Presidential Candidates '08

[Socrates]

The only person mentioned here that I could support with any enthusiasm is Rick Santorum (though he's a long-shot candidate). Guilliani's much too liberal on the so-called "social issues." (pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, etc.) And I wasn't much impressed with McCain in his 2000 campaign, in which he ran to the Left of Bush. While he runs on the strength of his war record, he seems a sort of blow-in-the-wind "weather-vein" politician without strong principles. Condi, from what I've heard (which admittedly isn't much), seems another "moderate" (i.e. soft-liberal).

All the potential Democrat candidates mentioned support the Culture of Death. No Catholic should support them.

[quote name='zwergel88' post='1018344' date='Jul 6 2006, 11:54 AM']
Democrats are not nearly as anti-religious as you think my friend. Traditionally, the majority of Catholics in this country are in fact Democrats. Democrats are not communists or Nazis either (by the way, a Nazi is the opposite of a communist so you might want to check on that before you accuse liberals or being both). Also, you just said that "liberals put up gun stores" That is nonsense considering that those on the left favor slightly stricter gun control in order to keep dangerous weapons off the streets, whereas Republicans are the ones who allowed the ban on semi-automatic weapons to expire. As far as liquor stores, I don't think that the folks in either party are in favor of reinstating prohibition any time soon.

Democrats are the party who have long tried to implement measures to help people who are less well off. They are in favor of raising the minimum wage, improving rather than destroying social security, developing better pension plans, and making sure that all American's can afford healthcare. They also support measures that help children such as subsidized childcare, free healthcare for children, and after school programs.

Its true that Democrats are by a slight majority pro-choice, however they are pro-life on many other issues and their abortion stance is changing rapidly. Many prominant pro-life Democrats hold office or are running. The minority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid is pro-life, as is Senator Ben Nelson. In the house, many representatives from my own state of PA are pro-life Democrats such as John Murtha and Mike Doyle. More are running for office too. In PA, Bob Casey a pro-life Democrat and devout Catholic is running for the senate seat. It is estimated that as many as 47% of Democrats are now pro-life. For more info check out www.democratsforlife.org.

Trust me, Democrats and liberals are awesome. I am proud to be a liberal. And if you're going to move out of the country, I agree with the people who pointed out, the Rome is probably more "liberal" than you can imagine. Also, remember that not too many America liberals are Communists and it is all together impossible according to political philosophy for them to be Nazis.

Anna
[/quote]
While not all registered Democrats in the country may be godless and anti-religious, their national leadership over the past several decades has consistently supported the Culture of Death by supporting abortion and other serious evils. Most of the leading Democrats have been strong and constistant supporters of abortion-on-demand, opposing any restrictions on abortion whatsoever, and supporting its funding and promotion with our tax dollars. They are also for the most part in support of promoting privileges for homosexuality and other immoral behaviors.

(You can check out the voting record of any Congressman at [url="http://www.ontheissues.org"]www.ontheissues.org[/url])

Hillary Clinton's voting record on Abortion:
[b]Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.[/b] (Mar 2004)
[b]Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.[/b] (Mar 2003)
[b]Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women.[/b] (Apr 2001)
[b]Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. [/b] (Dec 2003)
[b]Expand embryonic stem cell research.[/b] (Jun 2004)

John Kerry's voting record on Abortion:
[b]Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.[/b] (Mar 2004)
[b]Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions.[/b] (Jun 2000)
[b]Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions.[/b] (Oct 1999)
[b]Voted NO on disallowing overseas military abortions.[/b] (May 1999)
[b]Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.[/b] (Dec 2003)
[b]Expand embryonic stem cell research.[/b] (Jun 2004)

No undoing Constitutional rights, including right of choice. (Oct 2004)
Cannot change Roe v. Wade because of my own faith. (Oct 2004)
Embryos used in stem cell research are not from abortions. (Oct 2004)
Supreme Court justices should be able to make good decisions. (Oct 2004)
We cannot force people to share our faith. (Oct 2004)
Bush allows the destruction of life up to a certain amount. (Oct 2004)
Will not appoint Justice against Roe while Court is 5-4. (May 2004)
Kerry staunchly resists restrictions on abortions. (Apr 2004)
Partial-birth abortion ban undermine women's right to choose. (Nov 2003)
No criminalization of a woman's right to choose. (Jun 2003)

Joe Biden on Abortion:
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Rated 36% by NARAL, indicating a mixed voting record on abortion. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)

Edited July 7, 2006 by Socrates

[pyranima]

all i know is that if Hilary gets voted in im moving.

[Socrates]

[quote name='zwergel88' post='1018344' date='Jul 6 2006, 11:54 AM']
(by the way, a Nazi is the opposite of a communist so you might want to check on that before you accuse liberals or being both). [/quote]
Only in liberal mythology.

The Nazis and Communists were in reality not opposites, but very similar. They were much more alike than they were different. Both were totalitarian, socialist, statist regimes which brutally and ruthlessly murdered millions to acheive their ideological goals. Both suppressed or controlled the Church, refusing to acknowledge a higher moral authority than themselves.

In fact, Hitler studied and imitated Lenin's Communist Revolution in plotting his own National Socialist revolution.

Just because these two murderous regimes fought each other in a turf war for domination does not make them truly opposites.

The main difference between the two was that the Nazi ideology was tribal and nationalistic in nature (the world ruled by the Aryan German Reich), while the Communists were more global and trans-nationalistic in their goals - in practice wanting all the world to be one Communist empire. The larger scale and broader appeal of Communism made it in reality more dangerous globally.

The fact is, that while most liberals are not Communists, many were sympathetic to and supporters of Communism during the Cold War. While probably no American liberals are Nazis, their support of abortion and the culture of death is reminiscent of Nazism's casual contempt for human life.

Edited July 7, 2006 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' post='1018440' date='Jul 6 2006, 01:52 PM']
When you refer to the Communists and they're goals, what are your sources?

And, just so we're clear, Republicans don't have a monopoly on morality in America. Whether it's their ties to big-business and corporations, or their tendency to rush in to wars, we should remain mindful of the fact that Republican is not a synonym for Catholic. Democrats have some good points and some bad ones too.
[/quote]
Actually the "tendency to rush into war" has not traditionally been a Republican trait - this actually only going back to the first George Bush. The Bush interventionalism marks a break from earlier policy.

Democrats led us into the First World War, World War Two, and the Vietnam War. Reagan kept us out of any major wars.

And actually, Democrats have many ties to big business and corporations as well. That's the nature of politics - big money influences political power.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Minimum wage is a "big" issue because a lot of unions have contracts based on it. Even though they make far more per hour, their wages go up if minimum wage is increased. I really think the whole thing is a waste of time, as hardly anyone actually makes minimum wage and of those that do, they are unlikely supporting families on it. Seems to me that the only thing it will do is jack-up prices and negate the increase in pay. Or worse, lay off employees to avoid a loss in profits - as if that isn't a huge problem in the auto industry already. Or even worse yet - ship the jobs overseas.

Edited July 7, 2006 by thedude

[pyranima]

Good Catholics cant be democrats... Democrats are Pro-Death. I vote to we get rid of Democrats and Republicans. Oligarchy, though i prefer Kingship.

communism and Nazism have alot in common. the Homosexual handbooks are The Communist Manifesto(have read) And Mein Kamph(have read). What??? i read what people tell me not to... so i was rebelious i have also read The Satanic Bible (What i was really rebelious? Did you know that Lavey Satanism is Atheist?) which believes homosexuality is alright. Liberals are pro-death and pro-homosexual its kind of a requirement to be a democrat.

i dislike democrats because they dont use logic only emotion.

[JP2Iloveyou]

"Its true that Democrats are by a slight majority pro-choice, however they are pro-life on many other issues and their abortion stance is changing rapidly. Many prominant pro-life Democrats hold office or are running. The minority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid is pro-life, as is Senator Ben Nelson. In the house, many representatives from my own state of PA are pro-life Democrats such as John Murtha and Mike Doyle. More are running for office too. In PA, Bob Casey a pro-life Democrat and devout Catholic is running for the senate seat. It is estimated that as many as 47% of Democrats are now pro-life. For more info check out www.democratsforlife.org."

The Democratic Party in the United States, as a party, not necessarily individual members, is certainly pro-death. There is no question about it. I do not say this as a hard core Republican either. I am a conservative and quite frankly I´ve had it with the Republicans so called "conservative" leadership. However, it is stated policy of the democratic party to support abortion (a woman´s right to choose as they like to term it), gay marriage, human cloning, and unlimited stem cell research. To suggest that Harry Reid is pro-life is not looking at the facts. Harry Reid opposed partial birth abortion, just like 70% of Americans, roughly. That does not make him pro-life. In fact, if you look at his voting record, he typically has about a 70% favorability rating with UnPlanned Parenthood and a 30% favorability rating with National Right to Life. This is not the definition of someone who is pro-life. Senator Santorum, on the other hand, typically has a 100% approval rating from National Right to Life and a 0% approval rating from UnPlanned Parenthood.

Ben Nelson is pro-life. Great. That one voice in the entire poplace of democratic senators should drown out the voices of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Debbie Stabenow, Tom Harkin, Johnsonville brat Durbin, Jack Reed, Barack Obama, Carl Levin, Russ Feingold, Herb Kohl, Thomas Carper, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer... ( I could keep going if you´d like). As for you web address, would that be the same Democrats for Life that the National Democratic Party removed from their website? I wholeheartedly admit that the Republicans are far from perfect on life issues, but in a two-party system, they are far, far, FAR better than the Democrats. To assert otherwise is not being honest.

[pyranima]

Democarats are still pro-death what about contraceptives? they are still a form of abortion and still against the Church.

[zwergel88]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1018402' date='Jul 6 2006, 12:57 PM']
i dont need to be reminded of anything or check my facts.. But big deal there is a tiny splinter group of pro-life democrats, but will they ever make it into office? Many Liberal democrats are acting like atheistic communists, as for Nazi's, there are Nazi's in the democratic party.

Liberalism has been condemned by the Church, I really dont care how many "pope quotes" ya'll take out of context either. Especially modern quotes. Its quite obvious how the liberal democrats are furthering the Culture of Death. Even as they are claiming they are caring for the poor.

oh yeah and Ann Coulter is cool.
[/quote]


You ask if pro-life Democrats will ever make it into office, when I named you like four of them. There are in fact thousands of pro-life Democrats who hold office all over the country. The pro-life democratic movement is a very important part of the Democratic party and is growing every day.

Also, no offense but both you and Socrates need to get a better grip on political philosophy. Nazis are on the extremely far right of politics and communists are on the left. They are opposites. A communist cannot be a Nazi.

Ann Coulter is a total nutcase.

[jswranch]

I would like to see Johnsonville brat Cheney run. Too bad he has poor health, though I am not sure where he stands on the pro-life issue.

[dspen2005]

[quote name='DAF' post='1018017' date='Jul 5 2006, 10:19 PM']
Do you guys think Wesley Clark is thinking about running for president again? He's been making alot of appearences on news programs, and it seems like he wants people to see him with opinions.

Who do you guys think will run for president in '08, and who do you want to win?

Yo soy Condita!
[/quote]

i hope not (to wesley clark)

[stbernardLT]

Abortion is the greatest evil. These babies cannot defend themselves. They can't run or hide. Anyone who votes for any candidate or party that supports this is committing a gave error, and producing scandal among the church. I think there are many other issues that should be taken into consideration, but this should always be the most important.


If some of you haven't noticed, the Democratic Party supports everything that is anti-family and anti- religion. How can a good catholic vote against limitations on there own religion, and vote for attacks against the sacredness of the family.

Republicans are far from perfect, but have more positives than negatives.

[Era Might]

[quote]Anyone who votes for any candidate or party that supports this is committing a gave error, and producing scandal among the church.[/quote]
[quote]Republicans are far from perfect, but have more positives than negatives.[/quote]
Well, which is it gonna be? George Bush and Condoleeza Rice both support abortion. Is it "a grave error" to vote for them, or do we turn a blind eye because they "have more positive than negatives"?

If we can turn a blind eye to Republicans, then it's not necessarily a "scandal" to vote for "any candidate or party that supports" abortion, including Democrats. If you're gonna take the hard line, basically suggesting that Catholics are forbidden from voting for a Democrat, then you have to be consistent and refuse to vote Republican for the same reason. If you're gonna recognize that you have to vote for someone imperfect, then you are free to choose and advocate who you see as the best candidate; but don't infringe on other people's freedom to balance various goods and proportional issues as a citizen.

Part of responsible citizenship is voting for a VIABLE candidate, so I personally wouldn't recommend voting third-party.

Edited July 7, 2006 by Era Might

[stbernardLT]

You can go ahead and vote for someone who supports abortion, but I refuse to. This is just my opinion. I wouldn't vote for any individual who supports it including Bush or Rice. I first look at the party then at the individual if neither suit my expectations I will not vote for them.

[Era Might]

Ok, that's what I was trying to clarify. If you refuse to vote across the line, regardless of party, because of abortion, then I respect that. I disagree, but I respect it for being consistent.

[JP2Iloveyou]

Remember what Cardinal Arinze wrote. A Catholic may vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil for a proportionate reason. I would argue that there is nothing, short of someone advocating starting a nuclear war, that is proportional to the atrocity of abortion over the last 30 years. Given that we live in a two-party system and the only viable candidates for President are either Republicans or Democrats, it is certainly conceivable to have to vote for someone who supports one of the five non-negotiables in order to prevent a greater evil. I think that this is the case with President Bush. For example, he allowed federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. However, he has also made his opposition to abortion in all cases except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother clear. This is far from perfect. However, the alternative, John Kerry and before him Al Gore, had mae clear their support for abortion in all cases. The Archbishop of Atlanta wrote a wonderful pastoral letter on this topic which can be found at www.ewtn.com.

Here`s the address for Archbishop Donohue`s letter.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/CONSVOTE.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/CONSVOTE.HTM[/url]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' post='1019401' date='Jul 7 2006, 03:21 PM'] Remember what Cardinal Arinze wrote. A Catholic may vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil for a proportionate reason. I would argue that there is nothing, short of someone advocating starting a nuclear war, that is proportional to the atrocity of abortion over the last 30 years. Given that we live in a two-party system and the only viable candidates for President are either Republicans or Democrats, it is certainly conceivable to have to vote for someone who supports one of the five non-negotiables in order to prevent a greater evil. I think that this is the case with President Bush. For example, he allowed federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. However, he has also made his opposition to abortion in all cases except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother clear. This is far from perfect. However, the alternative, John Kerry and before him Al Gore, had mae clear their support for abortion in all cases. The Archbishop of Atlanta wrote a wonderful pastoral letter on this topic which can be found at www.ewtn.com.

Here`s the address for Archbishop Donohue`s letter.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/CONSVOTE.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/CONSVOTE.HTM[/url] [/quote]This is a very sensible and appropriate view to have when it comes to elections. I hold to the same ideas posted here.



Many Catholics vote as if most/all of the Catholics in this country follow/will follow the teachings of the Church, but unfortunately this is not the case.

[MonkeyTape]

New here, saying hello.

I personally think that on the Democratic side Hillary will loose the nomination and take a VP position running with Biden, I was thinking maybe Edwards but he rubbed too many the wrong way and in the end is far too inexperienced, Wes Clark, maybe Bill Richardson.

With a woman as VP nominee for Dems then the Republicans will need Condoleeza Rice as a VP nominee, then we have Frist, Santorum, or McCain - though I wonder how many times you can loose a nomination and still be considered a serious candidate.

My two cents.

Sean

[Fulton Sheen Warrior]

+JMJ+

I'd back Santorum.

[Socrates]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' post='1019401' date='Jul 7 2006, 02:21 PM']
Remember what Cardinal Arinze wrote. A Catholic may vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil for a proportionate reason. I would argue that there is nothing, short of someone advocating starting a nuclear war, that is proportional to the atrocity of abortion over the last 30 years. Given that we live in a two-party system and the only viable candidates for President are either Republicans or Democrats, it is certainly conceivable to have to vote for someone who supports one of the five non-negotiables in order to prevent a greater evil. I think that this is the case with President Bush. For example, he allowed federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. However, he has also made his opposition to abortion in all cases except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother clear. This is far from perfect. However, the alternative, John Kerry and before him Al Gore, had mae clear their support for abortion in all cases. The Archbishop of Atlanta wrote a wonderful pastoral letter on this topic which can be found at www.ewtn.com.

Here`s the address for Archbishop Donohue`s letter.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/CONSVOTE.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/CONSVOTE.HTM[/url]
[/quote]
Agreed.

While Bush does leave something to be desired, he has at least made some good steps with the abortion issue - nominated pro-life Supreme Court candidates, and supports limits on abortion, and is against spending federal money for abortion overseas.
Kerry (and other Democratic candidates) would have only nominated judges who would support abortion on demand, and oppose any and all restrictions to abortion, as well as support funding of abortions with your tax dollars.

In today's political situation, abortion will have to be fought incrementally. Nominating of judges is critical to this process.
And I don't think a Catholic can, in good conscience, support a candidate, who will do all in his/her power to actively support and perpetuate abortion, and oppose any restrictions on it whatsoever.

This said, if the Republicans run a "pro-choice" candidate in '08, I may vote Constitution Party.

Edited July 10, 2006 by Socrates