Clinton/obama V. Giuliani/mccain

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1228259' date='Apr 3 2007, 02:59 PM']cause I don't know anything about him. lol. Anyways, I totally like Fred Thompson.[/quote]

Wasn't he a senator before joining Law & Order (a show I love, btw)? Like, a Republican senator from TN, maybe?

[Sojourner]

Yes that is correct, AC

[Didymus]

[quote name='kujo' post='1228066' date='Apr 3 2007, 12:48 AM']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)[/quote]

the problem is (statistically speaking) overturning Roe v Wade wont do any good if abortions are still allowed on the state level by law in the individual states.

McCain just wants the states to be able to decide. I dont want the feds to remain indifferent. We want them to call murder what is murder.

[Didymus]

mind you, I support McCain to the length that you mention

[Aloysius]

[quote name='kujo' post='1228457' date='Apr 3 2007, 03:19 PM']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.[/quote]
let's face it: there are bigger darker masterminds behind the republican party than behind the democratic party. the democratic party is this big umbrella full of idealogues on many sides. but the republican strategists know what they're doing to keep their base's support... they don't really have any sort of idealogy on these social issues one way or another; they'll make sure there's a guy that the Christian right believes is socially conservative enough and continue to try to ride the moral issue gravy train back to the white house.

republican strategists seem to know what they're doing politically better than democratic strategists; democratic strategists are more concerned with their idealogy... which is respectable I suppose, even though I disagree with their idealogy. the behind-the-scenes of the republican party is much less concerned with such things, they just want to convince their idealogical base that they are.

[kujo]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1228852' date='Apr 3 2007, 07:51 PM']the problem is (statistically speaking) overturning Roe v Wade wont do any good if abortions are still allowed on the state level by law in the individual states.

McCain just wants the states to be able to decide. I dont want the feds to remain indifferent. We want them to call murder what is murder.[/quote]

Overturning Roe v. Wade would return this issue to the states for them to decide. This would be a major victory for pro-lifers because it would mean that advocating for our cause would be relegated to state-level politics. And it seems that it would be easier to sway a state than the stallwarts in the Supreme Court. Further, holding out for a reversal of Roe v. Wade for moral reasons (i.e.- the baby is a HUMAN BEING) is probably a waste of time. There will never ever been a justice confirmed for the highest court in our nation that would do it for those reasons. We need to rely on the fact that it is a [i]weak[/i] case decided upon [i]weaker[/i] logic. If it were overturned, it would go to the states and we can continue fighting with our elected officials.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1229057' date='Apr 3 2007, 11:38 PM']let's face it: there are bigger darker masterminds behind the republican party than behind the democratic party. the democratic party is this big umbrella full of idealogues on many sides. but the republican strategists know what they're doing to keep their base's support... they don't really have any sort of idealogy on these social issues one way or another; they'll make sure there's a guy that the Christian right believes is socially conservative enough and continue to try to ride the moral issue gravy train back to the white house.

republican strategists seem to know what they're doing politically better than democratic strategists; democratic strategists are more concerned with their idealogy... which is respectable I suppose, even though I disagree with their idealogy. the behind-the-scenes of the republican party is much less concerned with such things, they just want to convince their idealogical base that they are.[/quote]

Can you substantiate any of this talk of the "darker masterminds" of the Republican party and their apparent superiority against their Democratic counterparts? Did the Republicans NOT just lose control of the Congress and the Senate? Isn't President Bush's approval rating like 29%?

I hope we wise up and nominate a [i]real[/i] Republican but I'm scared that these "masterminds" (i.e.- "MC" Karl Rove) are going to capitulate to public opinion, nominating the [b]wrong man [/b]for the [b]wrong reasons.[/b]

[Didymus]

[quote name='kujo' post='1229241' date='Apr 4 2007, 12:39 AM']Overturning Roe v. Wade would return this issue to the states for them to decide. This would be a major victory for pro-lifers because it would mean that advocating for our cause would be relegated to state-level politics. And it seems that it would be easier to sway a state than the stallwarts in the Supreme Court. Further, holding out for a reversal of Roe v. Wade for moral reasons (i.e.- the baby is a HUMAN BEING) is probably a waste of time. There will never ever been a justice confirmed for the highest court in our nation that would do it for those reasons. We need to rely on the fact that it is a [i]weak[/i] case decided upon [i]weaker[/i] logic. If it were overturned, it would go to the states and we can continue fighting with our elected officials.[/quote]

agreed

[Aloysius]

all I'm saying is that they're going to make sure they can get the vote of the Christian right; not by nominating the right guy, but by at least convincing them the guy they nominate is good enough. mark my words: the republican vote will not be split in two. it's just not going to happen; people like Karl Rove know how to keep that from happening.

there isn't any sort of strong idealogical public opinion among anyone who would even remotely consider voting republican against the illegalization of abortion. the Republican Party has nothing to gain by going over to that side; there just isn't any popular opinion in that direction that they have any remote chance of getting votes from.

[kujo]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1229371' date='Apr 4 2007, 04:57 AM']all I'm saying is that they're going to make sure they can get the vote of the Christian right; not by nominating the right guy, but by at least convincing them the guy they nominate is good enough. mark my words: the republican vote will not be split in two. it's just not going to happen; people like Karl Rove know how to keep that from happening.

there isn't any sort of strong idealogical public opinion among anyone who would even remotely consider voting republican against the illegalization of abortion. the Republican Party has nothing to gain by going over to that side; there just isn't any popular opinion in that direction that they have any remote chance of getting votes from.[/quote]

First off, if that fate of our party rests in the hands of Karl Rove, we're screwed! He is an idiot. I can't wait till him and Bush are GONE!!!! (mind you...I am a Republican) I will not be duped into believing that a candidate who has been wishy-washy on or downright supportive of abortion. I like Giuliani and respect him for his work after 9/11. I had relatives die in the towers so he's my guy. But I just don't think he's good enough for the Presidency and I won't vote for him based on 9/11. McCain is simply not Presidential material. Too moderate. Mitt Romney...who? Fred Thompson and Sam Brownback are the ways to go!

Secondly, while it's true that Republicans are by and large pro-life, there are varying degrees of this ideology. Some people are okay with it during the 1st trimester, some are okay in cases of rape and incest, some are diametrically opposed to any and all abortion procedures. And, unfortunately, there are some (i.e.- Giuliani) who just pro-choice Republicans. Heck, there are even [url="http://www.catholicsforchoice.org"]Roman Catholics in favor of abortion[/url]! Bottom line here is that we shouldn't accept the line of bull these guys feed us. The best way to find out what these guys believe is to check the voting records and public statements. You can't say you'll "nominate strict-constitutionalist judges" and expect me to nod my head and go along with it when everything you've said in the past points to the opposite.

[RezaMikhaeil]

Kujo, I like your post. I found it very troubling that after the Republicans [prior to the last election] had control of the house and the senate, nothing was proposed to make every abortion illegal. It's like, I'm always hearing Republicans say "we'd get rid of abortion but the democrates" and it's like after having control of the house and the senate, it wasn't the democrates holding them back, it was themselves.

Reza

[Azriel]

Just my 2 pennies, and bearing in mind I didn't read this very detailed, but why is voting third party wasting a vote? If more people would smell of elderberries it up and vote third party then we wouldn't been in this ridiculous two party system where everthing is stalemated.

[kujo]

[quote name='Azriel' post='1231085' date='Apr 5 2007, 11:49 AM']Just my 2 pennies, and bearing in mind I didn't read this very detailed, but why is voting third party wasting a vote? If more people would smell of elderberries it up and vote third party then we wouldn't been in this ridiculous two party system where everthing is stalemated.[/quote]

Voting for a third party isn't necessarily a wasted vote; however, if the third party candidate is not truly viable, most people will decide that it is a waste to do so.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if the population seems for a third party, then it's legit. otherwise it's wasting a vote and sinning.
this means you need to pay attention to public sentiment and polls and judge wisely.

[dairygirl4u2c]

what i mean is if the public seems ready if only more people would vote, it's legit. now it's not so much anyone seems ready from any elections i've seen.
if there's no one who seems ready, it's pure ideology and a sin.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1231592' date='Apr 5 2007, 04:34 PM']if the population seems for a third party, then it's legit. otherwise it's wasting a vote and sinning.
this means you need to pay attention to public sentiment and polls and judge wisely.[/quote]
Where do you get this stuff from?

How popular does a candidate have to be in order for someone to vote for him? And even if a candidate has little chance of winning, a vote for him can send a message to the parties in power.
This idea that voters are bound to make their decision based on "public sentiment and polls" is ridiculous. This becomes circular - if no one votes for or supports a candidate simply because he "has no chance" how can such a candidate gain enough support to have a chance? This attitude will merely help perpetuate power in the hands of the well-moneyed political establishment and the "mainstream media."

I'm not saying voting third party is always the most prudent choice, but where does it say that voring for a third-party or unpopular candidate is a [i]sin[/i]??
Can you quote the Catechism, Scripture, or an Encyclical on that??

Or has Dairygirl now assumed the authority herself to tell Catholics what is and isn't a sin (apparently following in Budge's footsteps)?