Replies

Had to chime in here... (my first Freeper post, by the way, hello all :)

#1) no one who voted for McClintock needs to feel "guilty" for being a spoiler... if Arnold and Tom had been evenly divided, they still would've been Bustamante (or incredibly close, anyway). So there was no real possible way for there to be a spoiler in favor of the Dems in this race.

#2) If I lived in CA, I would've voted for McClintock, but I admit a large part of that would've been due to the fact that I thought #1 was pretty likely... Arnold was almost sure to win and I would've mainly been hoping to give Tom at least more votes than Bustamante, just to make the Dems -really- hear the message. If I had really thought there would've been a spoiler effect, I might well have changed my mind.

#3) Someone here claimed that Catholic bishops that oppose abortion publically are a rarity. This is completely not true. (for the record, I am a very pro-life agnostic) Many bishops have come out and actively opposed abortion, and I know that one bishop (he had an odd name, wish I could remember it) actively attacked Davis for being a CINO (Catholic In Name Only) and that, pretty bluntly, he had no right to call himself one. Davis's full smear tactics were unleashed against this bishop, and on the night of the recall he was still around and being honored for his help with orphans. I know another thread on this board mentions him in more detail.

#4) Given the Episcopalean Church's recent actions, and given Rome's recent and very very strong defense of marriage, abortion and family, I think it's a little wrong to hear Catholic bashing these days. I think the times of hearing Protestants referring to -practicing- Catholics as "pagans" really needs to come to an end - I'm not even a practicing Catholic myself and I've found that kind of bashing rather hypocritical. It's just as wrong to blame true Catholics for CINO's as it is to blame true conservatives for RINO's.

#5) I respect those who vote their conscience - I really do - and remember, McClintock would've been my vote too - but those of you who are bashing anyone who voted for Arnold because they saw him as at a minimum much better than Davis are, IMHO, wrong to do so. Let's say #1 wasn't true, and McClintock really -had- spoiled Arnold's chances, and Bustamante had gotten in. The harm to the pro-life movement in CA would've been tremendous. Arnold will at the very least not pander to the abortion lobby the way Davis and Bustamante surely would have, if for no other reason than to not upset his voting base. In moral decision making, one has to weigh not only one's actions but also the consequences of those actions. The possibility that there would have been dire consequences of voting for Tom over Arnold was real. Yeah, I wish everyone who really had preferred Tom had voted for him too (and I would've myself)... but... nothing would've been worse that enabling Bustamante into power (and I say this as a Cuban - the minority liberals love to hate).

#6) Just for the record - as for Arnold's catholicism, in case anyone's wondering, no, according to the Catholic Catechism he would not be in good standing. The Church's stance is basically this - it is permissible for a catholic to vote for measures that would move the law -toward- protecting life and minimizing harm, even if it is not the ultimately desired end result of banning it altogether. Therefore, a Catholic could vote for a bill that permitted abortion except for partial birth, because it would be moving in the direction of minimizing harm and preserving life, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT what is "politically possible". Assuming Arnold keeps his word on PBA and parental permission, he would in fact pass that test of at least working to improve the current situation. HOWEVER, (and here is where Arnold loses it), the Church also basically requires vocalizing a full pro-life position while doing so. A Catholic lawmaker cannot verbally advocate a basically pro-choice position even if one is legally advocating a more pro-life agenda than is in place. So yeah, at least in terms of being a Catholic in good standing, Arnold calling himself pro-choice does make a material difference, at least to his standing.

#7) So, given the breathing room the Church allows lawmakers for political realities, does a pro-lifer voting for a candidate calling himself "pro-choice" that will at least move things in the right direction bear equivalency to, well, being Arnold and thus losing good standing? As I read it, I don't think so, not if the voter himself maintains a vocal pro-life position. The point of the Catechism, I think, is that as long as you advocate a pro-life position and seek to convince others of the same, making a -political- evaluation as to how to best achieve the desired end of moving things in the right direction is permissible. Voting for a pro-choicer who would move things in the right direction over the alternative would be equivalent to a lawmaker voting for a bill that affirmed a woman's right to choose but that increased restrictions on it - minimizing harm and moving things in the right direction.

The Church leaves it up to the individual as to what is "politically possible" in the environment one is in to move things in that direction, so, IMO, a Catholic who was an outspoken pro-lifer but who chose Arnold over McClintock due to fear of the spoiler effect (thus making a "politically possible" evaluation) would certainly remain a Catholic in good standing. I don't think anyone who voted for either of the Republican candidates would have anything to go to confession for.

#8) I can understand bishops not publically assaulting Arnold for his stated position, again on the basis of what is politically prudent and possible, and at least as long as he was moving things in the right direction. If assaulting him had the effect of putting another Davis into power, the consequences would be dire, and the effect of that act could be to move things in the -wrong- direction. Now, if the situation arose where it was Tom vs. Arnold head on with no Davis or Bustamante to worry about, yes, I think a Catholic could very well be required to vote for McClintock.

#8) Several people here are decrying the PBA ban as useless and won't save any lives. With all due respect - are you nuts? Haven't you learned anything from the Dems as to the political reality in our country? This is the foot in the door for the pro-life movement - just as the gay lobby uses the Lawrence decision as the foot in the door to redefine marriage. Recognize the PBA ban for the legally brilliant tactic that it is - it makes abortion illegal on the basis of cruelty to the fetus! It finally gives the fetus rights independent of the mother, and recognizes cruelty as a factor! That argument can be expanded upon - once it's in place, we can then argue that the next form of late-term abortion is just as cruel, and so on. Look, the abortion lobbyists are going to accuse the pro-lifers of an evil conspiracy to get all abortions banned no matter WHAT we do, so hell with 'em, let's prove 'em right. The incremental, inch-by-inch legal wearing tactics that they have employed for the last 30 years can work for us just as much as it can work for them, and I really don't see any faster way to accomplish it short of armed revolution (call me when it starts). The PBA ban is legally the most significant victory in the fight to make all abortion illegal since Roe v. Wade, and to underestimate the legal importance is folly. Bush deserves MAJOR kudos, and IMHO he should have earned the vote of -every- single-issue pro-life voter in America for all that he has accomplished for the cause.

Sorry this post was so long. I do tend to be a bit verbose :) Had a lot of catching up to do on this thread :)

Qwinn