Will you still approve of W

[dspen2005]

i will approve of him, overall.... since, as of now, he is the only better alternative we have. Imagine, what the country would be like regarding LIFE if our dear, fellow "Catholic" John Kerry were the prez.....

**** i would definitely wish for W to select a pro-life nominee to the Court.... but if not, I have to weigh the entirety of his policy and again, i go back to my initial statements above.

Edited July 7, 2005 by dspen2005

[popestpiusx]

I didn't vote for him anyway. I voted Peroutka. I won't be terribly surprised if he appoints some limpwristed Kennedy/O'Connor wanna be.

[Cam42]

All of this is moot anyhow, it doesn't look like Gonzalez will be a nominee.

The short list is:

Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Janice Rogers Brown (my personal favorite)
Edith Brown Clement
John Cornyn
Emilio M. Garza
Edith Hollan Jones
J. Michael Luttig
Michael W. McConnell
John G. Roberts
Theodore B. Olson
Larry D. Thompson
J. Harvie Wilkinson

Gonzalez has less time on the bench than all of these candidates. He also doesn't have the support from some of the Republican party.

[White Knight]

No, if this happened I wouldn't Approve of Bush, but I think he will stay true to what he believes and use all his abilities to nominate and elect a Pro-Life Judge.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Cam42']While being pro-life is a huge part of my life, there are also other factors that I must take into account when dealing with the election of a President. We cannot be "one issue" people.[/quote]
Oh, [i]time out[/i]!!! :bugeyes: :bugeyes: :bugeyes:

Nobody gets to use this argument after every Democrat who ever visited this site was bashed over the head for using it during the election. If anyone here tries to use it in favor of Bush now, so help me God... I shall scream. Loudly.

[photosynthesis]

what we really need is more FAITHFUL Catholics working in law, media and government. Regardless of what you think about democracy, our country was founded on it, and not God's laws. The only way we can change our government is to organize and get involved with government

[zwergel88]

I stopped approving of W on November 5, 2000, the day he stole the election.

Obviously he won't appoint someone 100% pro-life since he will definately appoint an extrememly pro-death penalty, pro-war, pro-torture, etc. person. However along with the rest of you I hope that he does appoint someone who will vote to outlaw abortion. I just really hope it's not Alberto Gonzalez or something. His name has been mentioned and I think that's really scary.

[ardillacid]

wow he stole the election? hehe.

I don't think i would vote republican if this justice isn't pro life. after all the pro-life cause has given republicans, this would be a huge stab in the back. I think i would vote for a buchanan like person

Edited July 16, 2005 by ardillacid

[Nathan]

Bush has done much for the pro-life cause -- like someone else said, far more than any other president. So there's no reason to think he's all of a sudden going to start going the other way. One of Bush's best strengths as a leader is that we know where he stands; he's not a "flip-flopper" on issues like this. He's a rock.

[zwergel88]

[quote] he's not a "flip-flopper" [/quote]

I hate to start a fight, but I must beg to differ that Bush is not a flip-flopper. I could offer you many examples of why he most certainly is a flip-floppr, but I will just give you a few....

1.) he promised to fire the person who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative, but Rove is still here

2.) he said that we were invading Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction, but now he feeds us a bunch of bull about liberating the Iraqi people and stuff, just because the WMD thing didn't work out

3.)he said that he was going to reform social security, then he ran into some opposition and basically forgot about it as far as I can tell.

Anyway, that's just my two cents. However since I went off topic a bit here, I will say this. W has done good things for the pro-life movement like signing the partial birth abortion ban which I sincerely hope a democrat would have signed as well, but if he truely wanted to end abortion he would start legislation in congress creating a constitutional amendment banning abortion. I am of the opinion that the Supreme court if it ever agrees to hear an abortion case will never reach a permanent conclustion. Same as with death penalty cases I think they are destined to overturn and restore abortion laws many times. Of course I hope he appoints a pro-life judge, but I would really like to see politicians start talking about amending the constitution.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jul 14 2005, 04:48 PM'][quote name='Cam42']While being pro-life is a huge part of my life, there are also other factors that I must take into account when dealing with the election of a President. We cannot be "one issue" people.[/quote]
Oh, [i]time out[/i]!!! :bugeyes: :bugeyes: :bugeyes:

Nobody gets to use this argument after every Democrat who ever visited this site was bashed over the head for using it during the election. If anyone here tries to use it in favor of Bush now, so help me God... I shall scream. Loudly.
[right][snapback]643489[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This is one area where I will agree with Democrats, then. They have the right, as do we Republicans, of which I am staunchly a member to expect the President to govern the whole of the country with the judicial and legislative branches.

While this is most certainly the case, we can and should expect just laws to come from the executive and legislative branches, being upheld by the judicial branch. This includes the ultimate respect for all human life, from conception to natural death.

Bush has never ever held this to be the case. He has been very clear in supporting abortion in limited cases. He has been on record as doing so.

I will never bash a Democrat for wanting a President who will govern with the whole of the country in mind and the whole of the country's issues in the scope of his Presidency.

If a President were to say I am pro-life, I will do everything in my power to promote and support the pro-life movement, but I won't do anything to further the economy, the military, the betterment of the country at large....he would not get my vote. Likewise, if a candidate who said I will do every thing I can about the economy, the military, the betterment of the country at large, but am pro-choice, he would also not get my vote.

However, if a president says, I am not 100% pro-life, but I will limit abortion and said I will do every thing I can about the economy, the military, the betterment of the country at large, he could get my vote, if all the other issues lined up.

Geo. W. Bush's views come most closely in line with my own. He is not as pro-life as me, but he is willing to limit the destruction of life. That is better than Kerry. He is also better than Peroutka, because he is a proven leader on a national level, being a governor of one of the states of the Union.

[Nathan]

Cam42, I agree with you. Should we vote for a terribly unfit presidential candidate just because he takes a pro-life stance? I don't think so.

[Jaime]

There are some things that as Catholics are non negotiable.

A good and wise friend once told me that there is a difference between being an American Catholic and a Catholic American.

He was right.

We've had terribly unfit presidents and we've survived. Are you saying that you are willing to vote pro choice to keep the economy solvent? That's an American Catholic stance.

I don't recall reading anything in Catholic doctrine that says a word about homeland security or inflation as being non negotiable issues.

I voted for Peroutka. I have been openly mocked for my vote and I don't care one bit. I am an educated man but there are some things that don't need a tremendous amount of education. The Church says abortion is wrong. There are no lesser degrees.


So what should I be willing to give up to support that? What should I be willing to give up to stop the culture of death?

[Nathan]

Would you vote for a Hitler if he promised to ban abortion?

[Jaime]

Oh for the love of all that's holy..


You have to resort to Hitler to make a point?

Come on Nathan

Please give something better than a last resort.

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 16 2005, 12:49 PM']There are some things that as Catholics are non negotiable. 

A good and wise friend once told me that there is a difference between being an American Catholic and a Catholic American. 

He was right.

We've had terribly unfit presidents and we've survived.  Are you saying that you are willing to vote pro choice to keep the economy solvent? That's an American Catholic stance. 

I don't recall reading anything in Catholic doctrine that says a word about homeland security or inflation as being non negotiable issues. 

I voted for Peroutka.  I have been openly mocked for my vote and I don't care one bit.  I am an educated man but there are some things that don't need a tremendous amount of education.  The Church says abortion is wrong.  There are no lesser degrees. 
So what should I be willing to give up to support that? What should I be willing to give up to stop the culture of death?
[right][snapback]645411[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yep, your friend was wise.....no doubt about that!!!!!

However, here is what is taught about "non-negotiable" issues.

[quote name='Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics'][i]In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. [u]In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.[/u][/i]

A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, “an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality’.”(EV, 73; also CPL, n.4)

Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. [i]The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today, while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future.[/i][/quote]

Gee sounds an awful lot like what I just said, doesn't it?

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 16 2005, 01:02 PM']Oh for the love of all that's holy..
You have to resort to Hitler to make a point?

Come on Nathan

Please give something better than a last resort.
[right][snapback]645422[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It wouldn't be a theological discussion unless Nazism or Hitler was brought up, Nathan just got it out of the way early.

[Jaime]

[quote]Cam42, I agree with you. Should we vote for a terribly unfit presidential candidate just because he takes a pro-life stance? I don't think so[/quote]


That seems to be what I was addressing

And what would you say the answer is? Should we vote for a terribly unfit candidtate just because he's pro life?

Edited July 16, 2005 by jaime

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jul 14 2005, 03:48 PM'][quote name='Cam42']While being pro-life is a huge part of my life, there are also other factors that I must take into account when dealing with the election of a President. We cannot be "one issue" people.[/quote]
Oh, [i]time out[/i]!!! :bugeyes: :bugeyes: :bugeyes:

Nobody gets to use this argument after every Democrat who ever visited this site was bashed over the head for using it during the election. If anyone here tries to use it in favor of Bush now, so help me God... I shall scream. Loudly.
[right][snapback]643489[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You're funny.

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 16 2005, 01:11 PM']That seems to be what I was addressing

And what would you say the answer is?  Should we vote for a terribly unfit candidtate just because he's pro life?
[right][snapback]645441[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, based upon my quote from above.....

[quote name='Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics']Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today, while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future.[/quote]

That speaks directly to what you ask. Should we vote for an unfit candidate? No, it is better not to vote than to vote for someone who is unfit. However, if we are to vote, vote for the one who comes closest to embodying the non-negotiable moral values....in this particular case, W. did that moreso than any other candidate, including Peroutka.