The Five Non-negotiables

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' post='1673244' date='Oct 9 2008, 09:10 AM']I'm in the same situation as you -- my state of Washington always goes Democrat. I've never done any Republican presidential candidates any favors by voting for them. If I lived in a swing state like Florida or Ohio, I would be less likely to consider voting 3rd party.[/quote]
That's my problem: my vote counts for FL. If I don't vote for a 3rd party, that will be the reason.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1673224' date='Oct 9 2008, 01:58 AM']McCain might not be the perfect pro-life candidate, but he is Mother Theresa compared to the alternative.[/quote]


It's Mother Teresa, actually.


(Still amazed that people spell her name wrong even after she was one of the most famous people in the world for 4 decades)

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1673191' date='Oct 9 2008, 01:05 AM']The National Right to Life committee says McCain is pro-life. Good enough for me.[/quote]


Well, the NRTL is wrong. Apparently, they just take McCain at his word and ignore his actual record.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1673124' date='Oct 8 2008, 11:37 PM']That list of non-negotiables spells out the human life issue. Because if a candidate doesn't recognize that good, than all the others (family life, social justice) are empty matters and don't mean a thing.[/quote]

It reminds me of '92 when Clinton won office. There was this Catholic I knew--generally, I would say he was pretty staunch, and he was definitely pro-life. I can never forget his response to my shocked and appalled reaction when he told me he was voting for Clinton: "I know he's pro-choice, but I just think his plans for the economy are better." I was still in my teens--or just past teens at the time--and I was smart enough to know that this didn't add up. How can economy trump the basic right to live? What good is a strong economy when our nation is allowing the killings of millions of its citizens annually? And, even more frightening to think of, can a nation who allows this ever be truly blessed? Ever since abortion became legal our country has sunk deeper and deeper into moral decay and it's only getting worse.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1673010' date='Oct 8 2008, 08:28 PM']Here is how I see it...

McCain may have some flaws in stem cell research and cloning.[/quote]

Flaws?? Is that what we call the destruction and abomination of life now?

[dominicansoul]

So help me please,

...who should a devout Catholic vote for? Who fills all the Catholic qualifications?

[rkwright]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1673271' date='Oct 9 2008, 07:25 AM']Flaws?? Is that what we call the destruction and abomination of life now?[/quote]

First off you really should read the rest of my post. Second, I didn't say cloning was a flaw. I said John McCain's view on cloning was a flaw. Please don't twist words around; this is a serious issue and deserves thorough attention.
[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1673287' date='Oct 9 2008, 08:05 AM']So help me please,

...who should a devout Catholic vote for? Who fills all the Catholic qualifications?[/quote]

If you look in this election section, maybe on page 15-16 there is a long thread called 'who can a Catholic vote for'. Many of the same arguments are present there.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1673287' date='Oct 9 2008, 08:05 AM']So help me please,

...who should a devout Catholic vote for? Who fills all the Catholic qualifications?[/quote]
Neither of the major party candidates. That's why we HAVE to vote third party. Go Ron Paul.

[rkwright]

That is not the only option faithful Catholics have. There is no necessity in voting 3rd party; even Lounge Daddy has admitted as much.

A big discussion on this exact topic, for those who are struggling with this:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=77200"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=77200[/url]

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1673298' date='Oct 9 2008, 10:15 AM']That is not the only option faithful Catholics have. There is no necessity in voting 3rd party; even Lounge Daddy has admitted as much.

A big discussion on this exact topic, for those who are struggling with this:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=77200"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=77200[/url][/quote]
Well, I beg to differ. We'll all have to vote our consciences.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1673268' date='Oct 9 2008, 08:15 AM']It's Mother Teresa, actually.[/quote]
Thanks. It was a late night.

[philothea]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1673151' date='Oct 9 2008, 01:27 AM']Boo-ya! Sa-weet!
Who's it going to be? Bob Barr? Chuck Baldwin? Someone else? Or do you need to think on it?[/quote]
Need to do more research, honestly. The election was so disheartening I'd avoided even thinking about it.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1673191' date='Oct 9 2008, 02:05 AM'][indent]QUOTE (Lounge Daddy @ Oct 8 2008, 11:30 PM) *
And what kind of judges will McCain appoint? McCain is a champion of anti-free speech "campaign reform" legislation. We know this because that legislation has his name on it. McCain will appoint liberal judges to protect that legislation and other legislation like it (think "Fairness Doctrine").
[/indent]

You have any support for these claims? Since when did free speech become more important than pro-life judges? And find some anti-free speech judges out there that are even possible to be nominated...

The National Right to Life committee says McCain is pro-life. Good enough for me.[/quote]

* Do I have any support for these claims? Sure.
McCain, who has never been an active supporter of the pro-life movement (quite the opposite), has been a champion of anti-free speech "campaign reform" legislation. That legislation has McCain's name on it; it is called [url="http://www.reason.com/news/show/34642.html"]McCain-Feingold[/url].

Among the other horrible things about McCain's legislation, it barred pro-life groups from actively supporting pro-life candidates. Pro-life groups, including Right to Life, had to spend time and money in court fighting John McCain's attempt to muzzle the pro-life movement.

Right to Life,[url="http://www.catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=44718"] in a letter to the U.S. Bishops, [/url]stated that John McCain's legislation is "devastating" and warned that McCain's actions will "harm our cause."

It is more than reasonable to expect a president to appoint justices that will support their legislative philosophy. McCain's legislative philosophy has never actively included defense of life. Quite the opposite.

* Since when did free speech become more important than pro-life judges? Ask McCain.
McCain's actions show where his convictions are, what he feels is a priority and a non-issue, and where his heart is. And he will make judicial appointments accordingly.

* The National Right to Life committee says McCain is pro-life.
All the National Right to Life committee says is that McCain *claims* to be pro-life, as opposed to Obama who openly says that he is pro-choice. McCain voted in favor of legislation that other congressmen wrote (McCain saying "me too!"), and McCain's website claims that he is pro-life. In both cases, it is only words. And this is to be expected, because they each have to pander to their base. And like on every other issue that McCain claims to champion, his words are totally at odds with his actions over the years.

As [url="http://www.lifenews.com/nat3612.html"]Sen. Santorum stated often[/url], ""I mean, this is a guy who says he believes in these things. But, I can tell you, inside the room, when we were in these meetings, there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether it’s ... abortion or the like. He always fought against us to even bring them up,"

This is one reason why McCain has been fully endorsed [url="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200802/CUL20080206a.html"]by a pro-choice group[/url]. Twice.

This is but one reason why McCain is going to lose. And a major reason why I cannot go over that cliff with either Obama or McCain---which is where they want to take us all.

[rkwright]

You're really stretching. I mean really stretching.

The idea that McCain would nominate a pro-choice justice is just absurd. It is 99.99% more likely he would appoint a pro-life justice. And based on what Obama has said it is nearly 100% he would strong pro-choice justices.

The worst McCain can be blamed for is being slow on the pro-life front - maybe even putting other things first. Even if we grant that to be true, you have to make the jump that he would find a justice that puts everything else first (which is really absurd considering the Supreme Court considers only 1 issue at time).

Lets say McCain finds this magical justice who puts free speech above the pro-life movement, as McCain's legislation proposes. Do you really think that while the rest of the court views the issue as Freedom of Choice vs. State's interest in people's lives, this McCain clone justice will say 'No its not that... the issue is between Free speech vs. States interest'. You realize thats what you're saying right?? Crazy...

None of your example translate to a Supreme Court case or how the justice's mind works.

Edited October 9, 2008 by rkwright

[rkwright]

Sorry if that last one was too abrasive... I'll give you a hypothetical, so that I may better understand your argument.

Lets assume McCain wins, and appoints the type of Justice you claim he will. Now assume some state bans abortion in order to bring the issue to light.

Case comes before the Supreme Court. 4 Justices go Pro-life (as they have) and 4 go pro-choice (as they always have). McCain's justice is the swing vote.

3 Questions.
1) How will this justice vote?
2) Why?
3) How do we know this?

I'll give my answers.

1) Justice votes pro-life (in turn votes pro-states).
2) The conservative justices believe that individual states should make the decision and there is no constitutional right to an abortion.
3) McCain has said that he favors justices like Scalia (in the saddleback debates). These justices view the abortion debate in this context. McCain favors states rights and would appoint accordingly.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1673476' date='Oct 9 2008, 04:09 PM']3) McCain has said that he favors justices like Scalia (in the saddleback debates). These justices view the abortion debate in this context. McCain favors states rights and would appoint accordingly.[/quote]
McCain "said" that he favors justices like Scalia. McCain has said a lot of things in the desperate grubbing for votes. Just like Giuliani said he'd appoint justices such as Scalia or Thomas despite the fact that his record in public office and indeed in his private life gave the lie to that claim. McCain will *say* whatever he has to in order to win votes.

[rkwright]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1673483' date='Oct 9 2008, 03:16 PM']McCain "said" that he favors justices like Scalia. McCain has said a lot of things in the desperate grubbing for votes. Just like Giuliani said he'd appoint justices such as Scalia or Thomas despite the fact that his record in public office and indeed in his private life gave the lie to that claim. McCain will *say* whatever he has to in order to win votes.[/quote]

Give me some evidence that McCain does not support Scalia.

[qfnol31]

At least with McCain we won't gain a pro-abortion majority on the Supreme Court as we will with Obama.

However, preventing that loss doesn't seem to be a big enough factor for anyone to care.

When Obama wins the Oval Office, won't it bother you knowing that his "reforms" are going to destroy what good is left in our nation?

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1673486' date='Oct 9 2008, 04:22 PM']Give me some evidence that McCain does not support Scalia.[/quote]
Ok, I have shown how McCain has:

#1 - never once taken up the pro-life cause.
#2 - has in-fact championed liberalism and has...
#3 - only been a stumbling block to the pro-life cause.

And you argue that, what? You take McCain's word for it that he would appoint a strict pro-life constitutionalist?

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1673447' date='Oct 9 2008, 03:15 PM']* Do I have any support for these claims? Sure.
McCain, who has never been an active supporter of the pro-life movement (quite the opposite), has been a champion of anti-free speech "campaign reform" legislation. That legislation has McCain's name on it; it is called [url="http://www.reason.com/news/show/34642.html"]McCain-Feingold[/url].

Among the other horrible things about McCain's legislation, it barred pro-life groups from actively supporting pro-life candidates. Pro-life groups, including Right to Life, had to spend time and money in court fighting John McCain's attempt to muzzle the pro-life movement.[/quote]
McCain-Feingold did not target pro-life groups. It affected all corporations. It places limits on ads and fund raising. Organizations can still support the candidate of their choice. Just look at the National Right to Life home page and see if McCain-Feingold has silenced NRL's active support as you say.

[quote]It is more than reasonable to expect a president to appoint justices that will support their legislative philosophy. McCain's legislative philosophy has never actively included defense of life. Quite the opposite.[/quote]
Maybe you should look at this [url="http://www.mccainprolife.org/"]NRL site[/url]. I thought about helping you out on this by using their "send a friend an email" feaure on that page.

[quote]* The National Right to Life committee says McCain is pro-life.
All the National Right to Life committee says is that McCain *claims* to be pro-life, as opposed to Obama who openly says that he is pro-choice. McCain voted in favor of legislation that other congressmen wrote (McCain saying "me too!"), and McCain's website claims that he is pro-life. In both cases, it is only words. And this is to be expected, because they each have to pander to their base. And like on every other issue that McCain claims to champion, his words are totally at odds with his actions over the years.[/quote]
You really should NRL's sites. Your facts are all wrong. "Senator John McCain has an exemplary voting record against abortion. [b]He has cast 31 pro-life votes since 1997[/b]. " Maybe you know more than NRL about NRL and John McCain.

[quote]As [url="http://www.lifenews.com/nat3612.html"]Sen. Santorum stated often[/url], ""I mean, this is a guy who says he believes in these things. But, I can tell you, inside the room, when we were in these meetings, there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether it’s ... abortion or the like. He always fought against us to even bring them up,"[/quote]
Which republican candidate was Santorum supporting at the time he made the statement? That might explain his motivation. In the same article, Brownback states McCain is pro-life. Brownback a liar or not pro-life enough either?