Gerard Bradley says he has “an unmatchable record on life issues.” Deal Hudson proclaims: “McCain IS pro-life!” Oswald Sobrino one-ups Hudson, declaring McCain “extremely” pro-life. Maybe these three men are not very informed on McCain’s record on life. Would it be charitable to borrow a term that Christopher Blosser slings at Doug Kmiec and call them suckers? Perhaps ideologues is a bit kinder and more accurate.
Before I get into this, a brief caveat is in order: I am not interested in comparing McCain’s record on life to that of Obama. They’re both dreadful, and I believe that when Catholics get into the business of trying to determine who is “better” on life they are promoting a concessional and cowardly rather than prudent and principled exercise. That said, this post, like the one I wrote on Obama, ought to be read as a freestanding critique.
We know that McCain has a checkered record on life issues, having fully supported federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. That’s an issue that the pandering Hudson once deemed non-negotiable. Truth is, Bradley, Sobrino, and Hudson (among many, many others) either deliberately marginalize the ESCR issue or they leave it out of the discussion altogether in order boast of McCain’s pro-life cred. Candor has never been the strong suit of the ideologue. When it comes to partisan politics, it appears some will overcompensate by sacrificing honesty and Catholic perspective for the good of the party, using terms like “IS” and “unmatchable” and “extremely” in order to quell any would-be objections from those of us who live in reality and think with our faith.
Really, there is no where for them to abscond when it comes to the ESCR quandry, and I have discussed this specifically at length. No candidate for office deserves to be dubbed “pro-life” when they have consistently supported ESCR at the federal level. But let’s take a closer look at McCain’s record on abortion in order to test the claims made by what Hudson calls the “Catholic Right.” Is McCain’s record on abortion impeccable from the Catholic standpoint? Are there any reasons for a Catholic to be leery of McCain on abortion? Let’s look.
In terms of legislative action, McCain has a sterling voting record on abortion to which both Republicans and Democrats can attest. Whether it was the Partial Birth Abortion Ban or freedom to access to the entrance of abortion clinics, McCain’s voting has mirrored, I believe, the ideal Catholic image of legislative participation with regard to abortion when he has decided to vote. This is all to McCain’s credit. Of course, there were those times when McCain decided not to vote on certain abortion bills, such as in 1999 when he did not vote on the Harkin Amendment to S. 1692, which intended to “To express the sense of Congress in support of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade.” The amendment passed 51-47. Strangely enough, McCain did vote later that same day on other amendments to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000. Omitting to vote on particular amendments to this crucial piece of legislation certainly raises some questions as to the level of McCain’s commitment to voting pro-life.
Supporters of McCain like to point out the fact that he received a 0% NARAL rating. But I’ve always found learning about someone from friends is generally more helpful and accurate than taking the word of someone’s foes. The National Right to Life Committee rates McCain as 75% (the highest rating being 100%), indicating that NRLC considers McCain’s record on abortion to be “mixed.”
How does McCain’s campaign rhetoric match up with his voting record and does it leave us as confident as his legislative actions may? It shouldn’t. McCain has not been consistent in how he speaks about abortion, and this ought to give us due pause. McCain is no longer campaigning to be a U.S. legislator; he is running for President of the United States. His ability to affect abortion in the U.S. broadens beyond his Senate record if he takes the Oval Office.
Think back to the 2000 Republican primaries. John McCain, George W. Bush, and Alan Keyes were engaged in a debate on abortion which got rather tense. Both McCain and Bush were committed to exceptions to abortion restrictions in the cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. While Bush did not desire to push his view into the Republican Party’s platform, McCain wanted the party’s position on abortion to soften to permit the exceptions. Keyes jumps into the debate with a rather insightful lead:
One individual who doesn’t really accept the pro-life position of the party [McCain] and another who says he accepts it, but then takes positions that are inconsistent with it so that when push comes to shave he won’t be able to defend it [Bush], and both willing to take at the personal life a position that will destroy you in debate against the Democrats.
Keyes’ familiarity with McCain’s personal position on abortion led him to declare in a February 2000 interview: “John McCain is not pro-life. Anyone who votes for John McCain betrays pro-life proponents.”
If elected to the presidency, McCain’s position on Roe v. Wade would become all the more important. The problem is, can we trust McCain? In 1999, McCain told the San Francisco Chronicle:
I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.
Two days later, McCain made a remark on CNN that sounded straight out of a Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer script:
We all know, and it’s obvious, that if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations.
In January 2000, McCain drew fire from the American Life League. Reporters in New Hampshire, likely aware that McCain’s platform on abortion conflicted with that of the Republican Party, asked him whether or not he would permit his fifteen year-old daughter to have an abortion. His answer implicitly invoked the “right” accorded to women by Roe v. Wade:
The final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel. I would discuss this issue with Cindy and Meghan, and this would be a private decision that we would share within our family and not with anyone else. Obviously I would encourage her to bring, to know that baby would be brought up in a warm and loving family, but the final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel.
Within an hour a panicked McCain campaign issued a brief clarification:
What I intended to say is that this is a family decision. This family decision would be made by the family and not Meghan alone.
In other words, whether the decision would be made by Meghan alone or by the whole family, McCain struggled to provide a genuinely pro-life answer by actually falling back on legalized abortion. The question, which Keyes raised in a debate, is: If McCain claims the “right” to abortion for his daughter, is he not implicitly supporting the right for all women? It certainly seemed so to the American Life League.
What about the 2008 campaign? I mean, a lot can change in eight years, right? Well, after emerging as the Republican nominee from out of a rather lackluster crew of Republican candidates, McCain is getting pressure on abortion like he never has before. His commitment to exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother is as strong as ever, but it appears that he may flip-flop on his official campaign position and not push for a change in the Republican platform. If he ends up choosing not to pursue a softening of the Republican stance on abortion, then he will become a political hypocrite, having slammed Bush for making that very concession in 2000.
McCain has already flip-flopped, so it seems, on Roe v. Wade. It’s really difficult to tell in which direction the “Straight Talk Express” is heading. Media Matters puts it succinctly:
As Media Matters noted, McCain said in 1999 that he “would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade,” but then issued a “clarification” several days later, reportedly saying: “I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as president, I would work toward its repeal.” In 2005, he adopted yet another position, saying that he agreed “to some degree” that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. In 2006, McCain also issued a statement indicating that if he were the governor of South Dakota, he “would have signed” a controversial bill outlawing all abortions except when the life of the woman is threatened, but that he “would also take the appropriate steps under state law — in whatever state — to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included.
When asked by Tim Russert in 2005 whether or not agrees with Justice Antonin Scalia’s statement that Roe was incorrectly decided, this happened:
MR. RUSSERT: Now, [Supreme Court] Justice [Antonin] Scalia, as you know, believes that Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal in this country, was incorrectly decided. Do you agree with him?
McCAIN: Yeah, I certainly do to some degree because it was based on medical knowledge and technology at the time that indicated that babies are, children are not viable at its earliest stage as they are today. So it certainly wasn’t based on sound, up-to-date medical technology. We save babies every day that are premature at a very early stage. Thank God.
So McCain says that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned in the short term, and that Roe v. Wade should be repealed, and that he agrees somewhat that Roe was incorrectly decided. However you slice it, McCain’s not consistent. Perhaps he’s trying to please all sides? Why so vague on how and when Roe is to be overturned?
Here’s McCain’s long answer in 2000:
Here’s McCain’s short answer in 2008 (note how eager he is to get to the next question):
At least he’ll appoint pro-life judges, right? No way to know for certain. In 2000, McCain explicitly stated that, as president, he would have no pro-life “litmus” test for nominating Supreme Court justices. Last May, McCain promised to nominate justices in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, yet he failed to mention abortion within this context, remaining quite vague:
Not once during his 2008 campaign has McCain indicated that a goal of his presidency is to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Nor has he indicated that his Supreme Court nominations will blaze that trail. What we do have to go on is his comment that there is no pro-life “litmus” test for justices.
This deeply disconcerting problem in McCain’s campaign rhetoric is compounded by recent comments he made to Hillary Clinton supporters in Virginia this month. The event was closed to the public and media, and Will Bower, founder of PUMA and present at the meeting, revealed the possible reason why. When Bower asked McCain about judges, McCain “pointed out that he supported Bill Clinton with both Ginsburg and Breyer.”
So on Supreme Court justices, McCain goes on record stating he has no pro-life criterion for judges, yet he plans on supporting constructionists (sounds a lot like Rudy Giuliani). Off the record, he’s reminding the Clinton faithful the he “supported Bill Clinton” with pro-Roe Ginsburg and Breyer. The silence here is deafening: McCain has never once stated that he plans to nominate judges to overturn Roe v. Wade. In fact, the collective remarks he has been willing to made seem to indicate that he has no plan in this regard.
The inconsistencies, flip-flopping, pandering to Republicans and Democrats, and reluctance to speak frankly on abortion, at best, shows that no one really knows the full scope of McCain’s position on legalized abortion. While his Senate record bespeaks of a desire to restrict access to abortion, his presidential intentions are unpredictable in terms of how he would use executive power to affect abortion in the United States. Moreover, what convoluted material McCain does give us does not inculcate confidence in the Catholic voter. Only naivete could lead one to pronounce McCain a truly “pro-life” candidate.
No, dear Catholics, McCain is not “extremely pro-life.” No, dear Catholics, McCain does not have an “unmatchable record” on abortion. Rather, McCain has a very ambiguous, opaque, turbid, and inconsistent platform on abortion. McCain is not our pro-life candidate. But I suppose as long as he’s got Bradley, Sobrino, and Hudson in his corner making the case that he is, there’s going to be at least some duped Catholics. Just try not to be one of them.
June 25, 2008 at 8:25 am
This looks like it will get spicy, and I even predict that someone will ignore your “freestanding” approach and things will go downhill from there. Its not rocket science but, hey, sometimes its fun to play prophet…
June 25, 2008 at 8:27 am
“They’re both dreadful, and I believe that when Catholics get into the business of trying to determine who is “better” on life they are promoting a concessional and cowardly rather than prudent and principled exercise.”
Why can’t the discussion of their differences be principled and prudent? You give no reason.
I know you’re going to great lengths to make it look like there are no differences between the two candidates, but at the end of the day, they both say and will do different things about abortion in the United States. No number of blog posts will change that, thank God.
And yea, McCain’s not the ideal guy – but he’s much better than Obama, and not just on these issues.
June 25, 2008 at 8:33 am
I think McCain is imperfect on matters of abortion, but likely more thoughtful on the matter than Bush.
In fairness to the side of this argument which believes it is imperative to rule the plebs from the top down and change abortion from the high court to change the beasts below, McCain will choose anti-Roe judges, most likely as an accident, much as Alito and Roberts were chosen. Clearly, these two were chosen because they were likely to continue the President’s particular executive choices on Guantanamo, torture, and the like. It just so happens that they are also pro-life (think about why Harriet Myers was initially nominated-to continue the White House excutive “privileges”). McCain will nominate similarly and the likely accident will be an anti-abortion justice.
He would likely serve central judicial and legislative ends on the matter of abortion. He would do little to change the hearts of those “betwixt and between” as Steinfels terms them. Additionally, he would continue the desperate war policies of Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan, he would serve his Republican masters on economic issues, and would likely start another war of convenience. When Latin America flares, he would likely recreate the grand Republican Dirty Wars there.
But, in all fairness, he is likely to serve the pro-life cause better than Bush. And this also serves as an indictment of the Bush supporters who rejected him forthe past 8 years.
June 25, 2008 at 8:42 am
Mostly a good post, but at times, well, sheesh:
That would be the same Ginsburg and Breyer who supported upholding Roe in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
Given that Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed by Clinton, and given that Clinton didn’t take office until January 1993, and given that Planned Parenthood v. Casey (note the case name) was decided in June of 1992 . . .
June 25, 2008 at 8:45 am
Now pointing to Stenberg v. Carhart or Gonzales v. Carhart, that would be legit.
June 25, 2008 at 8:52 am
Policratus,
I hope you don’t vote for either of the two candidates.
June 25, 2008 at 8:55 am
There is a lot here and I will attempt to answer some of this. I don’t think Catholics or indeed many Evangleicals are hiding that McCain is bad on the ESCR issue . OF course what makes this depressing is that so many PRO-LIFE Catholics I talks think EDCR is ok. There is inded a lot of education to do even among our own people. I do hope that McCain is open to looking at the alternatives especially since so much has been shown as to Adult stem cells.
LEt me attack this first since this has been making the rounds:
“This deeply disconcerting problem in McCain’s campaign rhetoric is compounded by recent comments he made to Hillary Clinton supporters in Virginia this month. The event was closed to the public and media, and Will Bower, founder of PUMA and present at the meeting, revealed the possible reason why. When Bower asked McCain about judges, McCain “pointed out that he supported Bill Clinton with both Ginsburg and Breyer.” That would be the same Ginsburg and Breyer who supported upholding Roe in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.”
This of course has been made largely into something it is not. Is the fact that he supported GInsburg Shocking? Well no I ahve not looked up Breyers’ vote but Ginsburg that was a much more controversal justice was approved 96 to 3!!! Of course Republicans on the whole had a different view of deference to Presidential choices for the Court. Even when they were former ACLUS lawyers :) A deference that might or might not exist if Obama gets on since many of us are getting tired of the soubek standard
How3er McCain and the most pro-life of Senators voted for them both
June 25, 2008 at 8:58 am
Overall a good post. I would, however, make a couple of corrections.
First, as Stuart notes, Ginsburg and Breyer weren’t on the court when Casey was decided (though I think there is little doubt which way they would have voted had they been on the court at the time).
Second, while it’s true that McCain only has a 75% rating from National Right to Life, the missing 25% is due largely to votes on campaign finance reform (which NRL opposes) and the Medicaid prescription drug benefit (which NRL supported).
Third, I think you are a bit unfair at the beginning of your article in your treatment of Bradley, Hudson, and Sobrino. Bradley’s article is the only one I’m familiar with, and it is simply not true that he downplays or ignores the ESCR issue. Bradley’s article does rely on some rumors of McCain switching his position which have turned out to be false (at least so far), but this hardly makes him an ideologue. Frankly, I think the attacks at the beginning of the post tarnish what is otherwise a quite excellent analysis.
June 25, 2008 at 9:03 am
“McCain is getting pressure on abortion like he never has before. His commitment to exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother is as strong as ever, but it appears that he may flip-flop on his official campaign position and not push for a change in the Republican platform. If he ends up choosing not to pursue a softening of the Republican stance on abortion, then he will become a political hypocrite, having slammed Bush for making that very concession in 2000.”
As to the exception yeah it would be great if he was not for them. However I remember in the ancient past it was very much understood that to vote for someone who believed in the exceptions versus a hindred percent pro-abort was acceptable. In fact it was and is a practical necessity.
GOvernor Blanco of Louisiana was for the exceptions and her opponent at the time Jindal was not. WHen SHe was Governor the pro-life community kept communication with her and were able to a get a bill signed by her that was a more hardline
Will Mccain look like a Hypocrite as to the GOP platform? I don’t think so and I do not see him changing the platform
June 25, 2008 at 9:17 am
“Just try not to be one of them.”
Should we being carrying the torch for the likes of John Dewey, who is another 20th Century rationalist and social engineer working in the narrow confines of his own restricted self-created system, as you did? Good luck in rescuing his memory, rightfully laid low, for; “Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?”
“There is but one sure road of access to truth — the road of patient, cooperative inquiry operating by means of observation, experiment, record and controlled reflection”
John Dewey
June 25, 2008 at 9:20 am
On the other hand, Obama’s record on infanticide and abortion is rock solid. As is his oath to his blood-thirsty, vampiric, infant-slaughtering fanbase.
Who proposes to slaughter more humans? Don’t forget that you are Catholic before you are Democrat. Nevermind, I’m speaking to the wall.
June 25, 2008 at 9:56 am
Well, sure, McCain supports ESCR, but so does Obama, unfortunately, so that’s a non-issue as far as distinguishing them.
Now, on other life issues, McCain, as you say has a 75% (and this likely already includes the percentage points lost for supporting ESCR), and Obama has a 0%.
I used to be pretty good at math in high school, so let me go out on a limb and say that this makes McCain 75% better than Obama on life issues, a very significant difference.
Furthermore, does anyone care about the overseas and domestic abortion funding that Obama will reinstate, but McCain won’t??? I am here referring to the “Mexico City policy”, etc.
All I hear is about the odds of getting an anti-Roe judge on the Supreme Court…that is NOT the only abortion-related issue in this campaign….seems like that is avoiding the point.
And ON the subject of Supreme Court judges, all I can say is that McCain’s judges are extremely likely to be friendlier to the side of life than Obama’s!
On other issues besides abortion, I would still support McCain. I think he has a more realistic foreign policy, and has less socialist tendencies. Also, Obama has a lack of experience that is almost laughable in someone running for President in this day and age. I would consider his level of experience perhaps suitable for VP, as he could come up to speed on the job. McCain is a center-right politician while Obama is far left (I guess he is so far left that he has transcended politics)
But the last paragraph is only my opinion (though I think it is shared by many)….please focus on the abortion aspect. The fact is, McCain is much much better on abortion than Obama.
June 25, 2008 at 10:03 am
Fascinating post. It’s becoming increasingly clear that McCain really stands for nothing, as says what he thinks people want to hear. I’ve never seen a bigger flip-flopper and obfuscator, which is all the more remarkable as he tries to wrap himself in a shroud of sincerity.
June 25, 2008 at 10:07 am
Also, I think it is likely that McCain has either drifted a little towards the pro-life side since the 2000 primaries. Sam Brownback knows him well and was quick to endorse him over those who, on the surface, appeared to be more pro-life candidates. I do not believe Sen. Brownback would have done this if McCain was as wishy-washy on abortion as is portrayed in this article.
Even if I am wrong about that, however, the fact remains that he would be much friendlier to the side of life than Obama. We are simply comparing these two men here; they are the only two that can win. So I don’t really see the point in spending so much ASCII to point out that McCain is not perfect on life issues. We already know that. We also know that Obama is perfectly bad.
As far as what McCain in VA, I’d put that in the same category as what Obama says to guys like Doug Kmiec….an obvious attempt at a snow job to peel off a few voters from the other side who are easily duped.
June 25, 2008 at 10:09 am
I do find it interesting that the Republicaths are convenientyly ignoring the bad theology they invented to justify a wholesale support of the Republican party, After carefully choosing only 5 issues as “non-negotiable” (a very different list of the USCBB’s list of intrinsically evil acts in the context of public policy), they are now being hoisted by their own petards. Can we expect to see a new version that excludes ESCR? After all, by their own stands, voting for McCain is “non-negitiable”.
And as for this Oswald Sobrino, I think we can all discount his pro-life credentials when he writes the following:
“In the midst of all the fashionable Bush-hating, I have gone out on a limb before and said that historians will eventually rate Bush as a great war leader against Islamic extremism and will credit him with the guts to overthrow the genocidal Saddam Hussein…. Catholics and other Christians should applaud it.”
June 25, 2008 at 10:19 am
Morning’s Minion,
Maybe you need your morning coffee. ESCR is still a non-negotiable issue, but since it is supported by both candidates, it is in effect removed from play in considering the two candidates this year.
Let’s focus on the other four. As for peace vs. war, I think the Church’s just war tradition leaves a lot of room all the way from those who are complete pacifists to those who wish to see Western civilization defended against those who wish to destroy it (within just war norms of course). I don’t believe Iraq/war on terror is a “Catholic” issue as far as deciding between the two candidates. So, no, I don’t think you can discount Sobrino as pro-life. In his calculus, I’m sure that the war on terror saved a lot more lives than it has cost. You may disagree with this, but there is no objective way to prove it one way or the other. Both sides have some good points, as far as I can tell.
June 25, 2008 at 10:20 am
On the core issue McCain has not flipped floppped MM as much as you might hope to say he has
On Immigration Reform despite much pressure he has not flipped flopped and remains commited to immigration Reform
On ABortion we have pretty much what we always had. A person that is pro-life on abortion with the exceptions
On stem cell he is what it he is and we can hope that the progress shown in adult stem cell will persudade him. We have more of a chance with that than Obama. Sadly though public opinion is not in our corner since we have wasted largely the small window of opportunity that this administration has given us
On trade McCain has not flipped flopped and goes in and tells some hard truths to people that do want to hear them
June 25, 2008 at 10:23 am
Morning’s Minion,
You’re right. Your candidate, Obama, has been consistent and has never flip-flopped. He loves watching babies from botched abortions slowly die in a pan. So, maybe we should all follow your (lack of) logic and vote for Obama because he is not a “flip-flopper” (is that one of those “As Seen On TV” products?).
June 25, 2008 at 10:28 am
MM
THese 5 non negotiable issues that I think you are talking were not exactly brought out of thin air by the Republican National Commitee Catholic division.
Much of it comes from the mouth of Pope Benedict himself
June 25, 2008 at 10:36 am
A good post. I would, however, make the corrections noted by SB.
June 25, 2008 at 10:40 am
JH: they were created out of thin air, a selective reading of what is non-negotiable and what is not. Moreover, by conflating formal and remote material cooperation, the moral theology is deeply flawed.
June 25, 2008 at 10:47 am
Don’t forget that you are Catholic before you are Democrat. Nevermind, I’m speaking to the wall.
I was about to say the same thing substituting the word Republican for Democrat. (N.B. I am not and have never been a Democrat. This is the first election in which I am even giving serious consideration to a Democratic candidate)
My point is this: We are Catholics. We are followers of Christ Jesus and his Bride, Holy Mother Church. Our perspective on social issues and life issues should transcend party politics. Yet, we consistently find ourselves defending the flaws of the candidate representing the party to which we most closely relate. This should not be the case.
From a Catholic perspective Obama has very serious flaws. From a CAtholic perspective McCAin has very serious flaws. Why can not respect Poli’s request and discuss the merits of the post and its legitimate implications for the pro-life (using Bro. Aug;s def #3) cause without throwing insults at Obama.
For too long we, the Church in America have allowed to be pigeon-holed into this party or that party. Why? What good has come of it? Over that past 60 years or so we have become significantly more affluent and “powerful.” We have a voice in government. Can we say that we have changed society for the better? Not significantly I’m afraid.
We ought to be doing several more productive things that defending the actions of persons which should not be defensible. We should be working with RCM in our own local situations in our party and instead of defending their errs we should be working for reform. We should be doing what we can to help to poorr, to clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, visit the imprisoned, etc. We should be united against the culture of death, which is prominent in both parties. And we show say no way in Hell (used intentionally) will I support this!
We have a voice. We do not need to be muffling it and softening it with party rhetoric. Let us no longer settle for the lesser of two evils, and defend those evils by pointing the evils of the other, but let us work for the Good. We should demand the Good. That will mean something differing for each of us as persons.
I think for American Catholics today being in the world without being of the world means being very political, but not partisan. We need to work to purify our local communities, our families and friends, our political parties of the laws AND attitudes AND systems which support the culture of death.
Thus far, most of us, myself included, have not done that
June 25, 2008 at 11:04 am
ESCR is still a non-negotiable issue, but since it is supported by both candidates, it is in effect removed from play in considering the two candidates this year.
I would think that if both candidates are wrong on a non-negotiable issue, a Catholic could not vote for either. What else would non-negotiable mean?
June 25, 2008 at 11:21 am
“what else would non-negotiable mean?”
It means that it is a matter of Catholic Faith that these particular actions are wrong and should not be permitted. It would be silly to say (and thus the guide which gives these non-negotiables, derived from the teaching of the Popes, does NOT say) that if both candidates for a particular office are on the wrong side of a particular non-negotiable issue, you are then not allowed to vote for either.
What if both are for ESCR but, on the other four, one candidate is better than the other? Voting is all about limiting the evil to be done, and encouraging the good. We’ll never reach utopia on this Earth, but we do the best we can with the choices we are given.
June 25, 2008 at 11:28 am
JB – Great comment!
As for many of the rest of you, especially these two:
On other issues besides abortion, I would still support McCain. I think he has a more realistic foreign policy, and has less socialist tendencies. Also, Obama has a lack of experience that is almost laughable in someone running for President in this day and age.
I don’t believe Iraq/war on terror is a “Catholic” issue as far as deciding between the two candidates. So, no, I don’t think you can discount Sobrino as pro-life.
W E S E E R I G H T T H R O U G H Y O U.
June 25, 2008 at 11:37 am
Pro-lifers must ask of a candidate not only “Will he appoint justices who will overturn Roe?” but also “What will he do to prepare the nation for a post-Roe future?”
I don’t think McCain will do much on the second, and it’s a coin toss on the first.
June 25, 2008 at 11:42 am
Exactly David! This post, while informative, does not resolve much. It should be a given that Obama fails the nonnegotiable of abortion. No doubt McCain is better than Obama on life issues. But that doesn’t mean McCain is good enough. Even if McC was “good enough” on abortion (something I still cannot clearly determine), he does not cut the mustard when it comes to war issues. I really can’t see how a Catholic in good conscience could vote for either one of them.
As for McC saying nothing substantive but only what the peeps want to hear, McC has nothing over Obama in that department.
June 25, 2008 at 11:52 am
Voting is all about limiting the evil to be done, and encouraging the good
And how, exactly, is that accomplished by voting for someone who violates a non-negotiable principle?
voting for someone who promotes an evil, promotes that evil.
In election one, Candidate A violates one in five non-neg, Candidate B violates 2 of 5.
You go with A, what have you accomplished? You have voted for at least one non-neg evil.
Election two, Candidate A violates 2/5 non-neg, Candidate B violates 3/5. You vote Candidate A. Now you have voted for TWO non-neg evils.
Election 3…..can you see where this is going? How does this limit evil or encourage good – it seems to do the opposite, it actually encourages evil?
June 25, 2008 at 12:05 pm
People are always astonished by the fact that when you regularly, systematically, decade-after-decade vote for more (but the putative lesser of two instantaneous-on-the-ballot) evils, you get more evil.
I don’t know why people, especially Catholics who are supposed to think across the centuries, find this surprising.
June 25, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Taking your “limiting evil” approach a bit further, what if the candidates are the same on a particular subset of a non-neg (let’s say ESCR as a subset of abortion), but are vastly different on the remaining sets of that non-neg issue? Oh, for example, to take a completely hypothetical situation, candidate M supports ESCR but also supports overturning R v W and would not re-instate the Mexico City Policy, while candidate O supports legislation refusing medical treatment to infants that survive abortion, wants abortion federally funded, and all restrictions removed. In that case, wouldn’t you be “limiting evil” and “encouraging the good” by voting for candidate M over O? Thus, under the limiting evil approach (which in this case seems to be indistinguishable from the “lesser of two evils” approach) the two candidates’ identical stands on ESCR do not automatically make the abortion non-neg a non-issue, thereby allowing you to look only at the remaining non-negs.
June 25, 2008 at 12:11 pm
MM
Again i am not exactly clear what 5 non negotiables you are referencing. When I hear the term I think of the following
1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual “Marriage”
McCain as well as many politicians are not perfect on these issues. Thus many of us follow the Wisdom oof Cardinal O’Conner when he said:
“In good conscience one could refrain from voting altogether. In some instances, this might be best, even though voting is normally a moral obligation. Or one could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position.
If all candidates support “abortion rights” equally, one might vote for the candidate who seems best in regard to other issues, hoping that one day he or she could be persuaded to become pro-life. ”
In my estimation in the current situation when you compare the records the obvious choice is JOhn McCain using that criteria.
Of course one could choose not to vote or perhaps vote third party for someone that follows the above to the letter though that party is very much a non factor. THere is one party and person I think that would meet that qualification listed above in a techincial sense. That would be the Constitution Party and their Hopeful Pastor Baldwin.
Ona personal note there is no way I would vote for them because I think they are a bunch of kooks and yes even have many Racist intheir ranks So I am left with not voting or voting for McCain. I choose McCain.
One other note about the integrity of those Catholic Republicans that are very seriously committed to the teaching of the Church.
Many did not go to McCain because of his stance on ESCR in the primary. This was a tought choice to me because I really wanted to back JOhn McCain because of his stance on Immigration reform that I felt was imperative be rewarded. THere were other issues that he such as his Judical attitude via the Gang of 14 , and his handling of the Dubai Terminal lease deal that sadly turned into Arab bashing by all sides.
Despite this I went to Hucakbee partly because of McCain views on ESCR. Others went to Romney (whose past history I found more bothersome but he conversion convinced many and very well could be sincere) others went Brownback or Fred Thompson.
The National Right to Life of course endorsed Fred Thompson not McCain at the start.
Sadly many Catholic Groups did not examine the positions of Huckabee or Brownback whom I found to have several distinctive Catholic Friendly traits.
For whatever reason , and I have my own views why this happened, with the exception of one State (excluding Utah from considerations) McCain got the majority of the Catholic vote in the primaries.
I mention this history because McCain views on the issue of ESCR was quite a issue and was not white washed. It is not being white washed today.
June 25, 2008 at 12:11 pm
C Matt,
So are you saying go for an abomination because the other candidate isn’t perfect?
JB,
You wrote: “(N.B. I am not and have never been a Democrat. This is the first election in which I am even giving serious consideration to a Democratic candidate)” Just curious, how does this guy appeal to you more than previous Democrat candidates? Speaking as someone who actually looks past the rhetoric and considers the man, his positions, his complete lack of experience, etc, he seems worse than the characters they have run in the past. Smoother talking from a teleprompter perhaps, but no better on any issue of importance.
June 25, 2008 at 12:17 pm
c matt,
I am not really following your hypothetical cases. OK, guys….there are two guys on the ballot. One of them is going to win. Should we vote for the less evil one, the more evil one, or neither? If I vote for a guy (and of course this is simplifying things a great deal) who supports 2 evils, isn’t that better than voting for a guy who supports 4??? Either the guy who supports 2 or the guy who supports 4 is going to win. It’s not like, by abstaining or voting 3rd party, I will thereby cause neither candidate to win.
Zippy seems to be saying “neither”, though I may be misreading him. I am not sure exactly how this helps. One of them is still going to win, and the chance that the more evil candidate will win goes up slightly. If you can get enough people to bypass the two party candidates and vote for someone else, you might have a point, but we are nowhere near that situation.
June 25, 2008 at 12:22 pm
“W E S E E R I G H T T H R O U G H Y O U.”
Awesome! I have been looking for a great spiritual director with mystical gifts such as Padre Pio. It looks like I have found him! So please analyze me. I guess by saying that I’m not necessarily a complete pacifist and that Obama has very little experience that would qualify him to occupy the highest office in the country, I have somehow betrayed my allegiance to…what?
Maybe it would be more productive to point out where I am wrong, rather than making silly statements like the above.
June 25, 2008 at 12:23 pm
LArgebill,
Good question.This is only the third election in which I will be voting. Previously I wasn’t old enough, so we are only going back 12 years. Growing up, although I wasn’t always well-informed, I was default REpublican b/c my dad was a Rush Limbaugh listener.
The 2000 election I just defaulted to Bush. 2004 I attempted to think critically, but in the immaturity of my faith and reason, I was a 1-issue voter and never looked past abortion.
Now I am working on my Master’s in Theology and have realized that Orthodoxy is not limited to on issue or one political party, but transcends those things.
Therefore, it is not so much that Obama is better than previous Democratic Candidates, but that I am now more willing to listen to what he has to say, and I am now disgusted with the abused and hte evils that been a part of the Bush regime. I am ashamed to admit that I voted for him…. twice.
All that being said, if I had to vote now I owuld probably vote third party, but I am still discerning
June 25, 2008 at 12:37 pm
JB,
OK, just how is Obama better on other issues than McCain? Keep in mind that you’re attempting to convince someone who is against both unbridled capitalism and socialism. I go in much more for Distributism and Subsidiarity.
And what evils are we talking about in the Bush regime? I agree with the torture stuff – that is a bad thing indeed. What else? Even the Democratic report indicates that Bush accurately guaged the state of intelligence at the time of the Iraq war. Some of the intelligence turned out to be wrong….that can happen.
I have yet to be convinced that Bush is the precursor of the Antichrist – it looks more like Bush Derangement Syndrome to me, where all of Bush’s actions get fit into one’s already formed opinion – but I am listening.
June 25, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I am not sure exactly how this helps.
There are at least twelve or fourteen blog posts at my blog on the subject.
June 25, 2008 at 12:51 pm
SB,
Thank you for the historical correction on Breyer and Ginsburg. I made the change in the post.
Zach,
I am not trying to make Obama and McCain appear the same, though I have pointed out that neither is “pro-life.”
June 25, 2008 at 12:55 pm
By the way If I have multiple post of the same comment I apologize!! I ketp getting a weird 404 error and hit submit a few times. Now I notice my to post to MM has appeared for some reason
June 25, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Zippy,
I couldn’t find anything that addresses what I am saying. If you want to refer me to a specific blog entry or two, I’ll read them.
June 25, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Jh,
Sometimes I comment gets blocked by the spam filter, and has to be individually approved (I think submitting the same comment multiple times or including lots of links may trigger this).
June 25, 2008 at 1:48 pm
McCain is not completely pro-life but is better than Obama. That may not be enough, but there it is. Also troubling is Obama’s desire to repeal the Defense of Marriage Amendment and opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment. I don’t see Obama as a friend to marriage.
June 25, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Happy with your ego fight with Hudson? Both, instead of unite Christians and Non Christians against cold blooded murder, keep pandering their pet-divisive simpleton groupies, and elluding THE ONLY QUESTION NOT NETOGIABLE:
HOW MANY MORE MILLIONS OF SLAUGHTERED BABIES, THE INFANTICIDE CANDIDATE WILL ADD TO THE CURRENT GENOCIDE MACHINE in USA?
The devil is most happy with your parrochial, posing as erudite, divisionism.
June 25, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Here is a clarification from Abp. DiMarzio, chair of the USCCB’s domestic policy committee which drafted “Faithful Citizenship”:
BROOKLYN, N.Y. (CNS) — A “hierarchy of values” exists, which means not all political issues are of equal value, said Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn.
“Our faith must inform our political decisions,” he said, and Catholic voters are obliged to distinguish “between moral evil,” such as abortion, “and matters of prudential judgment,” such as tuition tax credits.
…
“In our own country, despite significant victories that extend protection to the unborn, this modern slaughter of the holy innocents continues because of the policies of unscrupulous politicians,” he said.
“Only in circumstances that are EXTRAORDINARILY HARD TO CONTEMPLATE may a Catholic voter support a proponent of so great an intrinsic moral evil,” the bishop said.
June 25, 2008 at 2:18 pm
The point is, voting for the less evil candidate (whichever you determine by your own lights is “less evil”) is still voting for an evil candidate. As a moral act, voting in this election has become the offering of the pinch of incense to Caesar – you shall vote for Evil Candidate A, or Evil Candidate B, because only one of them will win. Rather than give in and vote for one evil or the other, I would simply prefer not to offer the incense (I am even struggling with whether voting 3rd party is still an offering of incense).
June 25, 2008 at 2:36 pm
JH
I think those are the 5 usually referred to. And I agree they are non-neg. But in fairness, I think at least two more should be added:
6) torture
7) waging unjust wars
I can see how leaving these off of the list might give the appearance of partisanship.
Dave:
Totally agree that there is an hierarchy of issues and that abortion is near, if not at, the top of the list. Question is, where do unjust wars and torture fall on that list? I’d also think they would be pretty high up there.
The only person who can be happy about this election is Satan – he wins either way, just letting us pick our poison.
Which again brings me to the conclusion that I can vote for neither of the two major party candidates (although McCain seems pretty good against torture, he still wants to conduct what I see as unnecessary war agaisnt Iran).
June 25, 2008 at 2:36 pm
c matt,
OK….but just where is the line where a candidate is “too evil” to vote for? Surely we can not expect a perfect candidate? There is of course, a spectrum along the line from absolute good to absolute evil, and by saying that they are “evil” we are only saying that they are too far along the spectrum towards the “evil” side for our liking.
As bad as the choices are, this is by no means the worst Presidential election ever. The 1996 one was pretty depressing. 1976 was certainly a horror, as were the elections before that. I respect your thought, but I am not sure I agree with it. As bad as the choices are, they were (more or less) democratically arrived at, not preordained by some “Caesar” as you put it.
June 25, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Dave: 80% or more of my posts from mid-may onward address the issue of the morality and practicality of voting.
June 25, 2008 at 2:46 pm
c matt,
I don’t believe that McCain WANTS to conduct a war against Iran. It is very effective as a scare tactic for Obama partisans, however. That said, SOMETHING will have to be done about Iran; wishing the problem away won’t help either, but I have not seen any hard evidence that McCain is gung-ho to attack Iran.
The problem with putting “unjust wars” on the list in general, is that, while everyone agrees that unjust wars are bad, in practice Catholics usually cannot agree on which wars satisfy the criteria, and thus it is not “non-negotiable” in the same sense. Besides that, the President and other leaders have access to knowledge that no one else has which may affect the calculus.
But when I tried to say this earlier, I was told that “they can see right through me”. I am hoping that someone will tell me what it is that they see.
June 25, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Matt as to those five conditions I am basically just taking them from Papal Statements and the like. I do think there is legitimate 6th that is mention that is RACISM
I supsect things like totrture and “Unjust wars” are not on that list for reasons. Especially as to the topic of unjust war which is a very very subjective crieteria at times. I am not sure if that is a practical considerations that is at play by the Holy See.
June 25, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Dave I do agrew ith you as to Iran. There will no invasion of Iran by McCain. If it does happen something so dramatic has happened that the country will demand it.
There is not the troops for it. We would have to withdraw all the troops from Korea for such an action to take place.
June 25, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Dave:
Start with Zippy’s post on “boiled frogs” (direct link to it on his website) which I think encapsulates what I am trying to convey far better than I am doing. That post itself was sort of a recap of many many many posts going over this, but it is as good a place as any to start.
It may be that it is more difficult to determine whether a particular war is unjust, but simply because it is more difficult to do does not excuse us from using our best judgment to evaluate it. True, the Pres may have more info, but it is incumbent upon him to present us with enough info to convince us his actions are just. I am way beyond “trust me on this one”. Again, given the way he acted – deliberately insinuating a connection between Saddam and 9/11 when there was nothing to support it – well, fool me once……
June 25, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I supsect things like totrture and “Unjust wars” are not on that [Catholic Answers 'non-negotiables'] list for reasons.
I suspect that too. I suspect that the reasons are related to Republican partisanship.
June 25, 2008 at 3:08 pm
c matt,
Certainly we must do our best to ascertain whether a particular war is just. Sometimes the answers will be objectively clearer than other times. At any rate, short of a candidate outright declaring their intent to invade a certain country, I’m not sure how it relates to our voting criteria, except to say that “I feel that candidate A will be more likely to start a war violating just war criteria than candidate B”.
Even I would agree that Obama is better if you go by that statement. I don’t worry about Obama starting an unjust war at all, really. I do worry about him appeasing his way into nuclear destruction of parts of the USA, though. I’m not sure which is worse.
June 25, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I read the “Boiling Frogs” post. I still don’t really get it. I guess I’m too boiled, lol.
I guess I could “refuse to play”….but not sure how that is going to affect anything for the better. The article didn’t explain that part.
June 25, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Zippy,
I dont think at all it is a part of Republican partianship.
First we have the widely quoted Statements of the Pope that were just recently again given to the MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PEOPLE’S PARTY
The Pope listed the big THREE which are basically the 5 I listed above
protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;
- recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family – as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage – and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;
- the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060330_eu-parliamentarians_en.html
I might add that he again spoke on these as Non negotiuable when he spoke to the Italian Pro Life group iat the Vatican in May
Notice there is right to eiucate children that of course can mean many things and I have not even added that. to the above list
It seems that looking at the Bishops statements as well as the Vatican statement it seems that a Politician that advocates racism can be one of those matters that is a extreme example of when one can vote for someone that violates a non negotiable.
I had to do that when I had to vote for the PRO Choice Corrupt Edwin Edwards against the supposed on paper PRO LIFE ANTI ABORTION DAVID DUKE in a Governor’s race. It happens but it is extreme and rare
I wish I could add more non negotiables perhaps but they are what they are.
June 25, 2008 at 3:39 pm
…but not sure how that is going to affect anything for the better. The article didn’t explain that part.
The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging.
June 25, 2008 at 3:46 pm
jh and Dave
“Especially as to the topic of unjust war which is a very very subjective crieteria at times.”
“The problem with putting “unjust wars” on the list in general, is that, while everyone agrees that unjust wars are bad, in practice Catholics usually cannot agree on which wars satisfy the criteria, and thus it is not “non-negotiable” in the same sense.”
This intellectual and moral shabbiness is what hurts the pro-life cause in America.
…No moderates or liberals will take you seriously, whenever you peddle these obsfucations,evasions and more or less apologies.
June 25, 2008 at 3:56 pm
T”his intellectual and moral shabbiness is what hurts the pro-life cause in America.
…No moderates or liberals will take you seriously, whenever you peddle these obsfucations,evasions and more or less apologies.”
I am not trying to be evasive or issue apologies.
I repsect the anti war view but I was entirely dismayed when those that held that view got lose with the facts the past two years. I kept hearing things that the Vatican is for immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Of course they said no such thing. The fact that the lastest US Bishop statement on Iraq is rarely quoted or engaged because it hints that not every thing is cut and dried as some say spoke volumes to me
I attempt to engage the issues in serious nature and not try to fit things to how I want it. Yes even us Republcians do that
June 25, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Dave:
You might try “lesser of two cannibals” as well. My bad – probably should have started with that one first.
June 25, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Mark,
Ok, whatever. When you explain exactly what I am obfuscating and evading, I’ll attempt to give a reply. I certainly wasn’t apologizing for anything.
Are you saying that it is always obvious whether a war is just or not? I’ve seen faithful Catholics debating the Iraq war back and forth for days and weeks on end (with breaks of course) and they were all operating in good faith, and both sides had some good points.
I would say that those who operate as if it were obvious are the simpletons and the ones guilty of intellectual and moral shabbiness.
June 25, 2008 at 4:11 pm
As to the War in Iraq I often wonder why we view these things through just a US Prism
I mean was Pope Benedict when he was Bishop fo Rome telling his flock as to Elections observe these three non negotiable consitions but you can also consider voting out Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi because he sent 3000 troops to Iraq? If he did I never heard it
June 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm
c-matt, Zippy,
If I went along with the logic in the cannibal post, I’d never vote. After all, my vote is completely useless anyway in deciding elections, and you are always involving yourself in some level of evil in voting for a candidate, since none of us are perfectly good. Thus, voting is futile. That’s what I gleaned from it.
The problem is that, if enough good people think that way, then evil wins. Game over.
June 25, 2008 at 5:57 pm
And it seems like Obama’s opposition to the death penalty is not so pristine either”
“CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says he disagrees with a Supreme Court decision striking down the death penalty for child rapists, telling reporters Wednesday that states should be able to execute people for “heinous” crimes.
“I think that the rape of small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime,” the Illinois senator said. “And if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that does not violate our Constitution.”
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that capital punishment can be applied only to murderers, striking down a death sentence for a Louisiana man convicted of sexually assaulting his 8-year-old stepdaughter.”
June 25, 2008 at 7:09 pm
A couple semi-random thoughts.
Quotes from the USCCB: “Faithful Citizenship”
A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil…
42. As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.
There are several non-negotiables, which you all have already mentioned. There be a sort of prudential ordering of those non-negotiables, placing abortion at or near the top. But, that does not give us permission to ignore the other non-negotiables.
We must conisder all options. More later.
June 25, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Concerned Christians:
Please allow me to insist, on WHAT is the OVERWHELMING point:
How many more MILLION MURDERS, in deodorized, aseptic lift-musical gas-chambers-malls, will procure the Infanticide Candidate for the abortion on demand PP? More?, or less with the other evil?
Hudson gloats with rivers of blog-ink, about the odour of incense for a Latin mass ´Religious Right’, and in this blog, you endlessly keep ranting about racism & social justice (no doubt worthwhile), while devilish hordes perform their macabre dance to Moloch.
Wake up my friends!!
Cordially
June 25, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Bustamanate
I will say this. I expect on Thursday Morning the NRA and all those that have a similar few view the Second Amendment will have a big victory .
THere is a lot that the Pro-life Movement movement could learn from their example and how they got to this point
THey have kept their eyes on the prize as it were
June 25, 2008 at 8:51 pm
The problem is that, if enough good people think that way, then evil wins. Game over.
… and the ‘choose which grave evil you prefer’ approach taken so far is working so well, isn’t it?
June 25, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Bustamante,
The horrid evils of abortion do not allow us to ignore the other non-negotiables. Furthermore many people have begun to at least question the integrity of the Republican claim to intend to overturn Roe v. Wade b/c frankly, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, millions of people would have one less very large reason to vote Republican.
June 25, 2008 at 10:28 pm
JB,
Many people might be question the integerty of the Republcians on that issue but besides for Conspiracy theories they offer little facts.
TO believe that is to believe that massive amounts of individual people running for Office on being anti Abortion really do not believe in what they are saying.
THere is nothing wrong about having a healthy Cynical attitude to keep you on guard but at some point it morphs into aa political Mental illiness
I mention the NRA and the S.C Court case that will be coming out tommorow.
Gun right groups are very Republican friendly on the whole though the NRA has good democrats in their ranks.
I rarely hear this down here in Gun Land:
” THe Republican Party does not really care about the 2nd Amendment and they only keep that issue around so we vote for them” and “they know if the Supreme COurt finds that owning Fire arms is a Individual Right then they there will be far less reason to vote Republican”
Nope rarely hear that or heard that because it is foolish.
Tommorow morning the Justice Scalia could very likely author the OPinion on the most land mark GUN case the nation has had in it’s history.
June 26, 2008 at 12:42 am
And what evils are we talking about in the Bush regime? I agree with the torture stuff – that is a bad thing indeed. What else? Even the Democratic report indicates that Bush accurately guaged the state of intelligence at the time of the Iraq war. Some of the intelligence turned out to be wrong….that can happen.
ANYONE who was paying attention at the time knew that the Bush administration’s story — er, “intelligence” — was complete bullshit. Anyone who wasn’t paying attention and STILL buys the story that “Bush accurately guaged (sic) the state of intelligence at the time of the Iraq war” simply has to be a fool. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Bush is the antichrist… Can’t you people be honest and admit that you seriously screwed up, and that a million Iraqis died as a result? One million people died, and you still are pushing the crap that “well, that’s what the intelligence said to do at the time.” It’s absolutely demonic. And your Insane McCain willingly, enthusiastically, wants to extend the madness.
Also troubling is Obama’s desire to repeal the Defense of Marriage Amendment and opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment. I don’t see Obama as a friend to marriage.
From another perspective, Obama is a very good friend of marriage, wanting more and varied persons to participate in it.
June 26, 2008 at 1:42 am
More On Obama Perspective on marraige:
“I don’t think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state,” said Obama. “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.”
The Sermon on the Mount How ccould i have been so blind!!
“As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws,” Obama said in the letter. “I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples–whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.”
Wow, well another Catholic Non negotiable out the window for the new politcs of Hope and Change. I know that Pope Benedict got a million people to march on Rome not too far back when the Italian Govt was up to this silliness but what does he know
All we are doing is talking about the Domestic Church as the Catechism says.
June 26, 2008 at 8:47 am
To those who subscribe to the principle of “the 5 non-negotiables” and yet also plan to vote for McCain:
You think “non-negotiable” means “Don’t vote for any candidate who supports any of these evils, unless the candidate’s leading opponent also supports those evils?”
In that case, they should have been called something else, because as soon as you start making exceptions, you are NEGOTIATING.
There are basically two different approaches to take here: The “Lessen Evil” approach would potentially allow a vote for McCain, while the “Non-Negotiable” approach would not.
June 26, 2008 at 8:53 am
Michael,
I don’t know what you are talking about. One man and one woman of varied backgrounds have always been able to marry. No one is denying any man the right to marry one woman.
June 26, 2008 at 10:25 am
I know that Pope Benedict got a million people to march on Rome not too far back when the Italian Govt was up to this silliness but what does he know
So much for the idea that the Church shouldn’t directly be involved in politics, eh? I guess it’s okay when the pope himself does it… If we are going to call marriage definitions “non-negotiable,” I think we’re going to have to admit that it would have to apply only to the Church’s practices, and not to the rest of society. That is not to say that the Church’s understanding of marriage (whatever it might be) would not be the understanding of the way things really are, as pointing to the truth, but that the Church can’t simply impose its definition of marriage on the rest of society, or the rest of the world. Marriage traditions across the world are too diverse.
Nevertheless… I don’t find that issue nearly as important as the war that most of you supported and still manage to defend with all of your might, which was the main point of my last comment. But if you want to focus on gay people in order to divert attention from one million deaths, go right ahead.
It’s a shame that there is a JH and a JB on here… I tend to get you two mixed up, which is sad because I quite like what one of you has to say… the other…. ehhhhh….
June 26, 2008 at 11:02 am
Michael Iafrate,
Are you even Catholic? Your last post about marriage gives me grave reservations whether you are. “From another perspective” – yes, that would be the WRONG perspective.
As far as Iraq intelligence, just read this, from that noted conservatively biased paper (ha), the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html?nav=hcmodule
It’s hard to take your raving mad crap seriously. Oh yeah, a million died.
If you really think a million people died because of the war, then quite frankly, you are the one who is out of touch with reality. Here’s an article from another noted conservatively biased site, Slate….
http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/
And I’m sure that all of those terrorists would have been peacefully watching Oprah if it weren’t for the Iraq War. Oh yeah, Saddam and his fine young sons would have been peacefully watching Oprah too.
That’s it for me. If you choose to re-enter reality, that will be great. Otherwise, I have no wish to waste ASCII arguing with a madman who basically spews angry accusations with nothing but vapor to back them up.
June 26, 2008 at 1:25 pm
DIVERSE EVILS
For starters, we are all sinners, and we can go forever in circles about the evil sins of MaCain & others. So, let me clarify my point, from a professional political Focus Group analysis:
WE, THE MORAL MAJORITY, ARE AGAINST SLAUGHTERED BABIES.
Departing from that, what we discuss here is tactics, ergo, not to be splintered -successfuly as far as today- by our enemies, in a war we can WIN UNITED.
How to avoid the divisive, and inevitable issues, that are stopping us?
My personal approach has two initial steps:
1) As Democrats are GLOATING in abortion on demand, and as third parties are historically inviable, we are left with:
2) Take control of the Republicans, coaxing OUT the genocide machine supporters. Not easy, but factible if we organize the UNITED voice, with this professional caucus labor: WE ARE THE MAJORITY, and abortion is not negotiable in our agenda.
In other words: is not a monument to: “Until when will I stand you stupids”, that the minority keeps splintering us, the majority?
Cordially
June 27, 2008 at 11:05 am
Michael:
Across all cultures and all times (until now) marriage has been considered the union between one man and one or more women. That’s it. One lump or two. It has never been considered a union between those of the same gender. So much for diversity of marriage tradtions.
June 27, 2008 at 1:59 pm
May I ask a question? If we can justly refer to public officials who are disinclined to support criminal resrictions on abortion as “blood-thirsty, vampiric, infant-slaughtering.” (as has been done here without anyone objecting), certainly we can even more justly use this same desription of the women actually considering abortion, right?
August 11, 2008 at 11:56 am
Dave Mueller – If even one human being died as the result of an unjust war, the moral gravity is the same. That you don’t believe 1 million have died is irrelevant.
Across all cultures and all times (until now) marriage has been considered the union between one man and one or more women. That’s it. One lump or two.
That’s a huge difference, not “one lump or two.”
September 18, 2008 at 5:21 pm
[...] provided a few talking points, none of which actually answered Hasselbeck’s question. I’ve discussed McCain’s ambivalence toward <i>Roe</i> and abortion before. I was hoping that, [...]
October 5, 2008 at 8:47 pm
I distinctly remember twice hearing John McCain quoted publically calling religious conservatives a demonic influence’ in politics following his nasty loss to Bush in the SC 02′ republican primary. Granted the Bushies did him dirty, but somebody should check lexus nexus and verify the statement if he actually said it he’s not only lying to pro-lifers, he’s a nut case.