« Mysteries | Main | Just when I think... »
October 19, 2004
Big Tent Trumps Culture of Life
...again.
Schwarzenegger endorses Prop. 71
In a statement released today by the Office of the Governor, Schwarzenegger said, "I am, of course, a supporter of stem cell research. Research that we do now holds the promise of cures for tomorrow. California has always been a pioneer. We daringly led the way for the high-tech industry and now voters can help ensure we lead the way for the bio-tech industry. The creativity and resources are right here in California. We are the world's bio-tech leader and Prop. 71 will help ensure that we maintain that position while saving lives in the process. I encourage Californians to join me in voting for Prop. 71."
An interesting, contrarian op-ed from the SF Chronicle on the issue:
The $3 billion would be awarded and overseen by the so-called Independent Citizen's Oversight Committee (ICOC) -- a 29-member group composed of representatives of California universities, nonprofit research institutions, private life science companies and disease advocacy organizations. The ICOC would have broad new powers to define the trajectory of human cloning technology (somatic cell nuclear transfer) over the next two decades. It would also rewrite ethical guidelines for human-subjects research and for allocating patents to the private sector.
This structure of governance is a recipe for trouble. When we mix big money, big science and new biotechnologies with the state, stronger mechanisms for public accountability are required.
Contrary to what its name suggests, the ICOC is neither "independent" of interest-group politics nor does it include any "citizen" members. Hard- driving university scientists, disease group advocates and private industry executives who will make up the ICOC all have vested interests in how the money is to be used. Scientists want to cure disease, but they may be focused on building institutes and generating papers. Companies want to make money, and charge the public high prices for therapies. Advocates for research on particular diseases, although they deserve to be at the table, do not represent the collective public interest when they battle to make their diseases the highest priority for the public.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1289877
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Big Tent Trumps Culture of Life:
Comments
Of course, given the Gov's known pro-abortion stance, this comes as no surprise.
But the news from California is not all grim. After Mass this past Sunday, a local physician gave a moving and science-based talk on stem cells--embryonic and otherwise. She is the mother of 5, though one child died in infancy and another is unlikely to live beyond age 2.
Both of these children have or had a condition for which stem-cell therapy might hold promise. Yet their physician-mother stands firm.
So, pray for us out here--and if you live in California, get out and vote no on 71.
Posted by: Cranky Lawyer at Oct 19, 2004 9:42:25 AM
Yet, next general election, California Catholics must vote for the Governor as uniformly as they now must support the President -- since, after all, he will not be as bad as the Democrat would be. Right?
Posted by: Celine at Oct 19, 2004 10:25:17 AM
I wonder if that's clear - that he wouldn't be as bad.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Oct 19, 2004 10:31:55 AM
"Big tent trumps culture of life?"
Do tell.
Ignatius aka "This year's Willie Horton"
Posted by: Ignatius at Oct 19, 2004 10:35:28 AM
This sounds like the N.I.C.E.
Posted by: Sydney Carton at Oct 19, 2004 10:36:00 AM
I share this excerpt from a recent ZENIT interview with George Weigel on Pope John Paul II in light of the 26th anniversary of his pontificate....
ZENIT QUESTION: In a world that often has difficulty dealing with sickness or suffering, what lessons can we learn from the way in which the Pope is living with his physical limitations?
Weigel: The Pope is teaching the world that there are no disposable human beings: everyone counts, infinitely, from conception until natural death.
Are the late Christopher Reeve or Michael J. Fox the only people to whom we should look for counsel on embryo-destructive stem-cell research? Why not look at John Paul II, who has not arranged his convictions to accommodate his personal circumstances? Isn't his witness to the truth as compelling and forceful as the others'?
Posted by: ep at Oct 19, 2004 10:39:55 AM
ep: Amen!
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Oct 19, 2004 10:41:44 AM
Just curious. Has anyone filed an episcopal suit charging the gropinator with scandal, as some wingnuts have done against John Kerry?
Did Pope Karl have anything to say during the recall election for his own Governor?
And does the gropinator receive Communion?
Posted by: Esquire at Oct 19, 2004 10:49:00 AM
Hey, Ig
The reference is to two ways various elements of the GOP likes to describe itself. Leadership has in the past trumpeted the "big tent" which accomodates the pro-lifers and pro-choicers, Prez goes on about how important the "culture of Life" is to him and, by implication, the GOP.
There you go.
Posted by: amy at Oct 19, 2004 10:54:48 AM
Being a happy denizen of Sodom-by-the-Sea (the San Francisco Bay Area), I was surprised to see the Chronicle essay on Prop 71. It's much more moderate than one would usually expect to read therein.
But, then, I do agree with them, so I'm not complaining.
The Arnold is a smooth carpetbagger, but his true persona has been coming out regularly recently. He'll go down in flames in the not-too-distant future.
But deny him the Eucharist? Come on, now ...he's a REPUBLICAN! He has a "pass" on these things ... didn't you know that? Silly people!
Posted by: Jimmy Mac at Oct 19, 2004 11:06:11 AM
Right, JM. That's why Balestrieri has now added Susan Collins to his list - because GOPers have a pass. Sheesh.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Oct 19, 2004 11:07:45 AM
Sweet Jesus Kevin, do you really consider Susan Collins anything other than a Republican in Name Only? A Republican front group (Citizens for Sound Economy or some such drivel) actually ran an ad against her with a French flag waiving in the background. She's as much a Republican as Zell Miller is a Democrat.
If this lowlife was non-partisan, he'd go after Guiliani, or Pataki, or the gropinator (you know, someone who actually got a primetime spot at the Republican National Convention).
Posted by: Esquire at Oct 19, 2004 11:10:43 AM
Esqire,
It's just "Kevin." Not "Sweet Jesus Kevin." My parents had better sense than that.
And many of us GOPers don't think Guiliani or (especially) Pataki or Ahnuld are much more than RINOs, either.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Oct 19, 2004 11:17:46 AM
Kevin, they're the frontrunner for the next nomination (the gropinator only if Orrin Hatch follows through on his promise to try to amend the Constitution).
By the reasoning on this board, they are, however, Catholics in Name Only. But we haven't heard much about that.
Posted by: Esquire at Oct 19, 2004 11:19:34 AM
Esquire,
I think on this board, the presidential election is the focus right now. I think during the GOP convention there was plenty of conversation about Arnold, Pataki, Guiliani and the like.
Probably more discussion about them than discussion we hear from you about the humanity of unborn kids.
Which is part of the reason why your posts are getting really, really boring.
Posted by: jen at Oct 19, 2004 11:25:58 AM
Hey Esq, remember to have a soft boiled egg with your Kerry toast on Nov 3d! ;)
Posted by: john hearn at Oct 19, 2004 11:47:21 AM
Wel perhaps the presidential election is the focus, but here in California we have a senatorial cadidate (Barbara Boxer) who makes John Kerry look pro life. Yet, I suspect that me, John Hearn and about three other people will vote agaisnt her.
Posted by: Joe McFaul at Oct 19, 2004 12:00:08 PM
Here's hoping the word "one-termer" describes Schwarzenegger's political career.
Posted by: Dale Price at Oct 19, 2004 12:06:12 PM
Esq.,
Let me get this straight. When Catholics criticize pro-abort Democrats, they're partisan. When Catholics criticize pro-abort Republicans, they're really going after Democrats, so they're still partisan.
When you flip a coin, are your rules "heads I win, tails you lose"?
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Oct 19, 2004 12:09:34 PM
Hey Joe, I forgot that you are a fellow Golden Stater! What do you make of Barb's ads making her look like some nice cookie-baking grandma? I wonder why she bothers as I have yet to hear from her opponent - I can't even remember his name! Maybe she's angling for a spot on Kerry's cabinet.
Posted by: john hearn at Oct 19, 2004 12:15:22 PM
Shwarzenegger is truly miserable on the pro-life and stem cell issues. As a Catholic he should be denied communion for his embrace of the culture of death. I trust that the Democrats in California will run a pro-life candidate against him when he runs for re-election. (I suspect I will die of old age before that happens.)
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Oct 19, 2004 12:24:28 PM
Well, I'm just trying to be a really, really serious Catholic. And Pope Karl tells me that to be a really, really serious Catholic, things like stem cell research are "non-negotiable". And he even bought alot of space in USA Today to remind me about that. So I'm wondering about the deafening silence about the Catholic presiding over perhaps the State with the most abortions per year, who also endorses state funding for ESCR. I'm just wondering. So I can be serious.
Posted by: Esquire at Oct 19, 2004 1:08:33 PM
Esquire,
When you show that you're serious about the moral teachings of the Catholic Church and not just about making silly debaters points, then I'll know that you're serious indeed.
Posted by: john hearn at Oct 19, 2004 1:29:40 PM
I hope Esquire doesn't go into deep shock, but I think he's basically right on this. If, as I believe, receipt of the Eucharist by a pro-abortionist both desecrates the sacrament and misleads the public about Catholic moral teaching, then the evil is just as grave when done by a Republican. The argument that Kerry is running for POTUS and that his derelictions are therefore worse can only take us so far. After all, Republican Catholic offenders include the governor of the nation's largest state, the former mayor of its largest and most important city (also a potential candidate for POTUS), the governor of New York (ditto) and the head of the Homeland Security Department (to name only a few). We ain't talking county commissioners here, folks. And what about Deal Hudson's statement that the Eucharistic embargo should "begin and end with Kerry?" That position simply cannot be explained in terms of reverence for the Sacrament or concern for the Church's integrity. If we Catholic Republicans keep looking the other way about this stuff, it seems to me that we need not complain when others question our bona fides.
Posted by: Hunk Hondo at Oct 19, 2004 1:38:52 PM
I am not a commen poster here although I read this site everyday.
I Just wanted to say that I might be a registered Republican but I did not vote for Arnold, my vote isn't tied to my political party.... Prolife issues are at the top of my list. I have a whole conspiracy theroy about Aronld running for office. Anyways, Joe McFaul, you can add me to your list of No on Boxer voters.
Posted by: Cali Girl at Oct 19, 2004 1:50:53 PM
Who ever said that they agree with HRE Karl the Rove that it should start and end with Kerry? I certainly did not, and don't believe it should. And what exactly, if he said that, did he mean by it? That Kerry should be singled out? I disagree with that. Or that once others see Kerry's fate, they will voluntarily mend their ways? One can hope, but it ain't looking good. Esquire is arguing against himself.
Posted by: c matt at Oct 19, 2004 1:51:13 PM
Let’s face it Republicans with a very few exceptions (Pat Buchannan) most leading Republicans are pro-life in name only. It is not in the GOP's best interest to get rid of the abortion issue (or the stem cell research or gay marriage issues for that matter)They utilize it to scare their socially conservative base into supporting them just as the Democrats use the threat of Social Security cuts to scare the elderly into voting for them. They have taken very little real action to restrict abortion.
Ronald Reagan while Governor of California signed a bill liberalizing the state’s abortion laws in 1967. (For those of you who think Reagan was “Mr. Family Values” he also signed into the law the nation’s first “no fault divorce” statute.)
The Bush Family has long had ties with Planned Parenthood. Senator “Grandpa” Bush and Congressman/Former President “Papa” Bush both pushed public funding for Planned Parenthood while in Congress. First Ladies Barb and Laura Bush have both indicated their support for Roe v. Wade. Laura has voiced support for embryonic stem cell research. (Don’t tell me that the President can’t control his wife. Can you imagine her ever criticizing any other presidential foreign or domestic policy of her husband. The Bush’s just want to play both sides of the fence.)
Also remember that it was President Bush who came to the rescue of Arlen Specter, a strongly “pro-abortion” Republican, in his tough primary campaign against a pro-life challenger. If the Republican's retain their senate majority, Senator Spector is now saying that as chair of the Judiciary Committee he would use his position to ensure only moderates are confirmed for the Supreme Court.
Roe v. Wade is still in effect today because of Republican appointees to the bench – O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter
.
The Republican convention was a “pro-choice” speakers showcase
.
Finally, the only person prominently mentioned for the Supreme Court is Alberto Gonzales, Bush’s White House Counsel, who has a very pro-choice record based upon his time on the Texas Supreme Court. Perhaps when Bush said he wanted more judges like Scalia and Thomas on the Supreme Court he meant men from ethnic groups with black wiry hair.
This presidential election I am going to follow Will Rogers’ injunction “Don’t vote it only encourages them.” I will vote for neither candidate. As long as Republicans think that they can keep pro-life voters with lip services they will do so.
Posted by: Marv Wood at Oct 19, 2004 2:02:10 PM
Marv Wood:"This presidential election I am going to follow Will Rogers’ injunction “Don’t vote it only encourages them.” I will vote for neither candidate. As long as Republicans think that they can keep pro-life voters with lip services they will do so."
That's exactly what the folks like Esquire and his ilk want you to do. They will try to blur the issues by pointing out where Bush falls short, without acknowledging that their guy is worse, in hopes that we'll throw up our hands and say "I'm not voting because there's not a dime's worth of difference between 'em."
They win if we do that. Hint: Esquire sure ain't staying home on election day. He'll proudly vote for the pro-abort Kerry while all the conscientious Catholics are staying at home congratulating themselves for staying above the fray.
Posted by: Jay Anderson at Oct 19, 2004 2:22:56 PM
Oh, and by the way, if the choice is between pro-abort Arnold and pro-abort (insert democrat name here), I'm right there with you - staying home on election day.
But in the presidential race, there is a REAL choice on the issue of abortion.
Posted by: Jay Anderson at Oct 19, 2004 2:27:17 PM
Jay, I'll vote for the candidate whom I believe will make the best commander in chief, period.
Marv is the only anti-abortion/pro-life poster here with a shred of intellectual honesty.
If abortion's your only issue, there is no way you can support Bush and the Republicans. If you've got other reasons for voting Republican on other issues, that's your right, but don't try to veil your vote in the dignity of a principled, "non-negotiable", pro-life position.
Posted by: Esquire at Oct 19, 2004 2:29:38 PM
Esquire:
As I told you yesterday, abortion is not my "issue"; I vote on a variety of issues. Nor have I ever used the phrase "non-negotiable" in describing my position on abortion.
But, as I mentioned to you yesterday, I do consider the democrat party's position on abortion - one where they have sold their very soul; one where they will fight like they fight for no other issue to protect abortion - to be disqualifying. I cannot vote for a party or candidate who is so in love with the god of having sex with whomever, whenever, and however, without any consequences, that they will literally sacrifice the unborn on the altar of that god.
Sorry, but to me genocide is a disqualifying factor. A candidate and party who supports it the way Kerry and the democrats do is unfit to serve.
Posted by: Jay Anderson at Oct 19, 2004 2:38:37 PM
I am a Catholic. I usually vote Republican. I would not vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Although the GOP likes to use Arnold for his obvious celebrity credentials, remember, he was elected in strange circumstances. He has never won a GOP primary and if there weren't umpteen number of other candidates on the ballot, he wouldn't be Governor of California.
Posted by: S.F. at Oct 19, 2004 2:44:12 PM
But it's widely known that the gropinator was hand-picked by Karl Rove after they got the carjacker to bankroll the recall effort.
If the Democratic Party has "sold its soul" to the pro-abortion lobby, the Republican Party has given it a long-term lease.
Posted by: Esquire at Oct 19, 2004 2:49:44 PM
Esquire,
In his March 30, 2004 E-Letter, Karl Keating speaks of Schwarzenegger's pro-abortion stance negatively.
But why does it matter? The Voter's Guide specifically and explicitly mentions that party doesn't matter. If one political party in the USA is out of touch with God's law more often than the other, that's not Karl Keating's fault. Is it?
Posted by: S.F. at Oct 19, 2004 2:50:32 PM
Fair enough.
The leading Republicans mentioned in this thread do indeed deserve the admonishment of their fellow Catholics on the life issues. More important they need the hot breath of political consequences breathing down their necks. Polls show that when the life issues are framed the way these politicians present them, then a majority of voters in their constituencies support them. So a direct frontal assault by Catholics on these issues is pretty dicey simply because the politicians are, with some confidence, likely to dismiss it out of hand. But there is a whole toolbox full of tools that can be opened up at this stage.
Candidate recruitment, especially when it opens up the prospect of a divisive primary election fight, sends shivers down the spines of poll-driven RINOs. Organized, credible minor party actions can have devastating leverage. Dogged protest actions wherever they go have an enervating effect. Demonstrated results in political organizing, funding, and vote delivery (as mastered by unions or the NRA) buys loyalty on your issues even if they don’t poll really well.
And the bishops need to get out in front on this, and teach clearly. I might suggest this line – “Nobody gets a free pass on these issues, nobody. The laity should not think that way, should not act that way, and should not vote that way.”
When the squeals come rolling in, and they will, that hindering the electoral success of Republicans who are on the wrong side of the life issues will improve the prospects of all sorts of bad fiscal, budget, and tax policies the answer has to be the same as with the Democrats. “Tough. Nominate more responsible candidates if you want Catholic votes.”
Finally, I do not think that mocking Karl Keating or Catholic Answers is justified. Seems to me that they have played their role responsibly, and right down the middle. For example, Karl is an enthusiastic pro-environment citizen, a supposed liberal Dem-friendly issue. His Catholic actives in the public sphere sometimes have him working with folks who don’t share those views at all. Yet he has never shaved or trimmed his actions on basic Catholic pro-family and pro-life issues to move the environmental protection agenda along. Karl works hard at the virtue of humility, and any notion that he has aspirations to or confusion about the role of the pope versus his layman’s responsibilities is pretty silly. Catholic Answers uses magisterial documents in its publications extensively; in fact that’s nearly all that they do. You don’t have to like them personally to see that they are giving you Catholic teaching, including the actual (and not imaginary) discretion you have to exercise judgment in your particular vocation on issues in the public arena.
Posted by: Glenn Juday at Oct 19, 2004 2:50:44 PM
Esquire, as you know, my position has never been that the Republicans have done, or are doing, enough to stop abortion. It's clear that they haven't and aren't. If I were a single-issue pro-life voter, which I'm not, I would be tempted to stay home and not vote for Bush, as well.
Except for one thing: the democrat position on abortion is nothing short of EVIL.
I posted this yesterday, but I will do so again to make my point. Abortion is the one issue on which the democrat party seems united to the bitter end. It's the only issue that they will really get down and dirty to fight for - they certainly don't fight for "the poor" the way they fight for abortion. Support for abortion is the only issue for which a party has mounted a concerted effort to filibuster a President's judicial nominees in the entire 215 year history of the American judiciary.
Abortion is the ONLY issue on which Bill Clinton did not sell out a traditional democrat constituency during his presidency. He sold out the poor on welfare reform; he sold out blacks and minorities on affirmative action (remember "Mend it, don't end it"?); he sold out the peace crowd by fighting wars and launching missiles and bombing raids to distract attention away from his dalliances with his paramour; he sold out the labor unions with NAFTA and MFN for China; etc.
But somehow, the "moderate" Bill Clinton couldn't even bring himself to sign a bill to outlaw the most extreme and horrific type of abortion imagineable. Why? Because the blood of the unborn is the lifeblood of the democrat party. It is the price that must be paid for sex anytime, anywhere, with anyone, and without any consequences.
To so embrace abortion that the very survival of the democrat party depends upon it, my friends, is EVIL. To my mind, that full-throated support of genocide disqualifies Kerry and the democrats from receiving pro-life votes.
Posted by: Jay Anderson at Oct 19, 2004 2:54:34 PM
Esquire reads into every post "I support Republicans without question." I think that the posters here have said no such thing. What myself, and others, have been pointing out is that Kerry is not an option for anyone who really beleives that the unborn must be protected from conception on (and neither is Arnold).
Like Marv, I have definitely decided not to vote for Kerry for obvious reasons, the least of which is the latest appeals to voters regarding his "faith", which is makes me sick. On the other hand, I am not a fan of Bush, and he has done things that show that his pro-life position is less than solid, such as his support for Specter, and his willingness to give in to Democrats filibustering his judicial nominees.
On the other hand, Bush has passed some significant legislation on the pro-life front. Since no justices of the Supreme Court retired during his first term we don't know whether he is being truthful that he will appoint more Scalia's or not. Part of me wants to give him one more chance. At the end of the next four years, if the Republicans have stalled on the pro-life front and/or appointed pro-abortion judges, they will certainly lose alot of the support they currently receive from cultural conservatives.
Posted by: Davi(d) at Oct 19, 2004 2:59:33 PM
Jay- Well said.
Posted by: Faith at Oct 19, 2004 3:02:11 PM
Glenn, I think the work Catholic Answers has done with apologetics generally is laudable and I enjoy listening to their Live program.
However, I simply can't escape the fact that their Voter Guide is expressly drafted to target Democratic candidates and try to convince Catholics that they cannot vote Democratic and be considered "serious". Thus they cherry-pick a series of issues which they deem "non-negotiable" and ignore the rest, or hide behind dear old prudence.
They've also used their platform as an attack on the Bishops' Conference's Guide to Faithful Citizenship and candidate questionnaire.
It's pretty clear what they're doing. We'll just see if they keep up during the '08 Republican primaries when at least one or two of the major candidates will be pro-choice and Catholic.
Posted by: Esquire at Oct 19, 2004 3:02:46 PM
No one ever accused Darrell Issa of "carjacking". Esquire is lying, again.
Posted by: mark j at Oct 19, 2004 3:19:48 PM
We'll just see if they keep up during the '08 Republican primaries when at least one or two of the major candidates will be pro-choice and Catholic.
Yes we will. And if the POTUS candidate is pro-choice, Catholik or not, it will make the decision to to take Will Roger's advice (or vote third party) that much easier.
Posted by: c matt at Oct 19, 2004 3:26:18 PM
You're right Mark. It seems he just likes to steal cars. My bad. He's a great guy.
Posted by: Esquire at Oct 19, 2004 3:31:40 PM
What if on the day after the election each parish had group absolution for everyone who showed up? For one thing or another including local issues we are all going to be in mortal sin by somebody's lights on November 3.
Posted by: caroline at Oct 19, 2004 3:33:54 PM
I too live in the SF Bay Area of California. I'm a republican because the party is not a subsidiary of Abortion INC and actually contains a pro-life majority. Arnold is no better than John Kerry on abortion. Consequently, Arnold has never and will never get my vote unless he has a conversion.
During Diane Feinstein's last election, she ran against a pro-abortion republican: Tom Campbell. I voted third party.
My soul is not owned by any political party. Unlike some here my allegiance is to the unborn victims of unspeakable violence. I vote pro-life and only pro-life.
Esquire, notice that none of the Bush supporters defend the pro-abort republicans like you defend Kerry. We're serious about the issue, you're not.
Posted by: SiliconValleySteve at Oct 19, 2004 3:34:51 PM
"Marv is the only anti-abortion/pro-life poster on this site with a shred of intellectual honesty."
Esquire, cast the giant sequoia out of your own eye.
Posted by: Hunk Hondo at Oct 19, 2004 4:27:35 PM
What Steve said (except I'm from LA)!
Posted by: john hearn at Oct 19, 2004 5:08:50 PM
Re: Barbara Boxer's campaign .....
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/19/BAG4G9BUUP1.DTL
Posted by: Jimmy Mac at Oct 19, 2004 5:15:19 PM
Never fear! When Ahhhnold goes to mass Sunday morning at St. Monica Church, I'm sure the homily on the evil of Proposition 71 will force him to rescind his endorsement.
I'll give a summary of the devastatingly effectively sermon as soon as I can.
Posted by: jay at Oct 19, 2004 9:37:52 PM
If pro-lifers were to take the advice of Esquire and the recent editorial claiming that pro-lifers are being snookered, then the whole party will be ceded to the pro-abortion crowd and the pro-life movement loses ANY leverage or place at the table that it had.
Shame on the CA Republicans, Catholics and others who might claim some pro-life allegiance, but voted for Ahnuld. They voted for him b/c of his celebrity status. A perfectly good pro-life and fiscally responsible candidate, Tom McClintock, lacking star power, was available and would have been a good cure for what ails California financially. People who really believed in McClintock, sold out for the glitz and glamour of a hollywood star. They wanted a sure win rather than what's right. [In some instances this might be appropriate, if the sure win is an improvement over letting the undesirable candidate win. But, I don't think so in this instance. Ahnuld should have never been on the ballot.]
Keep voting that way, nationally or locally, and lose any voice we might have, whoever limited it seems. It will be far less than what we have today. Can't blame the party establishment b/c citizens and rank-&-file vote for the pro-abort crowd.
Posted by: Peggy at Oct 19, 2004 10:46:12 PM
"whoever" should be "however"
The GOP future will be Ahnuld, Guiliani, & Pataki if some pro-lifers don't start stepping up to run or at least demand to be heard.
Finally, there is NO WAY that a change to the US constitution would occur any time soon to allow a non-native-citizen to become president. [Hey, can a non-native citizen become first lady?]
Posted by: Peggy at Oct 19, 2004 10:48:14 PM
Darrel Issa and a wayward Mercedes.
Posted by: b at Oct 19, 2004 11:22:28 PM
There is NO WAY that a change to the US constitution would occur any time soon to allow a non-native-citizen to become president
Exactly. Do we want Kofi Annan as the next US President?
Posted by: c matt at Oct 20, 2004 8:43:16 AM
Silicon Valley Steve writes, "Esquire, notice that none of the Bush supporters defend the pro-abort republicans like you defend Kerry. We're serious about the issue, you're not."
The best argument written on this thread. It appears to me that Esquire wants to soothe his conscience by arguing, "You do it, too!" But we don't, Esquire. I don't vote for pro-abortion candidates. Period.
Posted by: S.F. at Oct 20, 2004 9:03:24 AM
Peggy,
Neither of those three would win a GOP primary for President (of course Arnold isn't eligible). Guarantee it. And if they did, they would surely lose the general election because there are enough pro-life Republicans who would never ever allow a pro-abortion Republican to become President. I myself would vote 3rd party, and if that means a Democrat wins, so be it.
Posted by: S.F. at Oct 20, 2004 9:04:56 AM
I recently responded to this Schwarzenegger story on my Web site (shaun.pressbin.com), and I wanted to share an important point with the group:
This is the Church's big chance to show that it is not partisan, and that it will chastise any politician who supports abortion and embryonic stem cell research, no matter what his party affiliation.
But the Church doesn't seem to be jumping on the teachable moment. In June, the San Diego Union-Tribune criticized Church officials for not being more vocal about Schwarzenegger's defiance of Church teaching.
Not that the Church should launch a smear campaign against him or anything, but it does have a responsibility to instruct the faithful — and the unfaithful — and by keeping silent when it comes to the governor, it's sending an ambiguous message.
Posted by: Shaun at Oct 20, 2004 6:56:02 PM
C Matt,
I was thinking, however, that the letter of the law and the language of the constitution has not stopped leftists from obtaining what they want. I fear what the lawyers are up to with this election. They appear not to be willing to accept the outcome at the ballot box, while the GOP has to spend money to protect the integrity of US elections, which the Dems will use to claim that the GOP are the troublemakers.
S.F. I agree so long as the pro-lifers continue to show up. The point is that some news articles, such as those posted previously by Amy W, our hostess, are suggesting that we Catholics belong with the Dems, not GOP, b/c of the prior history enjoyed. Further, another article is trying to persuade pro-lifers that the GOP has let us down time and again, anyway, so why not stay home or see your way to supporting John Kerry, since Bush has snookered you, after all. W/o the pro-lifers, some one like Guiliani, Pataki, etc, can become the GOP presidential nominee.
Posted by: Peggy at Oct 20, 2004 9:32:25 PM
