabilize Irac, so the only option left is a third party which will probably mean a certain former 1st lady for president. Sadly, I think that whoever wins this go round, it will be more of the same. As much as I want to see my party win, I could NEVER vote for a pro-choice candidate. In my opinion, I would be assisting in a grave evil and in danger of losing my soul. I know the church has not extended the excommunication beyond the doctors, nurses, and politicians, but I don’t think it’s too hard to see that voters are complicit as well.

 

[RenaissanceMare]

<<< As much as I want to see my party win, I could NEVER vote for a pro-choice candidate. In my opinion, I would be assisting in a grave evil and in danger of losing my soul. I know the church has not extended the excommunication beyond the doctors, nurses, and politicians, but I don’t think it’s too hard to see that voters are complicit as well. >>>

My goodness…I never really thought of it THAT way before!

But if we are complicit by voting for “Pro-choice” candidates, then what if we buy products from a store that supports “pro-choice” causes? I mean…to truly keep EVERY penny or ounce of power we can give away from the pro-abortion movement…that would be a feat beyound what most people could do or afford to do.

So what is our REALSTIC amount of culpability? I would be very curious to hear the church’s stance and, seperately, what the rest of you think as well.

 

[marci]

So what is our REALSTIC amount of culpability? I would be very curious to hear the church’s stance and, seperately, what the rest of you think as well.

If we boycotted every company that supported the pro-choice, pro-homosexual, or otherwise immoral cause, we would have a tough time of it indeed. I remember reading about some controversy over the use of immunizations that were somehow related to abortion (something to do with testing, someone else may know), if I recall the church did not say that children should not be immunized. I think that church expects us to do the best we can. I think we all can agree that voting is something we can all do, frustrating yes, but not painful.

 

[Keikiolu]

National security is a biggy for me as well. However, I think we are going to see that as far as the republicans are concerned it will be more of the same in Irac. A certain former mayer of New York will do nothing different to protect our borders, or to stabilize Irac, so the only option left is a third party which will probably mean a certain former 1st lady for president. Sadly, I think that whoever wins this go round, it will be more of the same. As much as I want to see my party win, I could NEVER vote for a pro-choice candidate.

By NOT vote for a “may lean toward evil” is a BIG VOTE for a “certain evil”.

Where is the difficulty in understanding that?

We aren’t to vote for our PARTY! We are to vote for the group that is more likely to NOT BE EVIL.

Though, if you want to allow a little MORE evil than is necessary this time in hopes of having a somewhat-less-evil-than-the-lesser-evil-this-time candidate,… just weigh the risks of that, as that choice creates more evil than necessary now.

It’s up to you, of course.

In my opinion, I would be assisting in a grave evil and in danger of losing my soul. I know the church has not extended the excommunication beyond the doctors, nurses, and politicians, but I don’t think it’s too hard to see that voters are complicit as well.

If you’d rather not vote for the possibility of evil, then it’s probably best never to vote at all, ever, then, because there is no guarantee that ANY politician will be “spotless”.

That is a sure victory for evil.

…then again, perhaps the manifest evil that that would engender would shock the populace into creating politicians who held “non-evil” positions in earnest?

But at what cost? Perhaps it’s worth it? Perhaps not?

I shall give my coin of Caesar back to Caesar in his guise of “least offensive/evil candidate”.

The time to pressure our politicians to be “good” is when we have them voted in on “our side”, and we use the as yet unused pressure of “getting on their case” WHILE they’re in office. Not WHILE their CAMPAIGNING.

How do you pressure a politician who’s in office? How did the “anti-so-called-comprehensive-immigration-reform” folks do it?

Use that tactic.

 

[marci]

By NOT vote for a “may lean toward evil” is a BIG VOTE for a “certain evil”.

Where is the difficulty in understanding that?

 

[rlg94086]

I take the view from the *Voting Guide for Serious Catholics *(2006, Catholic Answers Action) caaction.com/pdf/Voters-Guide-Catholic-English-1.pdf
Pages 11-12 (bolds mine)

How to Vote

1. 
   *]For each office, first determine how each candidate with a real - even if unlikely - chance of winning stands on each issue that will come before him and involves non-negotiable moral principles.
   *]Rank the candidates with how well their positions align with these non-negotiable moral principles.
   *]Give preferences to candidates who do not propose positions that contradict these principles.
   *]**Where every candidate endorses positions contrary to non-negotiable principles, choose the candidate likely to do the least harm. If several are equal, evaluate them based on their views on other lesser issues. **
   When There is No “Acceptable” Candidate
   
   In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case, you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.

1. 
   So, as a Republican, I will vote for the best presidential candidate under these criteria in the primaries. In the general election, I will make my best assessment between the two major party candidates, because I don’t think the third party candidates have a real chance of winning.
   
   If we end up with two, pro-choice candidates (the two current front-runners), I will vote for the one who has said he would nominate judges such as Thomas, Scalia and Roberts, AND has stated his opposition to Roe v Wade.
   
   I am still holding out hope that a more suitable candidate will win the primary.

 

[mainusch]

I was having this discussion just last night. Voting, with regard to candidates’ positions on abortion. All in the discussion were pro-life, but one insisted that “abortion is just one issue.” I countered that “yes, it’s just one issue… but it’s a really big one!”

A lot of people see the war as a bigger issue, since it’s resulted in the deaths of thousands. However, abortion has resulted in the deaths of millions, so if that’s the measure of importance, than abortion is thousands of times more important of an issue.

If you’re voting based on the fact that we’re at war, because thousands are dying, then abortion should be your number one issue. The math is obvious.

 

[chicago]

If Hillary wins maybe we can get a pro-life Republican in 2012. If Guliani wins there will be no pro-life candidate in 2012. That’s not a reason to vote for Hillary, but a reason not to vote for Guliani.

That’s also how you get stuck with a governor like Blagojevich.

 

[steveandersen]

I am in a predicament. It may be PRIDE.

I have voted for a Mormon for Governor. I have voted many times for pro-choice candidates using the lesser of evil theory because no one running was pro-life.

Now it appears that I will be forced to do the same. I have been having a real difficult time thinking that I will have to hold my nose and vote either for a Mormon whose faith I don’t agree with

Why would his religion enter into the equation?
He’s running for president not pastor

or a pro-choice candidate. I thought I was passed this. I thought I’d never again have to have to vote for a pro-abortion person for the presidency.

Unfortunately, until the case law is changed, there is not a whole lot any president can do about abortion one way or another.

The overturn of Roe v Wade in a yet to be filed lawsuit after the hypothetical nomination of a suitable Supreme Court candidate to be approved by a Senate that has not yet been elected after the death or retirement of one of 9 justices is a long string of unknowns and uncontrollables.

I like a number of the second tier candidates. I keep hoping a second tier candidate will come forth but that is almost impossible. I loved to see two-second tier candidates - one for president and one for vice-president but I am not hopeful.

If I don’t vote, that will ensure that another person I don’t want gets in. This is so difficult.

You’ve seemed to have answered your question right here.

I keep thinking I won’t vote.

That is not a solution

 

[gam197]

originally posted by steveandersen
Why would his religion enter into the equation?
He’s running for president not pastor.

But his religion does affect who he is and how he perceives the programs in the US. He may say that he is opposed to abortion but really not do much for it. He could increase spending for family planning including Planned Parenthood programs.(Bush did this) He may think Title X(safe-sex ed programs in schools) needs more funding.(Bush did give a little to abstinent programs) He may not like illegal immigration but still want to have more free trade between the countries or a documentation of people already here even though he says he will try to prevent further illegal immigration.(We have seen this with Bush). When it comes to mandatory National Health Care program such as Schip program, he may think that expansion is a good thing.

And my vote will have caused this. I didn’t gain a thing on abortion because like you said the court will someday rule on this. Will there even be a supreme court justice that will retire in the next four years?

 

[Bennie_P]

What are the rules for immigration to Israel? If the world is coming to an end, might as well go spend some time on the same ground Christ once walked.

Yes, I also, feel your pain. And I know a lot of others do to. After my Friday morning men’s prayer grouped, me and another Brother from the group talked about this same issue. He was talking about quitting his job and taking his whole family to Central America to do missionary work for the next five years. It really does seem like there is no choices. It kind of makes you sick to the stomach.:hypno: What is worse it seems the news media has already made our choice for us.

 

[melensdad]

"mainsuch:

I was having this discussion just last night. Voting, with regard to candidates’ positions on abortion. All in the discussion were pro-life, but one insisted that “abortion is just one issue.” I countered that “yes, it’s just one issue… but it’s a really big one!”

A lot of people see the war as a bigger issue, since it’s resulted in the deaths of thousands. However, abortion has resulted in the deaths of millions, so if that’s the measure of importance, than abortion is thousands of times more important of an issue.

I think we are going to see that as far as the republicans are concerned it will be more of the same in Irac.

It should be pointed out that the USCCB has informed President Bush that we can NOT leave Iraq until the nation is stabilized and secure in its own right. It should also be mentioned our Pope B-16 has issued the same message to the President. So if you want to follow the leaders of our church on the issue of Iraq, then you should not vote for candidates who will withdraw our troops before that nation is fixed . . . btw we did break it, we need to fix what we broke.

marci:

If we boycotted every company that supported the pro-choice, pro-homosexual, or otherwise immoral cause, we would have a tough time of it indeed.

That is what happens when you don’t think “outside the box” you just give up. What if there were coordinated rotating boycotts. For example, in the months of Jan & Feb the Catholic Church asked for a boycott of Johnson & Johnson products. Then in March & April the Catholic Church asked for a boycott of Unilever (Q-Tips, Lipton, Best Foods, Birds Eye, CountryCrock, Wish-Bone, Ben & Jerry’s, Axe, Finesse, Salon Selectives, Suave, etc.) Do you think you could live without some of these goods for 2 months? Imagine what would happen to their sales during those 2 months. It would prove a point. It would also be easy to do short boycotts.
rig94086:

If we end up with two, pro-choice candidates (the two current front-runners), I will vote for the one who has said he would nominate judges such as Thomas, Scalia and Roberts, AND has stated his opposition to Roe v Wade.

I am still holding out hope that a more suitable candidate will win the primary.

Well stated. But I’d also like to point out that it is a LONG WAY AWAY from nominating the current front-running GOP candidate and it should also be pointed out we still have several Democrats running. The primaries are not yet here. So NOW is the time to get involved with your local and state politics.

Keikiolu:

Though, if you want to allow a little MORE evil than is necessary this time in hopes of having a somewhat-less-evil-than-the-lesser-evil-this-time candidate,… just weigh the risks of that, as that choice creates more evil than necessary now.

I think it is very rare that society swings back quickly from an induced evil. We tend to see long term swings in one direction before we pull back the other way, and even then when we pull back we rarely pull back as far as we should because the institutions of evil have been established and refuse to give up easily. So it seems very dangerous to me to give in today in hopes of getting something better at a later date.

 

[inthecloud]

Remember folks, the one who wins in 08 will nominate at least two Supreme Court Judges. If I were pro-life that will count as a vital point. Mormon or not, I think that a Republican will nominate better judges that Hillary. Those two votes can change the moral landscape of the USA.