2008 Voting Questionnaire

[BeenaBobba]

We've been discussing who we're planning to vote for come November, and most of us (if not all of us) agree that it is morally permissible to vote for McCain or a pro-life third party candidate. As of right now, I think I'm going to vote for a third party candidate, but I'm genuinely curious about those of you who plan to vote for McCain. I would really appreciate it if you could take the time to answer each question as specifically as possible. Also, feel free to turn the tables on those of us who plan to vote for a third party candidate with any questions you may have as well.

Note: I think it's a given that you support McCain because you believe he'll be better than Obama or Clinton. I guess you could say that these questions deal with [i]why[/i] you think he's better.

The Questions:[list=1]
[*]Hypothetically speaking, if you had to choose between a pro-life Democrat and a pro-life Republican (both also oppose gay marriage), who would you choose?
[*]What do you think/feel about Santorum's doubts about McCain's pro-life stance?
[*]Why do you think Santorum has doubts about McCain?
[*]Do you think Santorum has any motivation to lie or exaggerate regarding McCain's views on pro-life issues?
[*]Those of us who are probably going to vote for a third party candidate over McCain are concerned that supporting McCain could send the message that we're willing to accept the status quo and/or so-so candidates, thus harming the pro-life movement in the long run. Do you think political parties will continue to nominate those who aren't 100% pro-life if pro-lifers vote for so-so candidates? Explain.
[*]Practically speaking, do you think laws limiting abortion will stand up in the long run if they make exceptions for rape and incest? Such laws would entail either denying that life begins at conception or allowing the killing of innocent people under certain circumstances, which is inconsistent.
[*]Do you think laws limiting abortion will stand up in the short term if they make exceptions for rape and incest? Explain.
[*]Do you think laws limiting abortion with certain exceptions are practically applicable?
[*]Why do you think McCain finds it acceptable to destroy human embryos for ESCR if he claims to be pro-life?
[*]If you had to make an educated guess, what do you think the chances are that McCain will have the opportunity to nominate someone to the Supreme Court? Please answer in terms of percentage, with 100% meaning that you're 100% sure he will have the opportunity to do so.
[*]If McCain gets the opportunity to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, do you believe he'll nominate someone who is solidly pro-life? Please answer in terms of percentage, with 100% meaning that you're 100% sure he'll nominate a solid pro-lifer.
[*]Does it concern you that McCain voted against a bill subjecting the CIA to the same guidelines as the military? Such a vote could possibly allow torture.
[*]Why do you think some pro-choice groups have come out in support of McCain? Does such support concern you?
[/list]

Edited February 19, 2008 by BeenaBobba

[Jaime]

A. That's a lot of questions

2. Stevens is older than dirt. He's not going to last another term.

iii. I think McCain would absolutely bring in a pro-life judge to replace him

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1465527' date='Feb 19 2008, 12:14 AM']That's a lot of questions[/quote]
Word.
I'll hit this list up tomorrow me thinks. *yawn* It's late.

[jckinsman]

Wow!
You are ambitious!
As a catholic,being Pro-life is the most important issue.
I lean towards the republican party, Mostly for the Conservative issues. McCain does not thrill me and the other choices are not a consideration at this point,AT ALL! so..... This election for me stinks. Do I think McCain is a liar? I think politicians in general are put through the ringers,as they should. I do think they are human and can say things and then change their minds,I think they say things and have no intention on follow through,and they say things that are true and people twist it. What you believe to be the truth is not compromise. If you think he is a liar and is not going to vote Pro-life and you have someone who will.You go for it,even if third partys don't win. What it boils down to is we should vote. (Unless it truly is evil and evil) I have a check list. As much as do not agree with a"fiscal Democrat party" I would vote for one IF he or she was Pro-life.Only if the republicans were all "Rudys". I have yet to get the chance to do that though.The democrats that get elected to the seats are almost always Pro-choice. The average Republican these days can be alittle tougher though. They are all over the board on this,so I can agree for now it may be hard to tell. I do know one thing,the Mud is being made and stock piled and it should make for a very interesting political season. I hope that you are all remembering who's really in charge and who really has the final say! JC

[Lounge Daddy]

Good questions

The Questions:
1. Hypothetically speaking, if you had to choose between a pro-life Democrat and a pro-life Republican (both also oppose gay marriage), who would you choose?
• The Republican.
2. What do you think/feel about Santorum's doubts about McCain's pro-life stance?
• I feel that the fact that Santorum is no longer in Congress, Santorum is a more free to be outspoken and honest without members of his party pressuring him to tow the party line, etc.
3. Why do you think Santorum has doubts about McCain?
• Because he has had to work with Sen. McCain, he saw McCain on a day to day basis while the tv cameras were away. Santorum personally saw both the ‘public’ McCain and the ‘real’ McCain, and personally knows John McCain’s sincerity (or lack thereof).
4. Do you think Santorum has any motivation to lie or exaggerate regarding McCain's views on pro-life issues?
• No.
5. Those of us who are probably going to vote for a third party candidate over McCain are concerned that supporting McCain could send the message that we're willing to accept the status quo and/or so-so candidates, thus harming the pro-life movement in the long run. Do you think political parties will continue to nominate those who aren't 100% pro-life if pro-lifers vote for so-so candidates? Explain.
• I think the party establishment will care enough to be sure to make an effort to have politically conservative & pro-life candidates receive greater support if McCain loses by a great enough margin.
• Additionally, this process has highlighted a greater problem: the problem is the move that many states have made to primary elections instead of caucuses. And most primaries are open primaries. When both the Dems and the GOP are holding primaries open to the general public, of course two similar candidates will emerge—two candidates who are not enthusiastic (to say the least) about reducing the size and scope of government, and not enthusiastic about the pro-life cause.
6. Practically speaking, do you think laws limiting abortion will stand up in the long run if they make exceptions for rape and incest? Such laws would entail either denying that life begins at conception or allowing the killing of innocent people under certain circumstances, which is inconsistent.
• Yes. If there isn’t some “life of the mother” provision, or something similar, I do not think that such laws would withstand the inevitable judicial scrutiny.
7. Do you think laws limiting abortion will stand up in the short term if they make exceptions for rape and incest? Explain.
• Yes, for the same reasons stated above.
• Additionally, I personally support no federal law regarding life issues at all, one way or the other. Such things should be left to the individual states. One benefit is that when one of the fifty states passes a solid anti-abortion law, and the law passes judicial scrutiny, there is an established judicial precedence that other states may adopt. No such thing is possible when there is such central tight control on the federal level as we presently have.
8. Do you think laws limiting abortion with certain exceptions are practically applicable?
• Not completely. Abortions would be limited, but slow moving oversight bureaucracies would be put in place to ‘regulate.’ Such things are impractical. It’s all or nothing, baby.
9. Why do you think McCain finds it acceptable to destroy human embryos for ESCR if he claims to be pro-life?
• He’s not sincere. He’s goes through the motions of being pro-life just enough to get a pro-life ranking.
• McCain’s inconsistent comments, his behind the scenes actions, the legislation that he has written, and the observations reported by those who have worked with McCain reveal that McCain cares very little for our right to life, right to liberty, and our right to property.
10. If you had to make an educated guess, what do you think the chances are that McCain will have the opportunity to nominate someone to the Supreme Court? Please answer in terms of percentage, with 100% meaning that you're 100% sure he will have the opportunity to do so.
• I dunno, honestly. I do not gamble for a reason.
11. If McCain gets the opportunity to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, do you believe he'll nominate someone who is solidly pro-life? Please answer in terms of percentage, with 100% meaning that you're 100% sure he'll nominate a solid pro-lifer.
• No, a McCain appointee would be not pro-life at all.
• While it is certainly fair to point to John McCain’s voting record, and his record does not at all count for nothing; a better measure of a candidate’s constitutional philosophy can be made from legislation that the person authored. Legislation that he wrote and asked others to support are worth a lot more weight than any votes he made on other people’s bills.
• Two observations on that point:
a) The pro-life votes are still votes that McCain avoided and attempted to prevent.
b) McCain did personally author legislation. And from his own legislation we can clearly see that McCain believes in anything but the right to life, to liberty, and to property that are guaranteed to We The People.

12. Does it concern you that McCain voted against a bill subjecting the CIA to the same guidelines as the military? Such a vote could possibly allow torture.
• It bothers me that we are fighting a war against an enemy that cut will (and has) off the heads of non-combatants with a rust saw, but McCain is eager to list everything that we will not do to win.
13. Why do you think some pro-choice groups have come out in support of McCain? Does such support concern you?
• Yes, such support bothers me.
• McCain has the support of some pro-choice groups because:
- McCain would naturally appoint judges in that would agree with his own liberal legislating history.

- I think it’s important to note that McCain’s written legislation carries more weight than his history of voting.
a) The legislation that McCain writes and asks others to vote on is the result of McCain’s own constitutional philosophy and personal convictions.
b) The votes McCain made on other people’s legislation are the result of deals and agreements made between politicians.

- I think, as a bonus, the pro-choice community was impressed when McCain wrote legislation that right-to-life groups have had to fight in court, costing the right-to-life organizations time and money (and that was AFTER the Republican for Life had already endorsed McCain the first time.

[jckinsman]

Which leads us to ask "Where have all the good men gone?" JC

[CatherineM]

Just remember than any justice that the next president gets to put forward has to pass the senate confirmation process. That's where the real power is in the abortion issue. Even then, once they put on the robes, they can vote whichever way they want to. Many have gone on to embarrass the presidents that nominated them.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='jckinsman' post='1465982' date='Feb 20 2008, 04:00 AM']Which leads us to ask "Where have all the good men gone?" JC[/quote]

Yeah, exactly.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1465763' date='Feb 19 2008, 04:03 PM']Good questions

The Questions:
1. Hypothetically speaking, if you had to choose between a pro-life Democrat and a pro-life Republican (both also oppose gay marriage), who would you choose?
• The Republican.
2. What do you think/feel about Santorum's doubts about McCain's pro-life stance?
• I feel that the fact that Santorum is no longer in Congress, Santorum is a more free to be outspoken and honest without members of his party pressuring him to tow the party line, etc.
3. Why do you think Santorum has doubts about McCain?
• Because he has had to work with Sen. McCain, he saw McCain on a day to day basis while the tv cameras were away. Santorum personally saw both the ‘public’ McCain and the ‘real’ McCain, and personally knows John McCain’s sincerity (or lack thereof).
4. Do you think Santorum has any motivation to lie or exaggerate regarding McCain's views on pro-life issues?
• No.
5. Those of us who are probably going to vote for a third party candidate over McCain are concerned that supporting McCain could send the message that we're willing to accept the status quo and/or so-so candidates, thus harming the pro-life movement in the long run. Do you think political parties will continue to nominate those who aren't 100% pro-life if pro-lifers vote for so-so candidates? Explain.
• I think the party establishment will care enough to be sure to make an effort to have politically conservative & pro-life candidates receive greater support if McCain loses by a great enough margin.
• Additionally, this process has highlighted a greater problem: the problem is the move that many states have made to primary elections instead of caucuses. And most primaries are open primaries. When both the Dems and the GOP are holding primaries open to the general public, of course two similar candidates will emerge—two candidates who are not enthusiastic (to say the least) about reducing the size and scope of government, and not enthusiastic about the pro-life cause.
6. Practically speaking, do you think laws limiting abortion will stand up in the long run if they make exceptions for rape and incest? Such laws would entail either denying that life begins at conception or allowing the killing of innocent people under certain circumstances, which is inconsistent.
• Yes. If there isn’t some “life of the mother” provision, or something similar, I do not think that such laws would withstand the inevitable judicial scrutiny.
7. Do you think laws limiting abortion will stand up in the short term if they make exceptions for rape and incest? Explain.
• Yes, for the same reasons stated above.
• Additionally, I personally support no federal law regarding life issues at all, one way or the other. Such things should be left to the individual states. One benefit is that when one of the fifty states passes a solid anti-abortion law, and the law passes judicial scrutiny, there is an established judicial precedence that other states may adopt. No such thing is possible when there is such central tight control on the federal level as we presently have.
8. Do you think laws limiting abortion with certain exceptions are practically applicable?
• Not completely. Abortions would be limited, but slow moving oversight bureaucracies would be put in place to ‘regulate.’ Such things are impractical. It’s all or nothing, baby.
9. Why do you think McCain finds it acceptable to destroy human embryos for ESCR if he claims to be pro-life?
• He’s not sincere. He’s goes through the motions of being pro-life just enough to get a pro-life ranking.
• McCain’s inconsistent comments, his behind the scenes actions, the legislation that he has written, and the observations reported by those who have worked with McCain reveal that McCain cares very little for our right to life, right to liberty, and our right to property.
10. If you had to make an educated guess, what do you think the chances are that McCain will have the opportunity to nominate someone to the Supreme Court? Please answer in terms of percentage, with 100% meaning that you're 100% sure he will have the opportunity to do so.
• I dunno, honestly. I do not gamble for a reason.
11. If McCain gets the opportunity to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, do you believe he'll nominate someone who is solidly pro-life? Please answer in terms of percentage, with 100% meaning that you're 100% sure he'll nominate a solid pro-lifer.
• No, a McCain appointee would be not pro-life at all.
• While it is certainly fair to point to John McCain’s voting record, and his record does not at all count for nothing; a better measure of a candidate’s constitutional philosophy can be made from legislation that the person authored. Legislation that he wrote and asked others to support are worth a lot more weight than any votes he made on other people’s bills.
• Two observations on that point:
a) The pro-life votes are still votes that McCain avoided and attempted to prevent.
b) McCain did personally author legislation. And from his own legislation we can clearly see that McCain believes in anything but the right to life, to liberty, and to property that are guaranteed to We The People.

12. Does it concern you that McCain voted against a bill subjecting the CIA to the same guidelines as the military? Such a vote could possibly allow torture.
• It bothers me that we are fighting a war against an enemy that cut will (and has) off the heads of non-combatants with a rust saw, but McCain is eager to list everything that we will not do to win.
13. Why do you think some pro-choice groups have come out in support of McCain? Does such support concern you?
• Yes, such support bothers me.
• McCain has the support of some pro-choice groups because:
- McCain would naturally appoint judges in that would agree with his own liberal legislating history.

- I think it’s important to note that McCain’s written legislation carries more weight than his history of voting.
a) The legislation that McCain writes and asks others to vote on is the result of McCain’s own constitutional philosophy and personal convictions.
b) The votes McCain made on other people’s legislation are the result of deals and agreements made between politicians.

- I think, as a bonus, the pro-choice community was impressed when McCain wrote legislation that right-to-life groups have had to fight in court, costing the right-to-life organizations time and money (and that was AFTER the Republican for Life had already endorsed McCain the first time.[/quote]

Excellent answers, LD.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if it wasn't permissible to vote for a third party during bush's elections, then to be consistent it's not permissible to vote for a third party now. unles the independant has a good chance of winning, that is. this is because you'd effectively be voting for the democrat.
personally, i don't think it's necessarily warong to vote for the independant. but if you insisted that before, to be consistent, you have to insist it now. this is not debateable, and it's irrational to disaree with me. sorry to be blunt but no one has shown how it has any merit to vote for a third party, as far as consistency arguments go. they only offered clear rationalizations.

even if you assume you're going to get a better republican sooner if you allow obama to win, that still means you're getting a democrat right now. at best, most likely, the two phenomena cancel each other out. if you assume the better republican came sooner and lasted longer, that's not very sound in that it's not very likely you're going to get what you want.
besides, mccain has voted 97% prolife and is rated perfect by prochoice groups as too prolife. it's not prudent to think that's not prolife enough, and allow a democrat bent on choice get office even for four years.

to me... that hard core republicans are rationalzing on this shows their true colors. first of all... it's unlikely that a person would be hard core, cause if you think of all the possible issues out there, there's no common theme out there that connects them all in a way that you'd be a hardcore other than playing politics. (like being limited government doesn't translate into liberal use of the death penalty) sure, there would surely be a few out there who would be conservative on almost every issue.... but once they start thinking it's okay to vote indepednat but not during bush's election, they've lost a lot of credibility for why they think what they do on the other issues, or their objectivity and ability to think for themselves.

Edited February 23, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1467664' date='Feb 23 2008, 01:17 PM']if it wasn't permissible to vote for a third party during bush's elections, then to be consistent it's not permissible to vote for a third party now. unles the independant has a good chance of winning, that is. this is because you'd effectively be voting for the democrat.
personally, i don't think it's necessarily warong to vote for the independant. but if you insisted that before, to be consistent, you have to insist it now. this is not debateable, and it's irrational to disaree with me. sorry to be blunt but no one has shown how it has any merit to vote for a third party, as far as consistency arguments go. they only offered clear rationalizations.[/quote]

As for me, I've never been against voting for a third party candidate. In fact, I seriously considered it in the 2004 election.

[mommas_boy]

[b]Hypothetically speaking, if you had to choose between a pro-life Democrat and a pro-life Republican (both also oppose gay marriage), who would you choose? [/b]

I would vote Democrat. I believe in big government, social welfare programs, and the ilk, and believe that Democrats do more to affect social justice than do Republicans. That said, I vote Republican for issues which are deemed non-negotiable by my Church. Very frustrating position to be in, but to be absolutely honest, it is my belief that if you are Catholic, and you are not frustrated with politics, then you're doing it wrong. Besides, frustration is sanctifying, as are obedience to orthodoxy and authority.

(Actually, I love Obama, and would definitely vote for him if not for these reasons.)

[b]Those of us who are probably going to vote for a third party candidate over McCain are concerned that supporting McCain could send the message that we're willing to accept the status quo and/or so-so candidates, thus harming the pro-life movement in the long run. Do you think political parties will continue to nominate those who aren't 100% pro-life if pro-lifers vote for so-so candidates? Explain.[/b]

Yes, I do recognize that we are beginning to play a dangerous game, here. In Illinois, where I'm from, the head of the Republican party recently ran for Governor. She was Pro-Choice. We are very quickly approaching an age where we as Pro-Lifers are seen as fringe voters who don't matter. It's becoming a non-issue. I fear that we are approaching a time when Republicans remove life issues from their platform nationwide.

As Catholics, I feel that we need to mobilize even more to remind Republican leaders of what we find important.

Further, another thing about the Republicans' standard platform that currently frustrates me: once Roe is overturned, the standard Republican line is that they want the issue to return to the states to decide for themselves, rather than making illegal outright at the federal level. Even with this victory, the result would be to decentralize and destablize the abortion battle, making it one that we would have to fight fifty different times.

[b]Why do you think McCain finds it acceptable to destroy human embryos for ESCR if he claims to be pro-life?[/b]

Because he is pandering. I'm beginning to think that McCain is not worried so much about what he believes, but rather about what he thinks his constituencies believe. Problem is, there is so much misinformation out there about science that constituents believe what is scientifically wrong.

Edited February 24, 2008 by mommas_boy

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1467933' date='Feb 23 2008, 11:14 PM'][b]Hypothetically speaking, if you had to choose between a pro-life Democrat and a pro-life Republican (both also oppose gay marriage), who would you choose? [/b]

I would vote Democrat. I believe in big government, social welfare programs, and the ilk, and believe that Democrats do more to affect social justice than do Republicans. That said, I vote Republican for issues which are deemed non-negotiable by my Church. Very frustrating position to be in, but to be absolutely honest, it is my belief that if you are Catholic, and you are not frustrated with politics, then you're doing it wrong. Besides, frustration is sanctifying, as are obedience to orthodoxy and authority.

(Actually, I love Obama, and would definitely vote for him if not for these reasons.)

[b]Those of us who are probably going to vote for a third party candidate over McCain are concerned that supporting McCain could send the message that we're willing to accept the status quo and/or so-so candidates, thus harming the pro-life movement in the long run. Do you think political parties will continue to nominate those who aren't 100% pro-life if pro-lifers vote for so-so candidates? Explain.[/b]

Yes, I do recognize that we are beginning to play a dangerous game, here. In Illinois, where I'm from, the head of the Republican party recently ran for Governor. She was Pro-Choice. We are very quickly approaching an age where we as Pro-Lifers are seen as fringe voters who don't matter. It's becoming a non-issue. I fear that we are approaching a time when Republicans remove life issues from their platform nationwide.

As Catholics, I feel that we need to mobilize even more to remind Republican leaders of what we find important.

Further, another thing about the Republicans' standard platform that currently frustrates me: once Roe is overturned, the standard Republican line is that they want the issue to return to the states to decide for themselves, rather than making illegal outright at the federal level. Even with this victory, the result would be to decentralize and destablize the abortion battle, making it one that we would have to fight fifty different times.

[b]Why do you think McCain finds it acceptable to destroy human embryos for ESCR if he claims to be pro-life?[/b]

Because he is pandering. I'm beginning to think that McCain is not worried so much about what he believes, but rather about what he thinks his constituencies believe. Problem is, there is so much misinformation out there about science that constituents believe what is scientifically wrong.[/quote]

Hear, hear!

[Socrates]

While LD and M_B have given some good responses here, I just thought I'd start out by saying that in answer to question #1, I'd definitely choose the Republican over the Democrat if both were pro-life, etc. Of course, this is presuming the hypothetical Republican is actually more conservative than the hypothetical Dem - to me its more about supporting conservative principles than the GOP.
I'm all for limited, constitutional government, generally less government regulation, and a drastic reduction in tax-and-spend-government programs. (Something the record of both parties has been rather poor on of late, though the Dems always insist on outdoing the Reps in this regard). Ever-increasing government spending does not equal social justice. (And even Pope John Paul II has condemned the socialistic "welfare state.")
While I strongly disagree with Momma's_Boy on his big-government ideals, I commend him for putting the sanctity of human life first.

I'd definitely say McCain would be a better president than either Hillary or Obama, but that's really not saying much. The problem is how much better would he be, and would the potential long-term damage to the conservative foundations of the Republican Party be worth it?
McCain's talking the talk now, but can he be trusted? That's the big question.

[Justin86]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1465527' date='Feb 19 2008, 02:14 PM']A. That's a lot of questions[/quote]
Dude, it's too early for this...