AmericanPapist Comments
If he does, he better hire a "taster" like kings of old. Tom
I can't recall where or when, but I seem to remember him saying that he would never choose Clinton as a running mate.
The Obama-Clinton fusion ticket is what the Republicans fear.
It's the smart play.
But Sen. Obama has not yet demonstrated that kind of smarts.
We'll see.
I've been saying for a while that I believe it'll be the two of them on the ticket together. (Second mention of it was here, which also contains a link to my first mention that I was certain they'd run together.
Never mind that they don't like each other. They will see the potential power, the unbeatableness of the ticket, and they'll take it. Both of them want the power so badly that they'll do or say anything to get it.
1) It may be forced by super delegates.
2) An Obama-Clinton ticket is indeed the dream ticket... for Republicans. It softens Obama's strengths and amplifies his weaknesses. Hillary's negatives are so high that it would ensure a McCain victory running as a center-right candidate.
LCB --
I hope you're right, but I believe that you are not.
Given Pres. Bush' unpopularity, the problems with the economy, and the natural tendency for voters to change parties after a two-term President, a united Dem. ticket would be quite formidable, in my estimation.
I doubt if very many people make a decision to vote for a candidate because of his Vice-Presidential running mate, but if Obama picks Hillary, it may keep the Clinton block from staying home on election day. Otherwise, there is a good chance a lot of Dems will be feeling as if they have been cheated out of their candidate's moment in the sun.
It won't change my vote. I wouldn't vote for him no matter whom he chooses.
I still think folks will miss President Bush after he is gone... no matter who wins in November. The media has gone after our President everyday for the past 7 years! Let's pray that the voters choose wisely in November! God bless! Padre Steve
Of course she'll take it. The lady worships power, and if she can't have no. 1, she take whatever's offered.
"The lady worships power."
Mr. Peters, you really have no shame. You insist on viewing people in the worst possible light simply because you disagree with them. Really, quite petty and childish on your part.
"I still think folks will miss President Bush after he is gone."
Yeah, no kidding. I'll really miss those Bushisms.
Bill,
And your post about Mr. Peters isn't shameful, petty, and childish? What's good for one man is good enough for another.
Bill, that woman has proven time and again that she will do and say anything to gain power. Carpetbagging and running for the Senate in NY (disgracing a Yankees cap in the process!), supporting then not supporting the war, supporting then not supporting the removal of the delegates' votes for Michigan and Florida ... the list could go on and on. She panders to everyone in sight if she thinks it will get her ahead politically.
And just in case you think the carpetbagging comment is motivated by her being a Dem, I thought it was shameful that Allen Keyes did it when he did, as well. It's a big reason I wouldn't vote for him for president; I thought it showed a lack of class and a lack of ethics. And I agree with most of Allen Keyes' beliefs, too.
Oh, and I also disagree vehemently with the Republicans who decided to vote in Democratic primaries just to mess with their vote. It's wrong when they do it to us, and it's just as wrong when we do it to them.
So my agreeing with Ed Peters has nothing to do with disagreeing with Clinton, but it has everything to do with her lack of ethical standards. She will do anything and say anything to gain power.
Christine,
I appreciate your response, though I might disagree somewhat. You actually took the time to explain your beliefs. Don't you also think Sen. McCain panders, however? He wanted amnesty, now he doesn't. He voted against the tax cuts, now he wants them extended. Really, it cuts both ways, I believe.
Mr. Peters, however, took a very different tone.
Regardless, back to the question at hand, I do, in fact, believe Obama will offer VP to Clinton. Really, he has to. If he doesn't, the question will be why he didn't back her.
Barring something drastic, the Obama-Clinton ticket could be nearly unstoppable. This is a really, really, really bad year for the GOP. At least they picked their best man.
What's to explain? Her whole life has been spent in pursuit of power. She has accepted the worst indignities imagineabale -- like being married to Bill-- because it advances her quest for power. Sorry if that bothers folks, but if they don't like it now, just wait till she gets into national elected office. Jeeze.
"She has accepted the worst indignities imagineabale -- like being married to Bill-- because it advances her quest for power."
Huh. I thought as Catholics we believed in supporting marriage, especially when it is difficult.
You, as a partisan, are entitled to your views. Saying, however, that "her whole life" has been about gaining power is reaching and indefensible.
Bill, do really think I am unaware of my words? You need to think about them a little more. You also need to consider what "her whole life" means, and doesn't mean, in this context. Anyway, if HC reaches national office, you'll see what "whole life" means. Saints preserve us.
Not to jump into it, but as Catholics I certainly don't think we're supposed to support marriages of convenience.
Furthermore, it's not "partisan" to criticize Hillary. The problem with Hillary isn't that she's a democrat - it's that she's Hillary.
Little clarifications like that might save alot of misunderstandings.
If you have evidence that their marriage is one of convenience, you need to present that evidence. I see no such evidence.
I also see no evidence that "her whole life" has been about power. It was not her idea to run for office in the first place.
I am quite curious by your statement that her problem is "that she's Hillary." What does that mean?
Bill, I get it. I assume you're "pro-life" but you'll vote for "pro-death" candidates like the Obamster and the Hillster.
I also recall Presidents Dukakis, Mondale, Gore and Kerry, all "unstoppable" in left-wing loon media parlance, until, they were, well stopped. At this time in the election cycle when Dukakis was running against Bush senior, Dukakis was 18 points ahead of Bush. If you gander at the Realclearpolitics averages, Saint Obama is in a dead heat with McCain with McCain actually leading him slightly in certain polls. This is hardly the sign of the juggernaut you're predicting. So when Obama should be at his highest in the polls, he's doing very poorly which does not bode well for those of you who want to place another Abortion King in the White House. You know, have you considered the Episcopal Church? You can believe anything you want in that Church and it doesn't matter. Tom
TMJ,
If Obama and Hillary run together, I totally expect them to win. I dread it, I loathe the idea, especially considering the Cutlture of Death that they actively promote, but I do expect it.
And McCain certainly hasn't won my vote yet. His vacilating on immigration is not comforting, nor is his desire to use my tax dollars for research on human embryos. I'll be watching more carefully (I hope), and my girls and I will be doing more and more in our election unit. Watching the Democrats this year is certainly interesting, and you should hear what my 9 1/2 year old has to say about Hillary pushing to get the delegates from Michigan and Florida sat. (In short, she disapproves of changing the rules in the middle of the game.) We'll be watching debates, checking the news, etc., and I'll update things at the Soccer Mom blog.
If God allows Obama to win, it is certainly a chastisement.
It looks like there's problems all around the board these days. There's really no one safe to vote for that will even pretend to uphold Catholic teachings. I must say, though, I used to think Hillary was the worst thing that could possibly happen to this country. She sounds like a blessing compared to Obama. Laughs and jokes aside, the guy is devious. As for the two of them together, that's a disaster waiting to happen. McCain is too busy waving his pom-poms to the left wing nutjobs in the name of getting votes to even make an attempt at getting the country out of this mess.
jcd,
Or, conversely, it could just be the free will of our society.
It would certainly set back the Pro Life movement quite a ways and, based on Obama's and Clinton's platforms and the direction the Democratic party seems to be going - i.e., government-owned oil & financial institutions, would do damage to our democratic republic if they were able to follow through on many of their platforms. However, it could be that God will just let our free will reign in this situation, just as He has done throughout history.
As Christians, we have much work to do in this world to help people towards God's plan. (And, naturally, that includes working on ourselves!)
TJM,
Nice try. I suggest, however, that your reread the USCCB's statement on Catholic voting again.
Let me guess: you think Bush is the greatest since sliced bread. Why don't you do some research on Bush and stem cells? You might learn something.
RealClearPolitics? Please.
After 8 years of disaster, I'm not going to repeat another mistake. I'm not going to vote for the Republican just because he is against abortion. That is called single-issue voting.
The Republicans have had their time. Bush has been a complete failure. By the way, what exactly has he actually done for the pro-life cause except give a speech every January and appoint two Supreme Court justices?
I'm not going to vote GOP just because he'll put a conservative on the Supreme Court. That is really ridiculous.
Bill, the only time a Catholic may vote for a pro-abortion politician is when the only choices are ALL pro-abortion. In that case, you choose the lesser evil, i.e., the one who will do the least amount of damage. In no situation when a viable Pro Life candidate is a choice for whom to vote can a Catholic, in good conscience, vote for a politician who is in favor of abortion rights.
Obama is not only in favor of abortion, but is also in favor of allowing babies who somehow survive the procedure to be left to die. He is against even giving basic medical attention to a newborn baby who has not been killed by an abortion. Voting for someone who holds these views when one has a choice to vote for someone who opposes abortion would be a sin.
Father Trigilio wrote an excellent post on this very topic not long ago, and when I asked for clarification on the statement the bishops made about "other morally grave reasons" that might justify such a vote. Specifically, this is the paragraph that I think you might be referring to:
35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
Father Tragilio's post (and subsequent comment in answer to my query about what this exact paragraph means) do much to explain what the bishops were getting at here. The point is not to give license to Catholics so they can vote for politicians who oppose medical help for survivors of abortion or who support the act of sticking scissors in half-born babies heads and sucking out their brains with a vacuum. The point is to say that, should you have no other choice but to vote for someone who is pro-abortion, these are the guidelines to use.
Bush, on the other hand (despite his failings in other areas), has signed Pro Life legislation, appointed judges who interpret the Constitution rather than write new laws from the bench, and prevented further funding for new destruction of unborn babies (also called embryos). Yes, he funded research on lines already in existance, but he has also held the line and refused to budge even an inch on new funding, despite the cauterwaling over how those lines are just not good enough. He's defended marriage, as well, which is another issue that falls squarely in the Pro Life arena. Without protection of this sacrament, our cause suffers more and more.
While I am not sitting in McCain's camp at this point, if I had to pick between him or either of the Democratic contenders, I would under NO circumstances vote for a person so beholden to the abortion lobby as Obama and Clinton both are. (How disgusting is it that each argued in early primaries, "I am much more pro-choi
(Continued from above, with some overlap ...)
While I am not sitting in McCain's camp at this point, if I had to pick between him or either of the Democratic contenders, I would under NO circumstances vote for a person so beholden to the abortion lobby as Obama and Clinton both are. (How disgusting is it that each argued in early primaries, "I am much more pro-choice than the other candidate"?) As a Catholic, Bill, you should feel the same way. The sanctity of every human life is far and away the most important issue at hand. Without our God-given right to life, what other rights do we have?
Christine, I'm sorry, but we'll just have to disagree on this one. If you read the paragraph before that one, you find:
"At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity."
I would encourage you to read this excellent post by Fr. Martin Fox:
http://frmartinfox.blogspot.com/...ith-
mccain.html
As Jimmy Akin put it a while back: "WWJWMTD?" (What would Jesus want me to do?)
That's a question that can, literally, scare the Hell out of you.
So, Bill, you are saying that it's fine to vote for someone dedicated to the proliferation of abortion? That you see no other option but to vote for a candidate who sees wrong in giving medical attention to babies who survive abortion, just because you might get "free" healthcare and an immediate withdrawal from Iraq?
I don't like the First Amendment trampling McCain engaged in (one reason I'm not sitting in his camp), and I don't believe that the president holds enough power to change everything himself, but I seriously cannot see how it's okay to vote for someone who says the first thing he'll do is sign the abortion rights protection act (should the Democratic Congress send it to him) that gives federal protection to abortion rights should Roe be overturned. I might even go third-party come November, but I am not voting for people who want to raise my taxes, block any Pro Life legislation we might get passed by some miracle, and even have the government take over financial institutions or oil companies. (See the platform Obama ran on in local races in Illinois and the Dem's comments while grilling oil execs on their "windfall" profits. Profits that are, percentage-wise, smaller than McDonald's.)
A quick end to the war in Iraq does not seem worth the other horrible policies the Democratic party, and Obama in particular, tout. (I also encourage the reading of Father Trigilio's post, as well.)
Christine,
I am saying that one is not morally required to vote for McCain.
Again, I thought the piece by Fr. Fox was very well done. I did read Fr. Trigilio's post. I thought Fr. Fox's was the better of the two.
Regarding taxes, windfall profits, etc, I don't really want to get into all that here.
For those who are interested in learning about McCain's so-called pro-life positions, you might want to visit these sites:
http://www.jillstanek.com/
archiv...n_on_schia.html
http://www.jillstanek.com/
archiv...ay_the_vid.html
Bill, you sound like a refugee from moveon.org. Please return to your spiritual home. By the way, the USCCB statement is always subject to a higher authority, i.e. the Vatican, which in its pronouncement on Catholics in Public Life pretty much decimates your high-flown opinion that Catholics are free to vote for pro-abortion candidates. We have a name for those that do: Non-Catholics. Tom
Tom,
Thank you. You have only proven my argument that right-wingers such as yourself are unable to engage in civil discussion.
I do not belong to moveon.org. Thank you for explaining to me that I am a non-Catholic. If you say so, it must be true.
Bill, you sound just like a typical modern, cafeteria style "catholic." I'm hardly a "right-winger" just a believing Catholic who accepts Church teaching on fundamental concepts like "intrinsic evil" which abortion is. It's Catholicism 101 that you can never support pro-abortion candidates when there is an alternative. I've found that the appellation "liberal" is an oxymoron because "liberals" I encounter are rigid, doctrinaire, like the adherentes of the Church of the Global Warming headed by the Goracle. In contrast, they make the Catholic Church look positively heterodox. Tom
TJM,
I must have hit a nerve.
I'm out.
Bill, I didn't say we are morally obligated to vote for McCain. I did, however, say we are morally obligated NOT to vote for candidates who are as vociferously pro-abortion as Obama. As I've said numerous times, I am not firmly in McCain's camp - I have problems with his stances on ESCR and the First Amendment, among other things. However, at the same time, I can say with all certitude that I am definitely NOT in the Democrat's camp. They are far too beholden to the abortion lobby, not to mention their weakness in defending marriage and family rights. (Yes, I know McCain is also a bit weak on the DOMA, but I say again, I am not waving pom poms around for him, either.)
No candidate is perfect, and if I'm to choose this year (rather than just stay home for the first time in my adult life), I must hold my nose while I vote. However, while holding my nose, I know that I cannot in good conscience pull the proverbial lever for Obama or Clinton. Their Culture of Death policies are far too evil.
Bill,
I'm sorry about the tone of my comment concerning your response to Mr. Peters. I was clumsily trying to say that taking Ed Peters to task for taking Hillary to task seemed to be circular. Again, I apologize for the tone of my previous comment. Peace.
Commenting by HaloScan
