SDG here (not Jimmy) with a DUH-O-GRAM for Republican White House hopeful Rudy Giuliani, whose increasingly blunt dissing of pro-lifers is making it harder and harder for morally sane voters to contemplate holding their nose and focusing on the promise of originalist Supreme Court nominees over Rudy’s actual rhetoric on baby-killing.
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani warned GOP activists in Des Moines on Saturday that if they insist on a nominee who always agrees with them, it will spell defeat in 2008.
“Our party is going to grow, and we are going to win in 2008 if we are a party characterized by what we’re for, not if we’re a party that’s known for what we’re against,” the former New York mayor said at a midday campaign stop.
Republicans can win, he said, if they nominate a candidate committed to the fight against terrorism and high taxes, rather than a pure social conservative.
“Our party has to get beyond issues like that,” Giuliani said, a reference to abortion rights, which he supports.
Oh, the irony.
First Rudy spouts this line about being “a party characterized by what we’re for” rather than “a party that’s known for what we’re against.”
DUH-O-GRAM to Rudy: Being PRO-life is being for something, not just against something. It’s called the right to life — you know, one of those “inalienable rights” mentioned at the top of the Declaration of Independence. It has implications well beyond abortion (euthanasia, clone and kill, and embryonic harvesting to name a few).
But that’s not all! What’s Rudy’s grand vision for a positive party agenda? What does he want his party to be known as the party for, rather than against? Let’s hear it again:
“Republicans can win, he said, if they nominate a candidate committed to the fight against terrorism and high taxes, rather than a pure social conservative.”
Why, Rudy, do you really want your party to be known as the party against terrorism and high taxes? Isn’t that kind of, you know, negative? What has that got to do with what you’re for?
At least you’ve got to appreciate a politician who isn’t afraid to come right out and say what he really thinks, regardless what anyone thinks. It certainly does clarify matters. Rudy’s supporters have always admired his penchant for blunt talk, and he certainly isn’t losing his edge as he moves onto the national stage.
Caveat: In fairness, it must be noted that the last sentence quoted above is not a direct quotation from Giuliani but the reporter’s paraphrase. Whether Rudy actually advanced “the fight against terrorism and high taxes” as the real agenda over “issues like” abortion depends on the accuracy of the paraphrase.
Either way, though, it seems clear that for Rudy the defense of the unborn isn’t just a side issue — it’s a veritable thorn in the side of the Republican party. He doesn’t just want to focus on other issues, he wants to push this plank off the platform.
This raises one of the most salient points from a recent editorial called “NO DEAL, RUDY” that ran in my newspaper, the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER:
If pro-lifers went along [with Rudy], we’d soon find out that a pro-abortion Republican president would no longer preside over a pro-life party. The power a president exerts over his party’s character is nearly absolute. The party is changed in his image. He picks those who run it and, both directly and indirectly, those who enter it.
Thus, the Republicans in the 1980s became Reaganites. The Democrats in the 1990s took on the pragmatic Clintonite mold. Bush’s GOP is no different, as Ross Douthat points out in “It’s His Party” in the March Atlantic Monthly.
A Republican Party led by a pro-abortion politician would become a pro-abortion party.
I have voted in every presidential election since I turned 18, but if the GOP puts forward a pro-abort candidate in ’08, I will happily stay at home with my feet up on the couch and encourage others to do the same.
Just so they know.
It’s looking more and more like, once you get past the campaign rhetoric, the GOP and the Dems are just two wings of the same party.
If only people would collectively act on their frustration about our two-party tyranny, then maybe a good third party or two could enter the scene.
I feel the same way, but can we really just not vote? I thought we had a responsibility to vote, even if only for the less bad candidate.
If Giuliani wins the nomination though I’ll have a hard time decideing who to vote for. He might ultimately be a better president than Hillary or Obama, but I don’t like the direction he’ll take the Republican Party if he wins.
Not me. I’ll vote for whatever pie-in-the-sky third-party pro-life candidate stands absolutely no chance of winning, so that the Republicans can see the vote they didn’t get and understand exactly what they need to do if they want that vote. 🙂
I was responding to Tim J there.
I think a two party system is probably the best way to go if you are not to have the crazy coallition stuff some countries like Israel experience. Of course it becomes a problem when neither party is any good.
Perhaps the best thing would be for the Republican party to just keep decining, and after a rocky period with the Democrates firmly in control have a new conservative party take their place.
SDG, I might do that, except will there be any such candidate?
I too have voted in every election (except one local special election in 1989) since I turned 18. Not voting is not an option.
That is why I voted for Buchanan in ’00 and for Peroutka in ’04. There is nothing wrong with voting a third party. (Oh yeah, and Ross Perot twice before that.) 🙂
J.R., a friendly tip: to avoid “race conditions” where it becomes unclear to whom you’re responding due to intermediate postings, you can always post the quote that you’re responding to in italics at the top of your post. Then it’s clear to everyone.
That is why I voted for…Peroutka in ’04. There is nothing wrong with voting a third party.
There is if you voted for Peroutka :). I looked with great interest at the Constitution Party in 04, but was disturbed enough at parts of their platform to vote Republican despite my distaste for W.
One of the most annoying thing about this is that the Repubs apparently didn’t get the memo that America doesn’t like spineless girly-men running this place. How much further can they bend over backwards before they snap in two?
Brian Day,
Ross Perot!?! The fiscally conservative(?) version of William J. Clinton!?!
I’m sure willing to vote for what Mark Shea would call a Quixotic third party, but only if I really agreed with their platform.
I could also write-in Alan Keyes! Thing is, if all the protest votes are spread out over a wide range of little third parties and also-rans, the effect is pretty much lost. Perot at least provided some focus for those fed up with the Two Shades of Grey parties, even if he was a wingnut.
Is voting, itself, morally mandated in order to be a good citizen, if one is otherwise active and aware of the political process? I don’t know that I could really cast a vote for either Pilate OR Herod.
Jimmy, could you please run for president?!!! I need a candidate I can vote for in good conscience!
I got it! Keyes/ Steele ’08! the ‘dream team.’
“Keyes/ Steele ’08! the ‘dream team.'”
And Bill Cosby as Press Secretary. Heh.
Is voting, itself, morally mandated in order to be a good citizen, if one is otherwise active and aware of the political process?
I have no idea if there is an official Church position on this; but, in my opinion, consciously abstaining from voting based upon a thorough examination and rejection of all candidates is a perfectly valid and even responsible choice.
I know EWTN has claimed that it is a responsibility to vote, even if only for the candidate you think is less bad. I’m not sure what their source for that was though.
I’m voting for Smoky Mountain Schizophrenic!
It would be nice to be able to have a choice between good and better. But I’ve voted in every presidential election from 1972 on, and have never had that option. I’v only had 2 where I thought the choice was between good and bad. All the others were choices between bad and worse. My thought each time was to try to prevent the election of worse.
You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere and not vote for the lesser of two evils. Playing the lesser of two evils has allowed the Republicans to count on the pro-life vote, based on the small difference between Republican and Democrat, at the same time they chase votes from more liberal minded people. We have to make abortion a major issue again by refusing to vote for any candidate who is not pro-life.
I agree with that logic up to a point. At some point, though, I think it makes sense to refuse to support the lesser evil, even at the cost of the greater evil winning a battle, in order to make it clear that the lesser evil isn’t good enough.
I want the Republicans to know that if they ditch the pro-life plank, they lose my vote, even if that means the Democrats win. A Democratic victory might be a serious setback, but a worse setback would be for both major parties to become effectively pro-choice. I won’t cast my vote for that outcome.
I vote pro-life. If the GOP wants my vote, they’ll put forward a pro-life candidate. If they decide they don’t need to put forward a pro-life candidate, they’ll lose my vote and hopefully lose the election. It’s that simple.
Just another reason to get involved in the PRIMARY elections. Sorry, but I just don’t have much patience for folks who wait until the general election then complain about the candidates and stay home “on principle”.
I’m voting for Smoky Mountain Schizophrenic!
Hear, Hear, Monica!
Vote for: SMOKY MOUNTAIN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE!
I hope Billary doesn’t win. If she does, I’m wager she’ll demand the tax-exemption of churches be revoked, illegal aliens be given voter cards, nuetering of wealthy white Catholic Conservative native born men, etc…(okay, maybe not the last one)
I think a massive write-in vote is a great way to let the political parties know that they are missing the boat with their nominees. For example, think of the power of all Catholics writing in Sam Brownback. I have even written in Maximilian Kolbe for a Chicago aldermanic race where there was no “lesser of two evils,” and, therefore, it didn’t matter who won.
Monica writes:
I’m voting for Smoky Mountain Schizophrenic!
Esau writes:
Vote for: SMOKY MOUNTAIN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE!
I’ll run if I get enough support on this blog. But you should know that my platform basically consists of spinning the Smoky Mountains off as a sovereign nation, abdicating the U.S. presidency, and then declaring myself Smokski I, Emperor of Smoky Mountainia.
Whether you vote or not someone will get elected.
As Bill912 says we often have to choose the least worst candidate.
Abortion is not the only important issue, or even the only pro-life issue. If the candidates are equal on eg abortion then weigh them on other important issues.
The Catholic Bishops offer guidance on the main issues.
I for one wouldn’t mind voting for Jimmy Akin (or for Sam Brownback)…if I was sure it wouldn’t nullify my ballot, I’d even write in Maximilian Kolbe.
But Giuliani? …I don’t know…
And what of the Ozarks, Smoky? You expect us to sit idly by and let you consolidate your power in that fashion? Feh!
My spies are already at work…
“I for one wouldn’t mind voting for Jimmy Akin…”
Jimmy has already put the kibosh on that, seeing himself as unqualified, but I really believe (seriously, now) that we would likely be better off to fill every seat in Washington with randomly picked U.S. citizens. Heck, use a random number generating program, pick them out of a phonebook, roll the 10-sided die, whatever (though the citizen ought to get a shot at a saving roll – maybe they don’t WANT to be president… after all, what kind of job is THAT for a Beeblebrox?).
No southern mountains get to split off. You southerners had your shot at all that and lost.
I propose the Adirondacks split off if there’s a Rudy vs. Hillary race. If we got all of northern New York or even all of Upstate New York we could be a real nation bordering both Canada and the US.
And we’d get to dump that city on our state’s smelly posterior and exile Spitzer.
No southern mountains get to split off
Don’t worry. Smoky Mountainia will quickly annex the rest of Appalachia. It *is* an Empire, and Empires need room to breathe.
Couldn’t have said it better myself, but then again, I suppose that’s why we come here, isn’t it?
Tim J,
My only concern about that is that I’ve seen some of the folks who get called for jury duty. Of course, I was living in Detroit proper when I was called, and over fifty percent of the adults in the city are functionally illiterate.
Not that Giuliani or Clinton is somehow morally superior to a functional illiterate, especially simply by virtue of their superior education – after all, we are all precious in the sight of God. My concern is more imagining the policy decisions of the dear folks who skew the stats on high school seniors who can’t find the U.S. on a map of the world.
“Eritrea? Where’s that? I think you just made it up…”
“How many dollars are there in a billion dollars?”
Of course, on the other hand, we’ve got John Kerry.
Someone got a coin I can flip? 😉
but I really believe (seriously, now) that we would likely be better off to fill every seat in Washington with randomly picked U.S. citizens. Heck, use a random number generating program, pick them out of a phonebook, roll the 10-sided die, whatever (though the citizen ought to get a shot at a saving roll – maybe they don’t WANT to be president… after all, what kind of job is THAT for a Beeblebrox?).
Whatever happened to the “Mr. Smiths” (i.e., the caliber of ‘Mr Smith Goes to Washington’) of the world?
Was there ever one to begin with or could there ever even be one given the nature of politics?
That’s probably why we end up picking the least worse rather than the better candidate.
SDG —
About your comment:
I vote pro-life. If the GOP wants my vote, they’ll put forward a pro-life candidate. If they decide they don’t need to put forward a pro-life candidate, they’ll lose my vote and hopefully lose the election. It’s that simple.
Less we forget, McCain is actually AGAINST abortion.
In fact:
McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned
I don’t want Rudy for President, but I want Hilary (or Obama) even less. I already have her for my Senator, the last thing in the world I want to see is Clinton redux.
If Rudy gets the nomination (and I’m still hoping Thompson will get in the race), I will hold my nose and vote for him.
I pray that Fred Thompson joins the race. He’s a man I could happily vote for.
Every single candidate on the GOP side other than Rudy is pro-life (including Romney, even though some are suspect of his recent conversion). Quite simply, vote for any of these candidates other than Rudy, and we can avoid this impending disaster.
BTW, I duly acknowledge there are issues other than abortion to consider, but Rudy’s lacking on most of these as well.
Smokski I, Emperor of Smoky Mountainia, works for me, so long as I get to do the same with the Olympic mountain range. Just call me Mountain Mama. Or ‘Sierra Madre’ if you like, but then I get that mountain range as well.
The Catholic Bishops offer guidance on the main issues.
I have never been that impressed with the Bishops’ guidance. I am surprised though that no one has yet mentioned Catholic Answers’ “The 5 Non-negotiables”.
http://www.caaction.com/pdf/Voters-Guide-Catholic-English-1p.pdf
Dang. I thought the combox automatically generated hyperlinks.
Oh well. Cut ‘n paste the above link. You know the drill.
I rather like the ‘de facto’ three-party system we have here in Canada at the moment. (There’s a fourth party, but it’s separatist and only in Quebec.) It splits the left beautifully to have the left party and the super left party competing for votes.
I’d recommend this to the United States.
Here in the U.S., unfortunately, we only have 2 major parties: the Evil Party and the Stupid Party(also sometimes known as the Spineless Party).
I sent a letter to newspaper saying that his reply to a question about abortion, “Our party has to get beyond issues like that,” is like a Republican in the 1850s saying “Our party has to get beyond issues like slavery. Slavery and abortion deprive some people of their basic human rights, the right to freedom in the case of slavey, the right to life in the case of abortion.
Jimmy has already put the kibosh on that, seeing himself as unqualified
If candidates who are for abortion rights think they are qualified, I’ll take unqualified any day!
Here in the USA we are surprised to hear that the Canadian left is at such a disadvantage. 🙂
Oo oo! Which is which? I can never tell.
As someone who is actually involved on the grass roots level in politics I am very concerned about Ruddy winning the nomination. I already have written my letter of resignation (I am a party leader) if he ends up being the nominee. I WILL NOT be part of a party that supports such a horrible act.
Sorry to burst your bubbles Esau and Smoky Mountain Moniker Changer 😉 but I’m already on the ticket for Emperor/Tsar of Mississouri!
Here in the USA we are surprised to hear that the Canadian left is at such a disadvantage. 🙂
Alarmingly, it actually IS. My boyfriend is Canadian, and I am often shocked at the candidates who are considered ‘mainstream’ in Canadian politics.
Imagine what it would be like if the NDP and the Liberals could actually get along…
Smoky Mountain Moniker Changer
hehehe… nice one, ‘El Catolico’! =^)
Although, Emperor/Tsar is so passe — how about a more illustrious, near-egalitarian title for the office — like “Lord Chancellor-Protector of the High Realm Magellanic, the 7 Summits of Tauri, the Highlands of Abydos and Altera, and All Far Away Kingdoms, Always August”?
I think it would be hard to make the case that one is obliged to vote.
After all, after Italy became a unified country in the nineteenth century, the pope forbade Catholics to have any participation in politics at all–not only couldn’t they vote, but they couldn’t hold office. This situation lasted for decades.
If Guliani gets the nomination, I’m writing in Ed Peters.
Is that really Karl Keating????
(David B., is that you again????)
My preferred title is ‘grand snark of the universe’; I find “Lord Chancellor-Protector …” SOOOOO male dominant. 🙂
I find “Lord Chancellor-Protector …” SOOOOO male dominant. 🙂
Hey, I thought it rather gender-neutral! ;^)
Signed,
Esau
Lord Chancellor-Protector of the High Realm Magellanic, the 7 Summits of Tauri, the Highlands of Abydos and Altera, and All Far Away Kingdoms, Always August
{Place The Great Seal Here}
If Guliani gets the nomination, I’m writing in Ed Peters.
I’m writing in BobSponge SquarePants!
Whatever happened to the “Mr. Smiths” (i.e., the caliber of ‘Mr Smith Goes to Washington’) of the world?
Was there ever one to begin with or could there ever even be one given the nature of politics?
Campaign finance “reform” didn’t help at all. It greatly increased incumbency by making fundraising more difficult
McCain-Feingold? The Incumbent Protection Act?
Kasia, may that day never come. Because then we’re sunk.
The Pro-Life plank is not without wheels, folks. I hear that James Dobson will call for a party split. If you ask me, he needs to make that split happen now. Better now and have at least a year to recover than to threaten until the last minute and lose all hope of getting a full-fledged party up in the running.
I would also like to see a split even if Romney gets the nomination because people who have materialistic values guided by relativistic truths enshrined in their theology (Liberals) are the biggest problem facing our country today.
I have just as much compunction to vote for a pro-life Scientologist.
Lord Chancellor-Protector of the High Realm Magellanic, the 7 Summits of Tauri, the Highlands of Abydos and Altera, and All Far Away Kingdoms, Always August
I’d prefer just King. I’ll take King of Iroquois (aka Upstate NY). If ever my kingdom were to expand enough I’ll be High King and have other states be their own kingdoms with petty kings.
What can I say, I like Kings. I agree I don’t like Emperor. Way too Italian. Ick.
And of course the MSM coverage of Guilliani tries to sell him as a pro-lifer because he is against abortion personally but for it politically.
Well gee thanks Rudes for clearing that up. Let’s see exactly HOW does that distinguish you from EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT who has ever run for office?
And I would like to know if it is possible to be personally against terrorism but politically for.
Or personally for low taxes but politically against.
No, the personal/political dichotomy only comes into play when said idiot politician wants to tell off his constituents as politely as possible “what you want does not matter.”
If you ask me, the Democrats could start saving a lot of face right now if they all said they were personally for an Iraq pull-out but politically against surrender.
StubbleSpark,
But how many Republicans would switch over to this new party? Probably only those who are really into pro-life and don’t mind their vote not going to a potential winner (at least this year, but after that it will be self-reenforcing). It would probably just become a national equivalent of the Right to Life Party we had in New York until a few years ago, and will probably suffer the same fate.
I think we should try to keep one of the major parties pro-life as long as there’s a chance. Everyone Republican should vote for McCain in the next primary. He bairly qualifies as pro-life but he’s close enough that the party can keep some semblance of being the pro-life party.
All the candidates are pro-life. But some aren’t pro-choice.
I like Tsar, not Italian, Slavic.
Eric “Katolykyj” Tsar of Mississouri
Pro-Life is still Pro-Death Penalty if you’re an American Republican. Lets not forget that. And Pro-Life if you’re a republican has never been about pro-social justice either, so it’s only pro-life for the upper-middle class, lets not forget that either. So really, who is being honest. I really think the republicans need to adopt truth in labeling, it’s not abortion that I have a problem with, that is an issue of personal conscience ( heck if you can vote for the war, then how can you call yourself pro-life).
Before you have a problem with a republican calling himself pro-life, you should have issues with a republican calling himself honest on these issues.
Re Brian day:
Dang. I thought the combox automatically generated hyperlinks.
Oh well. Cut ‘n paste the above link. You know the drill.
—- Yes, I automatically ignore the fact that there is a war on, and vote against my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Even though GLBT folk are fighting and dying for this useless war. After what “Catholic Charities” did in Boston and around the country re: adoption for gay people, I don’t think so. Consider this a big middle finger pointed in the pope’s direction on that one – AND WITH GUSTO!
Lee Darnell,
I generally agree with your criticisms regarding some of the logical inconsistencies of the Republicans but I have to disagree on your stance against war.
War is not evil. As a matter of fact, there are times when one is morally obligated to wage war. An absolutist stance against war is not only against the teachings of the faith, but it would leave you with no moral grounds upon which to defend yourself or others worthy of being defended.
To fight a war against the forces of terrorism is good but the way it has been handled has been bad.
But we must be the most spoiled children in the world if we demand nothing but logistical and moral perfection in our leaders and suddenly want to beat tail the moment things start to look like they are being handled by men of the Fall.
I wonder which of the following reactions the cowardly drive-by comment by Anon was meant to elicit:
1) Squeal “Oh my!” while swooning.
2) Revolver click.
3) Bible beat.
Too bad it actually elicited this reaction:
4) (Sarcastic tone) Oh my how unpredictably original. (Yawns)
“it’s not abortion that I have a problem with, that is an issue of personal conscience”
What a cop-out. Everything is “an issue of personal conscience”.
Pro-Life is still Pro-Death Penalty if you’re an American Republican.
Hmmm. I’m pro-life, an American citizen, and a Republican . . . and anti-death penalty. I hope Karl Rove doesn’t come to my house tonight to revoke my membership.
And Pro-Life if you’re a republican has never been about pro-social justice either, so it’s only pro-life for the upper-middle class, lets not forget that either.
Wow. Deep.
Yes, I automatically ignore the fact that there is a war on, and vote against my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Even though GLBT folk are fighting and dying for this useless war. After what “Catholic Charities” did in Boston and around the country re: adoption for gay people, I don’t think so. Consider this a big middle finger pointed in the pope’s direction on that one – AND WITH GUSTO!
“AND WITH GUSTO” – but you’re too scared to post any way but anonymously?
I’m sorry you’re reacting with such venom against the Truth. I think that you know in your heart that the reason your reaction is so strong is because you KNOW the Church teaches the Truth, but admitting so would mean sacrificing earthly pleasure for heavenly gain. I hope and pray you will some day come to see that the heavenly gain is what’s worth striving for in this life, not the earthly pleasure.
Being pro-death penalty or in support of a given war should not disqualify you from being called pro-life.
Those who have commited murder (and certain other crimes I think) have revoked their own right to life, and the State has the right to execute them if desired. Recent Church leaders have, probably rightly, said that the State should not excercise that right if a more merciful means of removing the person from society can be used without endangering innocents. In practicality this may mean a virtual elimination of capital punishment in this country, but this is not a right to life issue.
When it comes to war the war is either just or unjust. If it is a just war the moral and I dare say pro-life thing to do is to go to war to protect innocent lives. If it is an unjust war it is wrong and anti-life. The specific case of Iraq is far from being a textbook example of either. My own opinion is that it was probably an unjust initial invasion but now that we are there the only thing that might make it an unjust war or indeed a war that we do not have a moral responsibility to wage would be whether we have a reasonable chance of success.
On the other hand, those politicians who call themselves pro-life but support abortion in unusually nasty cases (like our President) or embryonic stem cell research (like many Republican congressmen) probably don’t deserve the title. They are just inconsistently pro-death. That is still a more desirible quality though than those who want to continue Roe v. Wade’s level of legalized abortion.
On the other hand, those politicians who call themselves pro-life but support abortion in unusually nasty cases (like our President) or embryonic stem cell research (like many Republican congressmen) probably don’t deserve the title. They are just inconsistently pro-death. That is still a more desirible quality though than those who want to continue Roe v. Wade’s level of legalized abortion.
Please provide documentation/sources on your claims for the above.
As far as the president goes, I don’t recall him actually being pro-death, pro-abortion, as you seem to be claiming here.
Though I do recall folks actually detesting him so much due to his adamant stand against abortion and stem cells.
Of course, there is the matter of the Iraq war, but that’s a whole other story.
Yes, Anon, and I would appreciate it if you were to leave my favorite family-style restaurant in Japan out of this!
http://www.skylark.co.jp/gusto/
J.R. Stoodley:
Further to my comment above, if the Republican party is so morally-detestable (as your comments seem to suggest), kindly cite examples of folks of such high moral integrity as far as the Democratic Party is concerned.
I would really like to know how saintly the Democrats are as compared to the Republicans.
I admit the Republicans do have their issues, but the Democrats aren’t the Saints you seem to make them out to be by merely addressing Republicans in your comments.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Esau,
I can’t speak for J.R., but I will say that part of the reason I am more apt to criticize Republicans for moral transgressions is that the Republican party has sought to define itself as the party of morals. As such, I’m more apt to hold them to the standards they set.
While I was disgusted when Clinton had his notorious liaisons, I couldn’t help thinking “Well, we knew (or should’ve known) what we were getting when we elected him.” Remember Gennifer Flowers? We had pretty solid evidence he was a philanderer from before the ’92 election.
However, when Newt Gingrich (as an example) lambasts Clinton for his (considerable) moral failings, then is revealed to have had extramarital affairs too, he fast loses credibility. I guess it goes back to the ‘glass houses’ bit.
Make any sense?
And the “Demon-rats” get off scott free!
Does a certain expression about “the tribute vice pays to virtue” mean anything to y’all? Anyone? Bueller?
However, when Newt Gingrich (as an example) lambasts Clinton for his (considerable) moral failings, then is revealed to have had extramarital affairs too, he fast loses credibility. I guess it goes back to the ‘glass houses’ bit.
The problem with this example is that Gingrich went after Clinton not for having the affair, but for lying under oath about it. But your point is still a decent one.
And while I’ll let JR defend himself, I hardly think he was saying the Democrats were saints. In fact, he seemed to be defending some Republican positions. He was just noting his disappointment with the failings of some members of the GOP, which is a fair criticism.
One more thing on the death penalty. It’s not like there’s that deep a division between the parties as there is with abortion. John Kerry was the first Democratic presidential candidate who opposed the dp since Doukakis, and I believe Hillary is pro-dp as well. I’d say that the GOP leans slightly more pro-dp than the Democratic party, but again, it’s not quite as stark a difference as it is with abortion.
And let’s not even discuss the difference in the way the Church treats the two issues, because that is a whole ‘nother topic.
derringdo,
No. Please explain.
BTW, a huge victory at SCOTUS today (how rarely do we get to say that?) The Court has upheld the ban on partial birth abortions. Here are the opinions.
Just out of curiosity, which of the announced Republican primary candidates for the 2008 election are actually pro-life? Does anyone know?
The full saying, attributed to I think Lord Acton goes: “Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.”
The point being (aside from a salient comment on the psychology of people like Gringrich), that a hypocrite at least knows what is right and might be capable of doing something about it.
Michael: depends on your definition of “actually pro-life”: McCain has a fairly high but not infallible voting average on the subject, ditto Brownback, most of the others say they are with varying degrees of convincingness. None are as liberal-or as openly liberal-as Giuliani on the subject.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
William:
Then I take it that voting for the lesser of two evils wouldn’t make any difference at all and just as bad as voting for evil itself?
In that case, why vote at all?
Also, need I remind you that 2 of the Justices appointed by the President were known to be against abortion (thus, one of the reasons for their appointments) and that the Republican Party has done more AGAINST ABORTION and Pro-Life issues than the Democrats.
Among other things, had we been under a Democrat (in particular, a liberal), stem cell research would’ve perhaps become a ‘full-blown’ endeavor ‘blessed’ with the President’s utmost approval.
The President and the Republican Party deserves criticism for many, many things, but I find the current stand of the Democratic Party as hardly acceptable in comparison.
I can’t speak for J.R., but I will say that part of the reason I am more apt to criticize Republicans for moral transgressions is that the Republican party has sought to define itself as the party of morals. As such, I’m more apt to hold them to the standards they set.
Kasia:
The same exact statement can be made with regards to Catholics!
Now, that doesn’t necessarily make what they stand for wrong (as well as its base) — just the actions of a certain of their party.
Also, as regards Gingrich, I did hear from a political commentator from one of the news stations out here that it was Clinton’ perjury that Gingrich actually had an issue with at the time of the scandal. Certainly, that doesn’t absolve him of his sin.
I will just say though that even in spite of the personal moral failings of some of the individuals in the party, the base itself, in comparison to the Democratic Party, has a far better stand on some of the issues (e.g., Pro-Life) and done more for such than the Democrats.
The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.
…
The decision pitted the court’s conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush’s two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.
Okay — now wait a minute, I thought that the President and the Republican Party were politicians who call themselves pro-life but support abortion and, thus, don’t deserve the title?
It doesn’t matter who wins, because we will lose.
Elect me for Tsar!
I’ll quash all opposition and end the political bickering.
I’ll end all abortion and contraception in the public marketplace. I’m also for Universal Healthcare!
I’m for a strong military, a strong, central government and a return to Catholic morality!
Those of you who know, ask Aristotle which is the best form of government… it’s not democracy.
Okay — now wait a minute, I thought that the President and the Republican Party were politicians who call themselves pro-life but support abortion and, thus, don’t deserve the title?
Oh come on now. Who would Bush’s nominees have been if not for massive pressure from the pro-life base? Harriet Myers and Alberto Gonzales – two pro-aborts.
Michael —
The two in the latter is hardly worth mentioning especially considering the fact that what matters is that the President selected individuals that would do right by the Pro-Life effort in a position where such efforts would matter most — ON THE COURT!
Thank God!
However, when a Democrat becomes President in 2008, this might be all for naught.
It doesn’t matter who wins, because we will lose.
Elect me for Tsar!
I’ll quash all opposition and end the political bickering.
I’ll end all abortion and contraception in the public marketplace. I’m also for Universal Healthcare!
I’m for a strong military, a strong, central government and a return to Catholic morality!
Those of you who know, ask Aristotle which is the best form of government… it’s not democracy.
Dr. Eric “Katolykyj”:
I would’ve voted for you if you included as part of your platform the restoration of the Papal States and, above all, Temporal Power to the Pope, as it used to be in olden days!
Wow. I’m stunned.
I’m really surprised that Kennedy was in the majority.
Darth Ginsburg’s opinion strikes me as somewhat humorous. ‘The decision refuses to take previous court decisions seriously’. According to the non-originalist types, it doesn’t really have to do so. Unless of course its your tail getting twisted.
I think I’ll vote for Dr. Eric anyway!
Just to be clear, Fred Thompson is also pro-choice. http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/04/fred-thompson-pro-choice-republican.html
On Abortion: “Government should stay out of it… The ultimate decision must be made by the women… Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.” — Fred Thompson, July 1994
Oh come on now. Who would Bush’s nominees have been if not for massive pressure from the pro-life base?
Michael:
Let’s just see how much influence the Pro-Life base will have over the anticipated 2008 Administration of the Democrats.
I can’t wait to see what wonderful fruits the Democrats will bring forth in terms of ‘Pro-Life’ *cough* (or should I say ‘Pro-Death’) measures.
Michael, I don’t know if it’s fair to quote Thompson in 1994. He claims to have changed his mind since.
Eileen: and he is, I’m told, one with a fairly consistent pro-life voting record in the Senate.
Thompson is Pro Life:
I think I’ll vote for Dr. Eric anyway!
Dr. Eric — if we join forces and run together, we can combine all 5 of our supporters from this blog and have a fighting chance.
Once we’re in power, you can rule Missisouri and I’ll take on Appalachia. The resultant power vacuum in the rest of the former United States can be filled by the winner of a rock-paper-scissors best-of-7 between the Ozark Agitator and King J.R. Stoodley of the Iroquois.
Dear Rudy,
Step away from the mirror.
Stop worshipping the culture of death.
Human rights belong to ALL humans (including the unborn)
Smoky Mountain.
You got it!
Kasia gets to be Duchess of Southern Illinois!
Everyone who votes for me gets a powerful position.
Since America is no where near Italy I cannot guarantee the Pope getting back the Papal States. And I think it is better for him not to be a temporal ruler. But he can have a few B2 Bombers if he wants them! 😉 And some Barrett Sniper Rifles for the Swiss Guard, if he thinks they need them. 😉
The Ozarks are actually a part of Mississouri so the Agitator will have to settle for a Duchy. ;-P
Woohoo!
…but make sure it’s only southern Illinois, Dr. Eric – I don’t want to have any responsibility for Chicago!!! 😉
Duchess Kasia,
I went to EIU and SIU and everyone from Chicago will tell you there’s Chicago and then there’s Southern Illinois!
(Emphasis on Southern on their part, as in they thought that everyone from downstate were hicks!)
“Since America is no where near Italy I cannot guarantee the Pope getting back the Papal States. And I think it is better for him not to be a temporal ruler. But he can have a few B2 Bombers if he wants them! 😉 And some Barrett Sniper Rifles for the Swiss Guard, if he thinks they need them. ;-)”
I believe the Lateran treaty allows for the Vatican to have a Navy. I would send him an aircraft carrier and a nuclear sub or two. Like a good Euro-Royal, he could alternate between his traditional soutaine and an admiral’s uniform. I think that would be pretty slick.
Besides, a well manned Papal fleet might be useful in the waters off the coast of Uganda or East Timor.
Oh no, I think I just wrote JTC’s next tract for him.
D’oh.
Does Simple Sinner want to be my Ambassador to the Holy See? 😀
LOL – Dr. Eric, my mother’s parents were from Peru and Peoria, but my mother grew up in Geneva and St. Charles.
To Southern Illinois I will be a clement Duchess…but over Chicagoland, I would rule with an iron fist! 😉
Duchess Kasia,
We are pleased that you have accepted our gracious invitation to rule Southern Illinois as our Duchess.
(Man, this is too fun!)
I concur with the invitation to Kasia.
I am sure that the good Duchess will faithfully collect the tribute that is due the Noble Highlanders of Appalachia and Ozarkia from the heathen lowlanders.
It’s probably a good time to start discussing the location of our Summer Palaces, no?
I select the eastern shoreline of Lake Michigan, between what is now Ludington and Manistee. I’ll take the Lower Peninsula of Michigan under my protection (ruled by a puppet King of course). The Yoopers in the North are too unpredictable and wild. I leave the Upper Peninsula to the Canadians where it belongs.
I’ll stick with my Capital in St. Louis Chief city of Mississouri. I like the heat in the summer and the lack of snow in the winter (except a few crazy weeks here and there.)
“Oh come on now. Who would Bush’s nominees have been if not for massive pressure from the pro-life base? Harriet Myers and Alberto Gonzales – two pro-aborts.”
That’s a very good point. However, we must also consider that if we’d had Kerry or Gore instead of Bush, not even massive pressure from pro-lifers would have made any difference: we’d have been stuck with two flaming baby-killing judges.
My summer palace should be in the U.P. Dr. Eric, may I have Wisconsin and Da Yoopers under my protectorate?
…that way I can swing down to the L.P. and visit Smokski, or come from the southern reaches of my duchy to meet you in St. Louis…
…besides, it’s just too fun to think about all the moose I can ride up by Escanaba…
Fair enough, Jordan, though I have heard it argued that Bush put forward Miers as a sort of a shock nominee (so that his next, more pro-life nomination would pass more easily). After a nominee who had no judicial experience whatsoever, I think even the Dems were relieved to see Alito.
It may be totally bunk – he may have thought he could get away with Miers – but it is possible, I suppose.
Never mind, Jordan…that should have been directed to the person to whom you were responding.
I’m just having too much fun thinking about riding moose through my duchy. 😉
We grant you the Upper Peninsula Duchess Kasia.
What the heckaroonie is a Yooper?
What the heckaroonie is a Yooper?
What a tool!
Guiliani has said he would appoint “strict constructionists” or originalists as supreme court justices, so pro-lifers should be happy with him. I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice; I am ambivalent.
Esau,
Please explain your post.
Was that an insult or an explanation?
Esau, “In that case, why vote at all?” Well, that is most certainly an option I may have to consider. As a Catholic I cannot go against my conscience.
Was that an insult or an explanation?
Neither — I was just teasing.
Heard the phrase on House last nite and thought I would use it.
I don’t actually know what it means exactly but I found it quite an interesting term.
I’ll put that one next to David B’s “Hell’s Bells”.
Esau – you watch House? Sweet! I’ve only seen a couple of episodes, but I LOOOOVE Hugh Laurie…
“What a tool” is definitely an insult though, and as Dr. Eric is the next Earthly Supreme High Pooh-Bah of Mississouri, you might want to be a little more deferential… 😉
“Yooper,” for those of you who don’t know, is a colloquialism for a resident of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The local accent makes it known as “Da Yoo-Pee” (sophomoric humor not intended), hence its locals are known as “Yoopers.”
If you’re wondering what exactly the U.P. accent *does* sound like, watch Fargo and toss in a little bit of Canadian vowel. 🙂
As a Catholic I cannot go against my conscience.
William:
As a Catholic, you should strive to make the defeat of evil possible — even if this means ‘baby steps’.
You can’t ever find an ideal political candidate that will stand for every single Catholic ideal. It’s completely unheard of.
However, in terms of Pro-Life issues, I prefer to hedge my bet on those who might actually make a dent (even a small one) against the very horrors that have resulted from Roe v. Wade.
You can’t just sit still and do nothing and let the law remain unchanged and allow the genocide to continue. That, by the way, is also going against one’s conscience.
You need to support those who might actually support Pro-Life issues and make a difference (even if it’s a small one).
Michael mentioned above that it’s because of the Pro-Life base that the President and the Republican Party exerted such efforts toward Pro-Life issues.
Well, as I mentioned, come 2008 when the Democrats take over the Presidency, let’s just see this influence of the Pro-Life base and the fruits that will be borne out of that administration.
Kasia:
Yup — love House!
By the way, what does ‘tool’ mean in that context?
Esau,
It’s hard for me to come up with an exact definition. I’ve always thought of it as similar to “dork”…but urbandictionary.com defines it as:
tool
One who lacks the mental capacity to know he is being used. A fool. A cretin. Characterized by low intelligence and/or self-steem.
That tool dosen’t even know she’s just using him.
…so I guess “dork” isn’t that far off, but it definitely lacks some of the nuanced subtext of “tool”… 😉
“Tool” is more phallic than that.
Evidently you didn’t get to the second half of my original post… or read the Register editorial.
Fortunately the principles of moral theology clarifying the moral viability of voting for candidates with some morally unacceptable views over candidates with even worse views are well established.
If you like Hugh Laurie, you can find clips of “A Bit of Fry and Laurie” on YouTube.
FUN – NEE.
Esau,a Catholic is never ever to go against his/her consience. Cardinal Newman has some great stuff on this.
Tim J.:
Thanks for the suggestion, Tim J.!
I’ve got to admit, I was rather surprised to find out that Laurie was actually a British actor — especially since on House he does a great job in affecting an American (?) accent.
Esau, that’s one of the reasons I love him so much. It’s a rare Brit who can get the American vowels right – usually they’re a dead giveaway.
Esau,a Catholic is never ever to go against his/her consience.
William:
A Catholic is also not to sit idly by and allow such a horrible evil to continue!
Just you wait and see — when the Liberal Democrats take over the presidency in 2008, the horrific genocide that is abortion will be given such full consent and support by this administration, the only ‘fruits’ you’ll be seeing are poisonous ones and the so-called influence Michael refers to in terms of the Pro-Life base is nothing but an illusion.
The only way to effectively combat abortion is to hack away at its roots.
I believe this can only be possible if the sitting president (and his political base) is one that will support such measures and will do what is necessary to make it happen (even if it means ‘baby steps’).
Clearly, the Democrats, as they stand, are not Pro-Life by any means.
I still find it disconcerting that it seems you will only vote for somebody that embodies every Catholic ideal there is (which I find hardly realistic, especially given our secular world today), that you would not make use of your vote to give political backing to those candidates that may actually do some good, at least, in terms of these particular issues.
Esau, that’s one of the reasons I love him so much. It’s a rare Brit who can get the American vowels right – usually they’re a dead giveaway.
Kasia —
Not only that, he got the mannerisms and such of a typical American Curmedgeon (sp?) down to a tee! ;^)
A Meesage To You, Rudy
(The Specials)
“Stop your messing around
Better think of your future
Time you straightened right out
Creating problems in town
Rudy, a message to you
Rudy, a message to you
Stop your fooling around
Time you straightened right out…”
————————-
Sorry… I couldn’t resist, what with the topic and the Brit references.
I miss ska.
Esau, I will never vote for the lesser of two evils. Catholic moral theology demands nothing less.
Care to cite a source for that, William?
Catholic moral theology demands nothing less.
Catholic Moral Theology — interesting, but have you actually studied it?
By what you’re implying here, nothing you’ve said actually agrees with it.
Well, let’s start with moral theology 101. The end never justifies the means in Catholic moral theology. Never! Hence, voting for evil (even “lesser”) is never the moral thing to do. Hitler or Stalin are running against each other in an election. One of them is more evil than the other. (you choose) Is it the morally correct thing to do to vote for the “lesser” evil?
Let’s take two candidates running for Congress. One is pro-abortion and the other is pro-life who is willing to give exemptions in the cases of rape and incest. I could, in good conscience, vote for the “pro-life” candidate. Doing so would be a means of limiting evil. This would not be voting for the lesser of two evils.
I will never vote for the lesser of two evils.
Only God alone is good. Is He on the ballot?
I will never vote for the lesser of two evils.
“Only God alone is good. Is He on the ballot?”
And everything else is evil? Now that’s some interesting theology!
Rudy is a hypocrite on abortion
Christine
TheWorld…IMHO
When Stalin and Hitler are running, you write in a third party candidate, or perhaps the Pope. When Stalin and Bush are running, you vote for Bush, even if you think he’s not perfect, he’s a lot more acceptable than the other option.
Vote in the Republican primaries and we might avoid King Rudy being shoved down our throats by the media elite who want two pro-death candidates running in the end. All other candidates to at least SOME extent oppose abortion and are significantly better, even if there are things (and there are) to dislike about them.
Not voting shows Catholics will sit at home and do nothing, voting for what we WOULD have liked to see shows a protest.
“What the heckaroonie is a Yooper?”
Someone from the U.P. (Upper Peninsula of Michigan)… someone from the U.P. is a U.P.-er… Yooper.
What DO they teach doctors in doctor school these days?
Sheesh
oops – that was covered….
Well, there you have it —
Link:
GOP’s best hope is a New York Catholic
From the article: “…[Giuliani] is a Northeastern Catholic. He is pro-choice, pro-gay rights…”
I really wish there was quick easy way to make the distinction between someone who was baptized Catholic and someone who actually is Catholic. It creates huge scandal the way high profile people are described as Catholic in one sentence and then described as having views in direct opposition to the Church in the next. Your average man on the street gets the idea that one can legitimately be both.
There’s got to be some one-word term we can use to make the distinction between orthodox and heterodox Catholics.
I really wish there was quick easy way to make the distinction between someone who was baptized Catholic and someone who actually is Catholic.
Brian,
You hit on exactly the reason why I posted it.
To label this particular man ‘Catholic’ in the manner above seems quite a contradiction in terms.
Note, I am not judging the man, but that his actions are clearly against Catholic beliefs and morals, and so to present such a man in this manner (i.e., GOP’s best hope is a New York Catholic) is like ‘false advertising’ since he does not uphold beliefs and morals distinctly Catholic; much like a ‘Catholic’ University that doesn’t even teach anything Catholic.
I just e-mailed the writer of the column: “Giuliani is Catholic? By what definition of the term?” If he replies, I’ll let y’all know.
The problem is it’s hard to make the distinction without labeling heterodox Catholics as not Catholic. They’re still Catholic; they still have a right to the sacraments (reconciliation first). And the Church is the refuge of sinners.
I personally wouldn’t mind if orthodox Catholics were colloquially called Papists to separate them from those who are Catholic in name only. I’m sure there have been other groups throughout history who have turned derogatory terms into prideful ones to refer to themselves (I just can’t think of one off the top of my head). I especially like it because many heterodox Catholics would have a fit if someone suggested they took direction from the Pope (picture your least favorite “Catholic” politician here). But I’m also younger and haven’t ever really been called a Papist in the anti-Catholic way it’s traditionally used. It may be too offensive to be used in a positive way.
You may be onto something, Brian. An example would be the term “Yankee Doodle”. During the Revolutionary War, the Redcoats coined that term for us, and even sang a song about it. Patriots adopted the term (not to mention the song) and wore it proudly. Some of their motivation may have been a desire to thumb their noses at the Redcoats.
How about “puppet”? Then we can say Rudy is not a puppet of Rome.
I just e-mailed the writer of the column: “Giuliani is Catholic? By what definition of the term?” If he replies, I’ll let y’all know.
He’s technically Catholic. He’s baptised and confirmed Catholic. I’d guess he goes to Mass at least once in a while if not regularly. The article hasn’t said anything factually incorrect.
The problem is one with language. Catholic, when refering to person, can mean both 1-someone who is baptized/confirmed Catholic or 2-someone who tries to follow the Magisterium of the Church.
There are good reasons to use both definitions. Unfortunately the article uses definition 1 completely out of context by comparing it to Rudy’s anti-life, anti-marriage beliefs.
“Papist Puppet”
I know that, Brian. I want to see if Pinkerton does.
How about “puppet”? Then we can say Rudy is not a puppet of Rome.
Tomas, are you suggesting puppet be used or are you using it to show how Papist is a really bad term to pick? Unfortunately I can’t hear your tone over the internet.
In one sense puppet is fitting for Christians: our purpose in life is to do God’s will. In another sense it’s not: the whole point is to choose to do God’s will – that’s why he made us human and not… well… puppets.
I guess that highlights the pros and cons of adopting the term Papist as one of our own. In its most general sense it means one who follows the Pope, which can be a very good thing. In the way its been commonly used throughout history it means one who follows the Pope instead of God (or instead of thinking for himself or something negative like that). If orthodox Catholics did start referring to themselves as Papists they would change the meaning of the word. Much like homosexuals changed the connotation of the word gay (only instead of turning a slur into a positive term they hijacked a perfectly good word).
I’m sure there have been other groups throughout history who have turned derogatory terms into prideful ones to refer to themselves (I just can’t think of one off the top of my head).
Uhhh… Brian, did you not know that the word “Protestant” was originally meant as a derogatory term that was eventually transformed (by those whom the term concerned) into something positive?
Then we can say Rudy is not a puppet of Rome.
If you are using the term “puppet” to describe those who follow (or, at least, try to follow) Christ’s genuine Teachings, then the Apostles were truly “puppets” of Christ — and you can count me as one as well!
Pinnochio was a puppet too.
I thought we had a responsibility to vote,
Not in this country.
Morally, it depends. Voting is not too important when choosing between implanting the Devil’s reign quicker or less quicker.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/6/82226.shtml?s=ic
“Look, for someone who went to parochial schools all his life, this is a very frightening thing that’s happening right now,” Giuliani chuckled.
================
Time to ditch that pro-abortion stand, Rudy. Looks like you’ve got disagreement from above.
Giuliani is as “Catholic” as Schwarzenegger:
“Catholic” Schwarzenegger To Terminate Religious “Interference”
“I am a Catholic and a very dedicated Catholic, but that does not interfere with my decision-making because I know that stem cell research, the way we are doing it in California … is the right way to go and will save, very quickly down the line, lives and cure a lot of these illnesses,” he said.
“Catholic” Schwarzenegger To Terminate Religious “Interference”
I think that they are no more Catholic than I am a Buddhist. “By their fruits, you will know them.”