Republican voters??

[SoCalRC]

On different forums one thing that stands out on manyRepublican voters is they will vote Third Party November 2008. So many are disaffected with the Repub Party.

There are a number of issues that many Christian/Republicans are frustrated with and many are cutting there ties with the Party.

They realize a Third Party gives democrats victory but they (Repub voters) see it as a kind of purging. And they are not Dems.

Many say, “…no more lesser of two evils for me anymore…”

November 2008 will be a day of oblivion for Republicans I fear.

It would be best for ALL of us to stay cloce to The Sacrament in these days and the days immediately ahead. It’s going to be a very bumpy ride.

Speaking as one who jumped ship 6 years ago, it isn’t all that bumpy. Once you let go of the false faith in earthly power, things don’t look so gloomy.

The country has overcome some very tough times regardless of which party is in power in the past, and the characitures that each party uses to paint the other are just that.

But, just as I would recommend reading the substance of a discussion before characterizing it as evil, I disagree with estesbob on how to handle a lack of enthusiasm for a major candidate. Staying at home is reneging on one’s civic duty and, if one votes their faith, a lapse in one’s moral duty as well.

It takes effort to find suitable minor candidates, and you may even need to write someone in, which can be quite a hassle in some locales. But we are called to do what is right, not what is easy.

 

[fix]

Not at all. My principle point is that how we ‘get there’ is critically important from a Catholic perspective. We believe that evil means ultimately lead to evil ends.

However, I am also critical of embracing rhetoric as proof of morality in the absense of demonstrable works and in the obvious presense of blatant hypocricy. How can the GOP be ‘pro family values’ when it is disproportionately led by people who evidently have none? Similiarly, how can the DEMs really represent the poor and blue collar population when the leadership is the same socioeconomic demographic as the GOP? If you don’t reward what you claim to value, how can you truly believe your own ideology?

This is the fundemental point you seem to be missing. Most people cannot seem to accept the practicality of voting for sincere third party candidates. They believe that they are ‘wasting’ their vote. But what has this pragmatism brought us? The pro-life party supports and directly profiteers off abortion, runs pro-abortion candidates for party leadership, protects sexual deviants in its ranks, and has just given us two Supreme Court judges who just reaffirmed Roe v. Wade and Casey.

My point is that it is David and Goliath, or Early Christianity and Rome. Stand with God, forget the odds, and God will reward us. Keep compromising between evils, and we become evil, and will reap what we sow.

I have nothing against a third party candidate.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

“…the country has overcome tough times…” True enough! But those were very diffrent times and America had a core of belief in God.

Since then “God” has been taken out of school; abortion went from first trimester to partial birth abortion; Dr. Kevorkian has a widespread following; Terry Schiavo gave us a good look at ourselves.

The “core” of America has changed; America will never be the same. Pessimism? Probably.

One pro-life Senator had a great crusade defending the unborn and yet was defeated in a virtual pro-life State in his re-election bid. How could this be?

This same senator endorsed and campaigned for another who has a 100% abortion rating with NARAL and did fundraising for the pro-abortion senator in his primary contest AGAINST a pro-life candidate. The pro-abortionist won re-election by defeating the pro-lifer. BTW, the pro-abortionist won by only about 16,000 votes out of over 600,000 cast in the primary. Is this twisted or what? Where do we draw the line on hypocrisy?

America is in trouble…its spirit is broken.

 

[mozart-250]

But if, like me, a person is getting a little disgusted with voting for the ‘lesser’ of two evils, I would urge them to try standing with God instead of chasing the false religion of earthly, two party, political power.

Just for the record, I can easily construct scenarios where voting for the ‘lesser of two evils’ is not only the prudent choice, but the only responsible choice. For that matter I can construct scenarios where voting for a pro-abortion candidate would be the only responsible choice (yes these are far-fetched though).

The issue for me has always been differentiating the amount of evil between these “two evils” and in the end it always seems to come down to a judgement call.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Just for the record, I can easily construct scenarios where voting for the ‘lesser of two evils’ is not only the prudent choice, but the only responsible choice. For that matter I can construct scenarios where voting for a pro-abortion candidate would be the only responsible choice (yes these are far-fetched though).

The issue for me has always been differentiating the amount of evil between these “two evils” and in the end it always seems to come down to a judgement call.

Who will not vote for the lesser of two evils automatically votes for the greater of those two evils.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Who will not vote for the lesser of two evils automatically votes for the greater of those two evils.

Whether you vote for the lesser or greater of evils, evil ALWAYS wins. Yeah, that’s what Christianity is all about, advancing evil.

This seems to ignore St. Paul in Romans (12:9): “Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.”

 

[mozart-250]

Whether you vote for the lesser or greater of evils, evil ALWAYS wins. Yeah, that’s what Christianity is all about, advancing evil.

This seems to ignore St. Paul in Romans (12:9): “Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.”

Well how about a hypothetical race where a Nazi Socialist is the ‘R’ candidate and a generic pro-choice liberal is the ‘D’ candidate.

Wouldn’t the responsible thing to do here be to suck it up and vote for the one that is not Nazi as the lesser of two evils.

This may sound extreme and ridiculous but a few years back the people in Louisiana had a major election (either governor or Senate) where the ‘R’ candidate was the grand dragon (or whatever they call it) of the Klu Klux Klan (I think his name was David Duke or something like that).

If I sound like I am being devil’s advocate (as it were) I am. You can always come up with hypotheticals that test whatever platitudes you may adopt concerning voting.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Whether you vote for the lesser or greater of evils, evil ALWAYS wins. Yeah, that’s what Christianity is all about, advancing evil.

This seems to ignore St. Paul in Romans (12:9): “Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.”

Unfortunately, your theory fails on one crucial point: Man cannot, by his own efforts achieve perfection.

That means we will never have perfect candidates. The best we can do is have one candidate who is a bit better than the other – the lesser of two evils.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

“Good” becomes an attritional credit for politicians nowadays.

20-30 years ago a score of 5 out of 5 was good reason to vote for a candidate.

Later on a score of 3 out of 5 was acceptable…still latter 2 out of 5…we held our noses and voted.

TODAY, we are fortunate to get 1 out of 5…that’s how much degradation this Country has fallen.

I will join with the small crowd that chants, “No more lesser of two evils, ever again!”

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Well how about a hypothetical race where a Nazi Socialist (sic - Nazi’s are fascists, not socialists, the name nationalist socialist notwithstanding) is the ‘R’ candidate and a generic pro-choice liberal is the ‘D’ candidate.

How is that different from any other election involving R and D?

Wouldn’t the responsible thing to do here be to suck it up and vote for the one that is not Nazi as the lesser of two evils.

Actually, if the Nazi claimed to be pro-life and not pro-choice, some here would say that we are obligated to vote for the Nazi because of their claim to be pro-life.

Personally, I’d do a write in…perhaps myself.

This may sound extreme and ridiculous but a few years back the people in Louisiana had a major election (either governor or Senate) where the ‘R’ candidate was the grand dragon (or whatever they call it) of the Klu Klux Klan (I think his name was David Duke or something like that).

If I sound like I am being devil’s advocate (as it were) I am. You can always come up with hypotheticals that test whatever platitudes you may adopt concerning voting.

To me the principle is about much more than claims to being pro-life and no pro-choice. I don’t buy the illogic of "if you’re not voting for the lesser of two evils, you’re always voting for the greater of the two because that’s what satan wants us to do. We are to hate what is evil and cling to what is good, period.

 

[SoCalRC]

“…the country has overcome tough times…” True enough! But those were very diffrent times and America had a core of belief in God.

Since then “God” has been taken out of school; abortion went from first trimester to partial birth abortion; Dr. Kevorkian has a widespread following; Terry Schiavo gave us a good look at ourselves.

The “core” of America has changed; America will never be the same. Pessimism? Probably.

One pro-life Senator had a great crusade defending the unborn and yet was defeated in a virtual pro-life State in his re-election bid. How could this be?

This same senator endorsed and campaigned for another who has a 100% abortion rating with NARAL and did fundraising for the pro-abortion senator in his primary contest AGAINST a pro-life candidate. The pro-abortionist won re-election by defeating the pro-lifer. BTW, the pro-abortionist won by only about 16,000 votes out of over 600,000 cast in the primary. Is this twisted or what? Where do we draw the line on hypocrisy?

America is in trouble…its spirit is broken.

I’m sorry, I don’t follow most of this at all. A seperation of Church and State was established quite early in our history. John Quincy Adams, one of the most religious of our early presidents, insisted on being sworn in on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independance to demonstrate that he believed in the principle.

In God We Trust did not appear on money until the Civil war and was not our official motto until the 1950’s (God was added to the Pledge of Allegience then as well).

Abortion was not outlawed in most of the US until that later part of the 19th century (look at newspaper ads from before that). And partial birth abortion is a tradition that we can find in Tertullian, one of the first Latin Apologists, whose work the Pope recently noted as still being relevant.

What, exactly, is the ‘golden age’ you want to return to? Segregation, slavery, wholly legal and unregulated abortion?

Is our society perfect, no, but the idea that we are the remnants of some golden age is, as far as I can see, a myth.

 

[SoCalRC]

Just for the record, I can easily construct scenarios where voting for the ‘lesser of two evils’ is not only the prudent choice, but the only responsible choice. For that matter I can construct scenarios where voting for a pro-abortion candidate would be the only responsible choice (yes these are far-fetched though).

The issue for me has always been differentiating the amount of evil between these “two evils” and in the end it always seems to come down to a judgement call.

I’d be interested in hearing your reasoning. In hindsight, I’ve concluded that my own such thoughts were the result of putting more faith in earthly political constructs than the power of God.

Look at all the examples that follow your post. Always there are only two choices listed. This assumes that you must accept a ‘two party system’. This is not written in the Constitution, it is a pragmatic effect. If I don’t pick one of these, I might as well not vote…

But belief in that ‘pragmatic’ system has created two parties that I largely indiscernable (once one is free of the propoganda of either).

I think it comes down to a leap of Faith - mainly, accepting that Christianity is not atruistic and impractical. Exactly the opposite, Jesus gave us a blueprint for living our lives. And history shows us again and again that following that blueprint eventually triumphs over seemingly impossible odds.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I’m sorry, I don’t follow most of this at all. A seperation of Church and State was established quite early in our history. John Quincy Adams, one of the most religious of our early presidents, insisted on being sworn in on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independance to demonstrate that he believed in the principle.

In God We Trust did not appear on money until the Civil war and was not our official motto until the 1950’s (God was added to the Pledge of Allegience then as well).

Abortion was not outlawed in most of the US until that later part of the 19th century (look at newspaper ads from before that). And partial birth abortion is a tradition that we can find in Tertullian, one of the first Latin Apologists, whose work the Pope recently noted as still being relevant.

What, exactly, is the ‘golden age’ you want to return to? Segregation, slavery, wholly legal and unregulated abortion?

Is our society perfect, no, but the idea that we are the remnants of some golden age is, as far as I can see, a myth.

Killing the unborn is a human issue not one that goes against separation of Church and State. Supreme Court decisions have been reversed when a new generation controls.

Returning to a “golden age?” No, That is not coming as long as we are going in this direction of the “Me Generation.”

The point I am trying to make is voting “lesser of two evils” no longer cuts it with many Americans. We are at a point of either “A” or “B” with no representation of another choice (except a Third Party–that remains to be seen).

A poll yesterday on FOX tells that 24% of Christian Conservative voters will vote for a Third Party. Don’t ask me for numbers; I don’t know how that translates.

A Third Party would put the Kibosh on the Republicans chances and Hillary wins. That is what’s coming as it looks from here.

 

[MiddleBear]

I have been voting for Republicans since 1978. The Democrats have been for abortion (party platform) since 1976 and fanatically so since 1980.
I also agree with many other Republican platform positions and disagree with all Democrat Party platform positions.

If you get one Democrat you get them all.

 

[mary_bobo]

Killing the unborn is a human issue not one that goes against separation of Church and State. Supreme Court decisions have been reversed when a new generation controls.

Returning to a “golden age?” No, That is not coming as long as we are going in this direction of the “Me Generation.”

The point I am trying to make is voting “lesser of two evils” no longer cuts it with many Americans. We are at a point of either “A” or “B” with no representation of another choice (except a Third Party–that remains to be seen).

A poll yesterday on FOX tells that 24% of Christian Conservative voters will vote for a Third Party. Don’t ask me for numbers; I don’t know how that translates.

A Third Party would put the Kibosh on the Republicans chances and Hillary wins. That is what’s coming as it looks from here.

I agree with your assessment of the situation. I understand how Republicans feel. I am not pleased with much of what as gone on. The presiddent is the same kind of “conservative” that his father was only he certainly has appointed some good SCJ. I just don’t think this is the time to vote for a third party just to teach them a lesson–if one truly cares about abortion, I mean.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I agree with your assessment of the situation. I understand how Republicans feel. I am not pleased with much of what as gone on. The presiddent is the same kind of “conservative” that his father was only he certainly has appointed some good SCJ. I just don’t think this is the time to vote for a third party just to teach them a lesson–if one truly cares about abortion, I mean.

It’s a given. Not a single Democrat is pro-life.

However, The most genuine pro-lifer on the Republican side quit today. What remains is very sketchy at best.

On other forums, disaffected Republicans are going to vote Third Party. Wouldn’t attempt to predict the vote count for a Third Party but I can say with confidence they will get at least a few million. They will be scattered votes and will, in close States, draw away from Republicans.

What is a possible scenario is AFTER a candidate has the sufficient votes for nomination but BEFORE the platform is written, the Republican mainstreamers will try to strike a deal with the Third Party. It will be in the form of writing into the platform certain pledges that would satisfy most Christian conservatives. That has been done before.

Then again, it will depend on the chosen Republican’s credibility.

I recall Ross Perot got something like 18% of the popular vote. Quite a large haul. Most of those voters were disaffected Republicans and Bill Clinton won with just a plurality. He never got 50% in either runs.

50% can win the White House (as long as it is in sync with electoral votes.)

A Third party will sink the Republicans UNLESS they make some deals…perhaps a Conservative Vice President hookup or something of that nature.

Realistically, any Republican is going to have to disassociate himself with the current Administration…it is the most unpopular Admin. in history. Can’t win while tied with that. It’s a reality.

 

[SoCalRC]

It’s a given. Not a single Democrat is pro-life.

Actually, Harry Reid the current Senate Majority Leader is openly and staunchly pro-life. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 8 more that score very high on most pro-life legislative checklists and have done so for a long time.

This just brings up another problem with the politicizing of the issue. Pro life organizations also become ‘pragmatic’ and ultimately find themselves putting partisan politics ahead of proported agenda.

Notice this article from yesterday’s The Hill:

thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-lash-out-at-activist-group-on-abortion-issue-2007-10-17.html

The NRLC campaigned against the s-chip children’s health care bill, arguing that a certain provision would potentially lead to euthanasia - but Dems, responding to 10 staunchly pro-life members of the Dem caucus, killed that provision.

In the absense of the provision, the NRLC seems to have no particular reason for its objection, but still continues to do so. Other pro-life groups, like Catholics United, have agressively supported the bill, even running ads:

catholics-united.org/schip-ads

But I guess somewhere along the way the NRLC changed the R from “Right” to “Republican”.

Folks like Reid have shown that a Dem can not only be pro-life, but rise to a leadership position, but it doesn’t really help them politically because too many people are just like the NRLC. Somewhere along the line they got their priorities switched. For all the talk, I bet a lot of them will stick with the GOP even if the nominee has an extensive pro-abortion background.

 

[estesbob]

Actually, Harry Reid the current Senate Majority Leader is openly and staunchly pro-life. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 8 more that score very high on most pro-life legislative checklists and have done so for a long time.

.

"I would only say that this isn’t the only decision a lot of us wish that Alito weren’t there and O’Connor were there."

Harry Reid commenting on the USC upholding the partial birth abortion ban,

 

[SoCalRC]

"I would only say that this isn’t the only decision a lot of us wish that Alito weren’t there and O’Connor were there."

Harry Reid commenting on the USC upholding the partial birth abortion ban,

Ah, the 'ol right wing smear. Harry Reid has always been clear, he supports abortion exceptions for rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother. No, this is not in keeping with Catholic teachings, however it is in line with about 80% of the stated positions for the GOP caucas.

Reid voted for the ban (he has voted for bans 3 times actually), and issued an official statement supporting the courts upholding the ban.

The context of the original question was what he thought about the majority opinion. And, by the standards he has long publicly held, there is a lot of reason to criticise.

First, the ban doesn’t actually ban any abortions. If you are pro life, not stopping any abortions is kind of a let down.

Second, the opinion goes out of its way, providing even a blueprint, to help insure that no abortions will be stopped (that is the basis for the opinion).

Third, the opinion reaffirms key portions of Roe and Casey, adding still more precedent to laws Reid would like to see overturned.

Last, the opinion creates a precedent of making politicians, not doctors, the best judge of medical necessity. On multiple occassions Reid has questioned the wisdom of this because “it is almost a certainty that Congress will be asked to address the issue of National health care reform soon”.

The volume of the right wing attack monkeys notwithstanding, I find Reid’s position pretty credible. He took a lot of heat from his own party and repeatedly pointed out that provisions for rape, incest, and maternal health were in the original Senate bill, then removed.

Personally, I think that the ban is a joke which was launched for political purposes. It hasn’t and won’t save a single child, but it did mobilize opposition. And, I really don’t like the idea of politicians overruling doctors on a question of reasonable and necessary care. But, as a Roman Catholic, I’m not an end-justifies-the-means sort of person in general.

 

[mozart-250]

I’d be interested in hearing your reasoning. In hindsight, I’ve concluded that my own such thoughts were the result of putting more faith in earthly political constructs than the power of God.

I think I gave an example somewhere:

A generic liberal Democrat versus Adolph Hitler. Who wouldn’t vote to stop pure evil.

Far fetched and extreme, yes. But extreme cases illustrate that platitudes break down at some point, and what you are left with is a matter of judgement.

Besides I think the people of Louisiana once faced a similar dilemma (replace Adolph Hitler with the Grand Wizard of the KKK or whatever they call that position).