Clinton/obama V. Giuliani/mccain

[Aloysius]

then you either vote for the lesser of two evils (permissable) or you vote for some third candidate or yourself. you must excercize your power to affect the governance of this country in some positive way, even if it will not be effected.

in the midst of a coup d'etat when the king no longer has faithful subjects he can trust, he is morally obligated to continue to excercize his power to help his people; even if it will do nothing; even if it is quixotic, you must be devoted to doing good even if that good will not succeed.

[Socrates]

Here's my take on this.
I definitely see voting for either Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama as being unconsciable. (And Edwards and other liberal Dem candidates are no better). Guilliani, in my opinion, would be a lesser evil than either of them, and would be a better leader, but given his pro-abortion and socially liberal record, he is not a candidate worthy of Catholic support. (He has said he would nominated conservative justices, but given his socially liberal record, can we really trust him)? McCain is not perfect, but I'd say he is definitely the best man of these four. He does have a fairly solid senate voting record, but his "moderate" 2000 campaign makes me somewhat distrustful of his current conservative rhetoric.

I would probably vote McCain against Clinton or Obama, but if the GOP nominee was Guiliani, I would probably vote third party (probably Constitution).
The reason for this is that voting for a blatantly pro-abortion, candidate who supports the liberal social agenda would send the message to the GOP that life and moral issues do not matter, and that the "religious moral vote" is a shoe-in for the Republicans, no matter what they do. If a block of conservative voters refuses to vote for a pro-abortion, socially liberal GOP candidate, and this costs them the election, it sends a clear message for future candidates that they must be pro-life to be a winner.
Voting for a conservative third-party candidate in this case would not be simply "throwing away the vote," but would send a message to the Republicans that being pro-abortion, etc. is unacceptable to us.
Not voting for anybody, on the other hand, sends no message at all, other than one of apathy and indifference.

This issue is not really carved-in-stone though. How bad does the "lesser evil" need to be in order to make voting for him unacceptable, and the 3rd party option preferrable? Or is the greater evil so evil that everthing possible should be done to avoid him/her becoming president? This is up to the individual voter's conscience, which nonetheless should be well informed. Part of me wants to keep Hillary or Obama out of the White House at any cost, but on the other hand, voting for pro-death Republicans sets a dangerous political precedent.

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1227817' date='Apr 2 2007, 10:50 PM']Here's my take on this.
I definitely see voting for either Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama as being unconsciable. (And Edwards and other liberal Dem candidates are no better). Guilliani, in my opinion, would be a lesser evil than either of them, and would be a better leader, but given his pro-abortion and socially liberal record, he is not a candidate worthy of Catholic support. (He has said he would nominated conservative justices, but given his socially liberal record, can we really trust him)? McCain is not perfect, but I'd say he is definitely the best man of these four. He does have a fairly solid senate voting record, but his "moderate" 2000 campaign makes me somewhat distrustful of his current conservative rhetoric.

I would probably vote McCain against Clinton or Obama, but if the GOP nominee was Guiliani, I would probably vote third party (probably Constitution).
The reason for this is that voting for a blatantly pro-abortion, candidate who supports the liberal social agenda would send the message to the GOP that life and moral issues do not matter, and that the "religious moral vote" is a shoe-in for the Republicans, no matter what they do. If a block of conservative voters refuses to vote for a pro-abortion, socially liberal GOP candidate, and this costs them the election, it sends a clear message for future candidates that they must be pro-life to be a winner.
Voting for a conservative third-party candidate in this case would not be simply "throwing away the vote," but would send a message to the Republicans that being pro-abortion, etc. is unacceptable to us.
Not voting for anybody, on the other hand, sends no message at all, other than one of apathy and indifference.

This issue is not really carved-in-stone though. How bad does the "lesser evil" need to be in order to make voting for him unacceptable, and the 3rd party option preferrable? Or is the greater evil so evil that everthing possible should be done to avoid him/her becoming president? This is up to the individual voter's conscience, which nonetheless should be well informed. Part of me wants to keep Hillary or Obama out of the White House at any cost, but on the other hand, voting for pro-death Republicans sets a dangerous political precedent.[/quote]

I respect and understand this mindset. I just don't know if it is the correct course of action. Quite simply, Giuliani and McCain, though not [i]ideal[/i] Republicans, are more likely to protect the unborn than liberal-lefties Obama and Clinton. I'm still wrestling with this issue...it's a good thing I've got more than a year to figure it out.

Bottomline: all Catholics should vote for Senator Brownback in the primaries.

[Megz]

I'm going to vote against hiliary so she'll loose no matter what. I hate hiliary and her co-horts becuase some of them are personally responsible for making my life miserable. And I do mean personal...she was in cahoots to people who unjustly jailed someone close to me.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1227610' date='Apr 2 2007, 08:10 PM']two words: Law. Order.

Fred Thompson '08. Don't settle for anything less. He's the type of guy who could turn out to be the next Reagan.[/quote]

True that. I'm also lookin at Duncan Phillips, although right now I havent checked his pro-life stance, only assumed. But he claims to be grassroots, and also cites Reagan constantly.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Didymus

[Didymus]

btw, I would not want to see McCain and Giuliani on the same ticket. McCain doesnt wholeheartedly support the pro-life stance (he wants to overturn RvW, but for the wrong reasons) but he's still not near as bad as Guilinani. Rudy shouldnt even be a member of the GOP

[kujo]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1228044' date='Apr 3 2007, 12:58 AM']btw, I would not want to see McCain and Giuliani on the same ticket. McCain doesnt wholeheartedly support the pro-life stance (he wants to overturn RvW, but for the wrong reasons) but he's still not near as bad as Guilinani. Rudy shouldnt even be a member of the GOP[/quote]

I don't know about you, but I'd be up for overturning Roe v. Wade for WHATEVER REASON THEY CAN FIND.

And I agree...Rudy is a RINO (Republican In Name Only)

[RezaMikhaeil]

Rudy is very weak on social issues:

[quote]Abortion
While mayor, Giuliani stated he is against banning partial-birth abortions. Guliani said that he did not see his position on that changing. Giuliani also told the Albany Times Union that he would not support a ban on late-term.[59][b]Being against abortion, this doesn't work for me. I'd like someone that would represent what I religiously and whole heartedly believe in...[/b]

Gay rights
During his mayorality, gays and lesbians in New York asked for domestic-partnership rights. Giuliani in turn pushed the city's Democratic-controlled City Council, which had avoided the issue for years, to then pass legislation providing broad protection for same-sex partners. In 1998, he codified local law by granting all city employees equal benefits for their domestic partners. Giuliani also allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly in his administration.

[b]As I'm a Coptic, I'm against homosexual marriage, etc. so I'd like the governmental laws to reflect that which I believe, so this stance of Rudy's doesn't work for me.[/b]

Gun control lawsuit
On June 20, 2000, Giuliani announced that the City of New York had filed a lawsuit against two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors.[60][61][62] The lawsuit was made moot when President Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in October 2005 which gave gun companies protection from liability.[63]

[b]I'm also a gun owner, so Rudy's stance doesn't seem to reflect my constitutional freedom in this department.[/b][/quote]

Mccain: I just hope that the GOP gets a better pick

The Democrates are just doing the same thing as last year, giving lame choices so that nobody in their party has a choice but to pick the most liberal feminist in the bunch. I think Hillary would be better then Obama [though I don't choose either] because Hilary would probably listen to her military advisors more then arrogant and cocky Obama, that would have a young and naive mentality.

Reza

Edited April 3, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Aloysius]

Guiliani said he would appoint judges to the supreme court who were social conservatives, even if he isn't one. that's his sort of compromise with the conservative base. it's something.

but Fred Thompson is the absolute best choice. he's been the most consistently pro-life. even Mit Romney was once all for legal abortion, tellin sob stories about how glad he was that his friend could have a legal abortion instead of a back-street one and all that... so who knows how sincere he is. The only candidate I really trust as consistent and sincere on this isse is Thompson. I think if he just declared his candidacy, he would shoot up in the polls so fast! He's already tied with Romney without even announcing his campaign!

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1228189' date='Apr 3 2007, 03:27 AM']but Fred Thompson is the absolute best choice. he's been the most consistently pro-life. even Mit Romney was once all for legal abortion, tellin sob stories about how glad he was that his friend could have a legal abortion instead of a back-street one and all that... so who knows how sincere he is. The only candidate I really trust as consistent and sincere on this isse is Thompson. I think if he just declared his candidacy, he would shoot up in the polls so fast! He's already tied with Romney without even announcing his campaign![/quote]
Not knocking your guy, but why not Brownback?

[Aloysius]

cause I don't know anything about him. lol. Anyways, I totally like Fred Thompson.

[kujo]

Here's my forecast for the Republican party during the next 2-3 years:

Wanting to cajole the "middle ground" voters, the leadership of the party will continue to field socially-liberal Republicans such as Giuliani and McCain. This will cause a schism in the party: the "Christian Right" will refuse to cast their vote for candidates who are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and will, thus, cast their support for another candidate (such as Senator Brownback). The secular conservatives will be disgusted with the compromises being made in Republicanism and will become radicalized, looking for a candidate like Newt Gingrich or Fred Thompson who is consistently, historically Republican, not a neocon lame-o like Bush. Because of this dischord in the party, there will be much wrangling during the primaries with no clear winner emerging with the overall support of the Republican party, causing whomever is nominated to be a lame-duck who will struggle to get the votes of his own party. Inevitably, this schism will lead to the election of whichever liberal-lefty comes out on top of the Democratic primaries.

Any thoughts?

[Aloysius]

I think the big bad dark masterminds behind the party are smart enough not to let that happen. they will make sure their candidate is capable of getting the support of the Christian Right. If they don't think Guiliani's ruse of "well, I'll appoint socially conservative justices even though I'm not" is convincing them, he won't be nominated.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1228259' date='Apr 3 2007, 08:59 AM']cause I don't know anything about him. lol. Anyways, I totally like Fred Thompson.[/quote]
He's awesome. He's a Catholic. Read up on him.

[kujo]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1228283' date='Apr 3 2007, 10:36 AM']I think the big bad dark masterminds behind the party are smart enough not to let that happen. they will make sure their candidate is capable of getting the support of the Christian Right. If they don't think Guiliani's ruse of "well, I'll appoint socially conservative justices even though I'm not" is convincing them, he won't be nominated.[/quote]

I'm not quite sure of that. I mean, look at the trouble that Hillary is having. She's trying too hard to be something she's simply not--a centrist. Because of this, she's misstepping all over the place--one minute she's for the Iraq War, the next she's against it; one minute she wants the troops out now, the next she says that it would be a disaster if we left now. She's trying to appease the hard-left and the centrists as well. And it's simply not working, causing Obama (who is remaining pretty squeaky clean while sticking to his guns) to enjoy an increase in support.

It could happen with the Republicans, as well.