Tell her that.
Posted on 09/21/2005 7:06:15 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Dear Sabramerican,
"Same as I wrote above. You will have few if any 'real' Catholics in office."
I don't agree with you, but it's irrelevant to me. For a couple of centuries, it was also illegal in Great Britain for a Catholic to be elected to Parliament. Hardly an excuse for Catholics to apostasize from our faith.
It's still illegal for a Catholic to ascend to the throne of the United Kingdom, or for its monarch to be married to a Catholic. Again, not much compensation to a "real" Catholic for abandoning the faith. Talk about trading one's birthright for a mess of porridge.
"It's a cheap trick for someone who has no say to tell you that he/she is working on 'changing things'."
For nearly everyone in the United States, we are limited to "changing things" about abortion around the fringe, that's true. We have very little direct power, or substantive indirect power to strike at the heart of the regime of abortion-on-demand in the United States.
However, there is an elected person who can have significant effect on "changing things" concerning abortion law, and that's the President of the United States, through appointments to the Supreme Court.
Thus, it is certainly reasonable to hold Catholics accountable who run for president.
As well, in that presidents are usually something else prior to becoming president, it's important to look for pro-life politicians at all levels. Someone who might be president in 2009 may be a governor or Senator, today, and might have been a state representative ten years ago, and a city councilman 20 years ago. Giving pro-abortion politicians a pass because they aren't directly in a position to affect the laws concerning abortion only permits pro-abortion politicians to rise to higher offices.
Keep in mind, too, that many politicians CAN affect abortion laws at the fringes. It yet remains whether the Supreme Tyrants will permit some form of law to ban partial birth abortion. The black-robed moral enormities HAVE permitted restrictions concerning parental notification, waiting periods, etc., and politicians CAN vote on these things.
Regrettably, Mr. Giuliani has come down on the side of death on every facet of this issue about which I've heard him bloviate. Including being all for the legality of partial birth abortion.
Finally, it is at least theoretically possible to amend the Constitution to proscribe abortion on demand. Involved would be US Representatives, US Senators, and state representative and senators - in other words - a majority of federal and state-level elected politicians.
Even if it is little more than symbolism, it is the least that any genuinely Catholic political leaders could endorse.
sitetest
The only thing I care about in a president is competence. All the rest of this crapola makes me want to puke. If anyone refuses to vote against Guiliana because of his views on social issues and we get Hillary as a result ought to have their heads examined. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Guilliani is fine with me. He's the best and most proven of the known candidates right now.
Reagan was anti abortion yet appointed justices who vote with Roe.
Do you believe Bush extracted a promise from Roberts to overturn Roe? Even discussed the issue? If Roberts votes for keeping Roe will you in retrospect believe that Bush's purported pro life stance was so much BS?
If a politician is telling you that a Constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion is in even the realm of possibility, he/she is playing you for a fool.
The real issue is on the margins. How difficult is it to get an abortion. Notification. Age restriction. There is where it will matter if a Republican or Democrat appoints the Justice. Gulliani won't look to ACLU members.
Things are going badly in the Country. With Republicans in charge, they are the ones who will suffer the public's wrath. Only a couple can win. Gulliani is one. If you prefer a Republican sure loser to a less then perfect Republican who may win, then you will only spite yourself.
Good point. I wonder how many republican Catholics (Sean Hannity included), will stand on principle not hypocrisy and call for the Church to deny the sacraments to Rudy as they did Kerry.
Right. And it's the thing with Gulliani.
Politicians are mostly rhetoric. We like what they say, we don't like what they say. They voted this way or that.
Very few have real solid measurable public accomplishments. He accomplished what was said to be impossible in NYC. that was before 9/11. At 9/11 he showed how he performs under immediate pressure.
We need such a person now for both the War and the potential economic problems.
I think it's a no-brainer that the next President of the United States will be either a Republican or a Democrat. I don't trust McCain, and Giuliani is much too socially liberal for my tastes. But either one of them looks like George Friggin' Washington compared to any Dim out there, and I genuinely appreciate Giuliani's clarity on foreign policy. He puts forth the case for the Iraq war better than Bush does, IMHO.
The idea of a Dim president facing Al Qaeda scares the **** out of me. A third party conservative candidate will only help elect a Democrat.
At this point I am far more concerned with someone who is economically conservative than socially. But I wouldn't be surprised to see Rudy move right if he were to seriously run for pres. you have to remember where he was trying to get elected previously.
And so it begins, McClintock syndrome all over again. What do conservatives stand for? Just getting an "R" elected or finding the best candidate who represents, believes and runs on conservative principles?
Dear Sabramerican,
"Reagan was anti abortion yet appointed justices who vote with Roe."
Yes, quite regrettable.
"Do you believe Bush extracted a promise from Roberts to overturn Roe?"
I don't know. I hope so, but I don't think so.
"Even discussed the issue?"
Probably, although perhaps in a very roundabout way.
"If Roberts votes for keeping Roe will you in retrospect believe that Bush's purported pro life stance was so much BS?"
Perhaps. It certainly would affect my long-term support for the Republican Party. I'll say this, I think that if Mr. Roberts turns out to be an upholder of Roe, it is possible that the Republicans will lose a significant amount of their social conservative base. In which case, say good-bye to Republican presidencies and congresses.
I've pinged a couple of Catholic social conservatives that they may offer you their perspective, if they so choose.
"If a politician is telling you that a Constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion is in even the realm of possibility, he/she is playing you for a fool."
Go back and read my post. I said that support for a constitutional amendment is a minimal SYMBOLIC gesture.
"The real issue is on the margins. How difficult is it to get an abortion."
So glad you agree with me. At least, that's where the game is for now.
"Notification. Age restriction. There is where it will matter if a Republican or Democrat appoints the Justice. Gulliani won't look to ACLU members."
So, why would I vote for Mr. Giuliani, when he's on the wrong side of even these margin issues? He may very well look for potential justices who agree with his socially-liberal views.
It is certainly more likely that he will try to appoint justices who AGREE with him than ones who DISAGREE with him. LOL.
"Things are going badly in the Country."
I agree. 40+ million dead since 1973.
"With Republicans in charge, they are the ones who will suffer the public's wrath. Only a couple can win. Gulliani is one."
Mr. Giuliani can't win. It's like George Bush, pere, running in 1992, having raised taxes. He permanently alienated a key Republican constituency. So has Mr. Giuliani.
"If you prefer a Republican sure loser to a less then perfect Republican who may win, then you will only spite yourself."
As bitter as it was, the loss to Mr. Clinton gave rise to the adamantly pro-tax cut Mr. Bush, fils, who has done much to satisfy those who want lower taxes.
If the Republican Party nominates a pro-choice presidential ticket, that ticket will lose. And it won't be very close.
sitetest
Dear blaquebyrd,
"Good point. I wonder how many republican Catholics (Sean Hannity included), will stand on principle not hypocrisy and call for the Church to deny the sacraments to Rudy as they did Kerry."
I don't know about generally, but I can tell you that most Catholic here at FR would equally deny Messrs. Pataki, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Ridge, and others, as they would Messrs. Kennedy, Kerry, Daschle, and others.
sitetest
Dear T. Buzzard Trueblood,
"I think it's a no-brainer that the next President of the United States will be either a Republican or a Democrat."
I agree.
"I don't trust McCain, and Giuliani is much too socially liberal for my tastes. But either one of them looks like George Friggin' Washington compared to any Dim out there,..."
I disagree. Sen. McCain isn't very socially liberal at all. Not compared to either Mr. Giuliani or any Democrat. I could hold my nose and vote for him.
On the other hand, it's hard for me to distinguish Mr. Giuliani from some Democrats. Certainly, it's quite difficult to distinguish him from, say, Sen. Lieberman.
I wouldn't vote for Sen. Lieberman, either.
sitetest
Or if you are right and social Conservatives stay away, with the Democrats so far Left that they scare many Americans, the Republican Party- with a huge win- may be transformed to a more middle of the road party and social conservatives may find themselves in the wilderness for a long time.
Dear Sabramerican,
"Or if you are right and social Conservatives stay away, with the Democrats so far Left that they scare many Americans, the Republican Party- with a huge win- may be transformed to a more middle of the road party and social conservatives may find themselves in the wilderness for a long time."
That's possible. Not at all likely, but possible.
But remember, elections are less about persuading people to change their minds and more about getting out your voters. The Dems did exceedingly well getting their voters out in 2004. They got out more voters for their candidate, Sen. Kerry, than anyone ever had for any presidential election ever in the history of the United States.
Except for the Republicans in 2004.
Nominate a far lefty, and the Democrats fire up their base in a big way. Especially after eight years in the desert.
Nominate a lefty, or even someone kinda mushy, and the Republicans suppress their own turnout. Just ask "President" Dole.
However, if the Republican Party nominates Mr. Giuliani, then we social conservatives are already in the wilderness, whether he wins or loses. We will have been abandoned by the Republican Party, and pretending otherwise won't make it so.
Should that happen, better to face up to reality and make our own way through the wilderness.
Without the Republican Party.
sitetest
it's hard for me to distinguish Mr. Giuliani from some Democrats.
Giuliani is too socially liberal for my tastes, too. But on foreign policy, I like him. When he talks about terrorism, he talks fire and brimstone, which I appreciate.
I share your concern about the Republican party neglecting conservatives, taking conservative values and voters for granted while pursuing some elusive, imaginary "center".
However, as long as Al Qaeda is out there, as long as we have jihadists willing to volunteer to immolate themselves in order to kill us by the thousands, I want to see the party of Jimmy Carter and Nancy Pelosi kept far, far away from the Commander In Chief's office.
Rather, I want to see the party of Jimmy Carter and Nancy Pelosi kept far, far away from the Commander In Chief's office. A third party conservative candidate is the Democrat's best hope to retake the White House.
Dear T. Buzzard Trueblood,
"A third party conservative candidate is the Democrat's best hope to retake the White House."
I understand the argument, but I disagree.
I think the best hope for the Dammocraps to retake the White House is for the Republicans to nominate a liberal like Mr. Giuliani.
You can't make folks do what they're not going to do. You're not going to be able to make millions of social conservatives vote for Rudy Giuliani for president.
A lot of social conservatives couldn't give a hoot about high tax rates on the rich, getting rid of the death tax, or keeping capital gains taxes low. And plenty of them are skeptical of the war in Iraq. The folks that are referred to as "Reagan Democrats" are often ethnic whites, often Catholic, and often are either blue collar, or come from working-class, even union families.
Some of these folks buy into the "neo-conservative" agenda (I put that term in quotes, because it's often used perjoratively, and that isn't my purpose), some (millions) don't. A lot of these folks have varying levels of comfort with economic conservatism.
But they know the difference between right and wrong. They know it's really screwed up that a million + babies get whacked every year because of the Supreme Usurpers. They know it's really bad that homosexuals can adapt, and maybe will be able to "marry." A lot of them are very protective of the Second Amendment.
And you think they're going to vote in droves for a pro-abort, pro-homosexual, anti-gun liberal because there's an R after his name.
Mr. Bush did very well with Catholics last year - a key constituency for the "Reagan Democrat" wing of the party. He got a simple majority of the Catholic vote. But it's interesting to look at the breakdown. While he got a minority of Catholics who aren't religious - who are what some call CINOs (Catholic In Name Only), he got over 60% of folks who go to Mass every week. Over 60%!
THESE folks are mostly social conservatives. THESE folks are a linchpin to the Reagan Revolution. THESE folks show up year after year on the Mall in the frozenness of January to protest the demonic judgments of the Supreme Imposters.
If the Republican Party nominates Mr. Giuliani or someone like him, the Republican Party repudiates these folks.
Don't think you can kick people in the groin and make them thank you for it.
I've pinged a couple of other folks who might best be described as Catholic social conservatives. They can share their perspectives if they wish.
sitetest
Rasmussen is a weekend blip. 44% approval among 'national adults' still translates into 47% among 'likely voters'.
During 2004, President Bush's Job Approval among 'likely voters' ranged from 46% to 54%, that 43% to 51% among 'national adults'. This Rasmussen weekend blip is still within the range Bush achieved in a year where he recieved 62 MILLION votes is a re-election victory.
Gallup is biased. They are also incompetent. In 2004, Kerry +14 in March, Bush +16 in September. That's a 30 Point spread in 6 months. That was garbage then. It is garbage now.
FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!
I'm not voting for Guiliani.
Just can't do it. He was great on 9/11 ... but that doesn't make him presidential material. If the "R"s insist on nominating a pro-abortion, pro-queer, gungrabber they'll have to do without my vote.
Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
President Bush (the second) was barely acceptable.
:)
Tell her that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.