K
katherine2
Guest
And your view is that both my and Santorum’s political behavior are not compatable with our Catholic faith?
- Status
M
miguel
Guest
Yes, if it’s really true that Specter’s opponent was pro-life (or at least not worse on the issue than Specter). I have to admit I wasn’t following that race, but I have never been a fan of Arlen Specter. If it makes you feel better, I refused to vote for Schwarzenegger for that reason. So what about my question to you?
D
dennisknapp
Guest
This is not an answer to my question, only a red-herring. You have not told me how you reconciled his views on abortion and stem cell research.
Peace
J
jlw
Guest
I would have voted for Toomey in the Penn primary had I been a resident. However, It is a political CALCULATION to back the more “electable” candidate and keep the MAJORITY (without which, your PARTY objective doesn’t get taken care of) in the Senate.
With a majority, the GOP (with a decidedly pro-life agenda) gets to run all the commitees, including the judiciary commitee. The weakness of the leadership and the “maverick” leanings and squishy rhetoric of Spector DID NOT keep the nominees locked up in commitee. They got through the gauntlet, by majority rule. That the GOP majority is pathetic on the senate floor is another matter, but a majority is better than a minority anyway you slice it. Thus Santorum backing the “moderate” who won re-election for republicans easily in the general election. He plugged his nose, and thought team-first, principle second.
Not saying it’s perfect!! Just a little political strategy that can’t be ignored.
With a majority, the GOP (with a decidedly pro-life agenda) gets to run all the commitees, including the judiciary commitee. The weakness of the leadership and the “maverick” leanings and squishy rhetoric of Spector DID NOT keep the nominees locked up in commitee. They got through the gauntlet, by majority rule. That the GOP majority is pathetic on the senate floor is another matter, but a majority is better than a minority anyway you slice it. Thus Santorum backing the “moderate” who won re-election for republicans easily in the general election. He plugged his nose, and thought team-first, principle second.
Not saying it’s perfect!! Just a little political strategy that can’t be ignored.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
So, Katherine’s vote for Kerry cannot be for the same reasons Santorum voted for Spector. Unless she wants to keep the Republicans in power in the Senate.
Peace
K
katherine2
Guest
And like jlw, my voting decisions are not perfect, just the political strategy i think in the end will produce the best results.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
So, the ends justify the means?
Is it ok to vote for someone who has constantly sided for pro-abortion legislation, and would role back all restraints on stem cell research because, why?
What benefits could possibly be foreseen in this decision?
Peace
J
jlw
Guest
They are not the same. Katherine, while being pro-life personally, votes for the most governmental solution candiate, believing that social justice can best be attained thu governmental involvement. Alas, her party is pro-death to the hilt, but social justice thru governemnt is more important for her once in the voting booth.
Santorum, on the other hand, certainly backed a pro-abort in the primary, but he did it, in the big picture, for pro-life agenda reasons. WHA?? What?? How’s that, jlw?? My premise is that MAJORITIES carry an agenda. As I said above, a simple (if not resounding) majority gets to run all the commitees and essentially set the schedule for policy decisions. Spector kept BOTH pennsylvania seats in the gop fold. The gop is RUN by pro-lifers. The pro-life agenda, whether through legislative act or appointing judges who aren’t adamently pro-death, will get carried out, sometimes in the short-term, but mostly in the long term.
So in conclusion, k2 a pro-life citizen cares more about government subsidies than she does about abortion policy, thusly her voting habits. Santorum, a pro-life senator, cares more about abortion policy than governmental subsidies, thusly, his backing of a liberal republican (in this case).
M
miguel
Guest
For 1.5 million babies?
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Sorry Miguel they are obviously not an issue. Since K2 got outta the womb alive, she shouldn’t have to worry about those who weren’t as luckly right?
Lisa N
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
Gee, then they missed me because the election board does not know I’m Catholic. Chalk up one more uncounted Catholic vote for Bush.
PF
K
katherine2
Guest
I understand. You’re postion is based on a premise and a conclusion. That is different from an article of faith. I will keep with my postion but thank you for sharing your opinion.
K
katherine2
Guest
If a vote for Bush would have stoped the abortion of 1.5 million babies a year, he already owes us 700,000 lives.
What a FRAUD! What a LIAR!
C
chicago
Guest
Some would contend with both counts of that statement.
C
chicago
Guest
Sorry to see katherine gone again. She adds so much to the dialogue here. Hope to see her back again real soon. It gets awful boring and one sided without such articulateness of that perspective.
F
fix
Guest
Is the truth now boring? The arguments I have read here that reject the truth are hardly articulate. They often are nuanced and mendacious.
C
chicago
Guest
Truth is certainly not boring as it always reveals deeper levels of mystrey. It is, therefore, fascinating.
However, what is tedium is the kind of hard right baiting and talking points which are so often trotted out and repeated ad infinitum on certain forums. katernine usually offers something different, inteligent, and articulate in contrast. (Frequently providing details and putting things in a perspective which others just aren’t able to provide.) She isn’t typically just going to the opposite extreme of rolling out liberal talking points, but rather engages in an often informative and entertaining dialogue with a perspective not generally available on this board. Really, there isn’t anybody else here who offers what she does. Her presence makes for a fascinating read and a better message board, then. Even though I don’t always agree with her, I consider her posts to be must reads and good conversational material in a field of much same ol, same ol. It just isn’t the same without her. That is why I hope to see her return soon and anxiously await it. I’m not the only one who views katherine in this way. I’ve previously seen others on the board (again, including those who might disagree with her on just about everything) who’ve stated that they are much in concurrance.
J
jlw
Guest
Go for it, if you like. TPJCatholic thinks that unless a politician stops abortion dead, in it’s tracks, TODAY, you aren’t really pro-life.
I contend, that in a contentious political real-life world, being pro-life can mean as little as keeping the pro-death squad at bay, and at the same time, passing laws that limit or discourage abortion and/or point to the humanity of the unborn.
P
Philip_P
Guest
The thing I dislike about labelling one party “pro-life” as opposed to another as “culture of death” is that it seems to sidestep issues of responsibility. For instance, suppose you belive the Iraq war to be immoral (as I, and many others do. I realize many here don’t, but please pay attention to the principle I’m trying to examine here rather than retreading the pro-anti war arguments). In the case of a war, it is the STATE actively pursuing an action deemed to be immoral. In the case of abortion, the state is tolerating an evil, but I don’t think that’s at all the same as actively prusuing and carrying out an evil. I’m not excusing the toleration (yes, I voted for Kerry, no, I don’t believe his position on abortion is correct), but I think it’s highly inaccurate to label a pro-choice politician an abortionist, or otherwise imply that he/she is responsible for the 1.4 million abortions that occur yearly. Guilty of failing to act, certainly, but this isn’t China - the state isn’t forcing anyone to commit abortion.
To my mind, there was no pro-life candidate last election. I understand why some people voted for Bush, and why some voted for Kerry, but I can’t go along with those who would label those who arrived at a different political conclusion from themselves as being in some state of moral error. Furthermore, I think if we insist on arguing for ONE political solution as being the ONLY authentic Catholic one, rather than trying to witness ACROSS the political spectrum for a consistent ethic of life, we will be squandering a valuable opportunity. We Catholics now make up a significant constituency of both parties. This is a good thing.
To my mind, there was no pro-life candidate last election. I understand why some people voted for Bush, and why some voted for Kerry, but I can’t go along with those who would label those who arrived at a different political conclusion from themselves as being in some state of moral error. Furthermore, I think if we insist on arguing for ONE political solution as being the ONLY authentic Catholic one, rather than trying to witness ACROSS the political spectrum for a consistent ethic of life, we will be squandering a valuable opportunity. We Catholics now make up a significant constituency of both parties. This is a good thing.
L
Lisa_N
Guest
I don’t think it’s disagreeing that makes for an inflammatory post but the way the message is delivered. If someone starts calling other posters names or overstating the case, it’s not dialogue IMO, it’s a monologue. It doesn’t advance the discussion very far. FWIW I disagree politically with the liberals on the board but some like Philip can disagree without being disagreeable. I didn’t find that K2 could hold off on the cliches and name calling. While she does have a very interesting and very sincerely held set of convictions, sometimes it’s hard to see through the delivery to the message. JMO.
Lisa N
- Status