|
Published: January 15, 2008
“Totally one-sided and misleading”
Prominent layman says Mike Huckabee better choice for Catholics than Fred Thompson
(Editor’s note: In the interest of fairness, California Catholic Daily is publishing the following submission from a reader. It has been edited for grammar, style and length.)
I am writing as Bill May. I am not getting involved in the presidential election because of my role in the non-partisan, issue-related organization Catholics for the Common Good.
 But I can’t remain silent about the unanswered distortions about Mike Huckabee over Fred Thompson in the presidential race found in California Catholic Daily’s Jan. 11 posting, “Keeping the coalition together is the key to success.” It was an article covering the California Pro-Life Council's endorsement of Thompson for president. It was totally one-sided and misleading to Catholic voters. CCD is a great publication and provides a valuable service to Catholics. I can understand how things like this can slip through trying to meet tight deadlines.
I don’t want to get into a fight with the California Pro-Life Council and National Right to Life, organizations for which I have a great deal of respect. But I think their endorsements of Fred Thompson reflect bad judgment and their attacks on Huckabee are indefensible and based on false assumptions.
First, Fred Thompson wants to let the states decide on abortion and does not support the human life amendment. There are many parallels between slavery and abortion, and we can see how well leaving the slavery issue to the states turned out. How can he be the pro-life candidate?
This question from the California Catholic Daily reporter to the Pro-Life Council’s Brian Johnston was based on a false and biased premise: "What about a new coalition on the Republican side coming together around a pro-life liberal like Mike Huckabee?" Liberal? Huckabee is not the liberal the Republican establishment says he is. This false premise is being repeated over and over.
Moreover, the response to the question is equally misleading: “Highly, highly unlikely,” Johnston responded. “For one thing, he’s a preacher: he’ll be killed by the media -- he’ll be more of a target than Pat Robertson." There is a huge difference between Robertson and Huckabee. Robertson is a lifelong professional minister and Christian political leader – that is it. Huckabee is a secular political and civic leader and a former Lt. Governor and Governor (almost 11 years), with a distinguished record of secular leadership.
While governor, Time Magazine ranked him as one of the top 5 in the country. His Democratic and Republican peers elected him chairman of the National Governors’ Association. In addition, Huckabee was chairman of the Education Commission of the States, president of the Council of State Governments, chairman of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (37 states), and chairman of the Southern Governors Association. Would any of these things have happened if he were the religious nut the Republican establishment is making him out to be?
Huckabee is the only candidate who has been an advocate for pro-life issues. He got five bills through the Democratic legislature in Arkansas: partial birth abortion, parental notification, women's right to know, fetal pain and liberal hospital drop-off provisions for newborns.
It really annoys me to hear people call Huckabee liberal because he cares for the human person and has a sense of social responsibility. People mindlessly and irresponsibly throw out the right-wing code of “tax and spend” for people who are compassionate and practical. As governor, Huckabee cut taxes almost 100 times. He eliminated the capital gains tax on home sales, reduced them for individuals and businesses, eliminated taxes for those below the poverty line and indexed tax rates to avoid tax creep with inflation. He also was able to get enough people off welfare that the budget was reduced by 50%.
I think Brian is dead wrong re the Republican coalition. The folks in the boardroom are not going to like Huckabee because he is a Christian and a man of the people. I think Huckabee has an opportunity to reform and broaden the Republican Party. He could put the Reagan Democratic coalition back together and attract a lot of Catholic crossover votes. I don't think Thompson has any chance. He has been so weak. He hasn't demonstrated any passion for the office. I think Huckabee is the most electable of the field.
I think Huckabee is the "Catholic" candidate for 2008.
-- Bill May
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 3:58 AM By Rev. Phil Floersh
How about Huckabee's relationship to the fundamentalist anti-catholic initiative????????
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 6:39 AM By Tom O'Malley
This controversy may very well escalate if Mr Huckabee and Mr. Thompson emerge as the top Republican candidates, which is quite possible.
As a non-partisan voter, I'll point out something that captures my attention. Mr. Thompson clearly is a "federalist" (see his website and trackrecord for proof). He generally prefers states rights over the overreaching status quo of the federal government except where it is constitutionally clear that the federal government should be involved in our lives and dipping into our pocket book. He does not show a great deal of "passion" to become president even though he is very clearly commited to accept the nomination if the people deem it fit. While the former may not be the easier "pro-life" environment in which to restore a "culture of life" in the US, a goal I wholeheartedly support, both attributes are characteristic of another federalist by the name of George Washington. Could it be we need mor reluctant leaders who are willing to serve only if we ask them as opposed to the career politicians in great supply? Which type of politician would be more inclined to help us restore the rightful power of the electorate after helping to wrestle it away from the power brokers within and outside of the major parties? Federalism may not be the easy path to the Culture of Life but it may be the surest.
God bless the USA.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 7:04 AM By Claire
Amen! I was apalled that a prolife organization would endorse smeone like Thompson this early in the race. These kinds of things are what get Christians into trouble with the media and with other Christians and Catholics. This was a Pat Robertson-like deal and I don't like it one bit. Granted that many Christians don't know the Faith and don't see any point in their religious beliefs informing their conscience. A big mistake...but listening to one prolife group that wants to dictate their vote is quite another thing. This is the time when the pulpit MUST be used to guide the consciences of every voter. And convince the non-voter that his/her vote is crucial in this election. Otherwise we may end up with a proabortion president, antifamily president. There is nothing in the Constitution forbidding our clergy and informed laity from teaching the truth about the political views and issues especially during an election year! To neglect this education of the laity is very wrong.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 8:34 AM By Sigmund
Catholics should back John McCain. He has been resolutely pro-life for over 20 years and he is compassionate concerning our fellow Catholics on the other side of the border. He also has the foreign policy experience to guide this country through perilous times in dealing with terrorism. Voting for a fringe candidate, whether it is Pat Buchanan in the past or Huckabee today, might feel good internally (I have voted this way in the past) but in the end we will split the pro-life vote and a liberal Republican or Democrat will be elected and we will all be losers....especially the unborn.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 8:38 AM By Simone
I would never vote for a candidate who believes in the literalness of the Bible and who had been a Southern Baptist preacher. These Baptists are vehemently anti-Catholic and historically racist and sexist on numerous issues. Why isn't he making his past sermons public? I think if the truth came out about this charlatan then he would just shrink away.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:47 AM By Michael
Finally the Truth! I am a died in the wool Reagan conservative from California. I am a Traditional Catholic. I have seriously studied all GOP candidates and I fully agree with you and Newt Gingrich that Hucakbee is the best candidate for president out there, and the most electable Republican out we have.
He is solidly pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, effective tax reform, a true populist and uniquely pro- environment (something all conservatives should be in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt)
I am tired of the disinformation coming out of formerly credible GOP and conservative sources about this man. Please, everyone take a real look at Huckabee. If you do, you will see our next Ronald Reagan.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:54 AM By Daniel
Bill May is correct, I like Fred Thompson, but as Bill points out he IS NOT PRO-LIFE. He wants the States to legislate when Life starts in the Womb. In California with the pathetic creeps we vote into the legislature life will begin in 12 months, a little check out the kid lee way before you decide to keep it, In Vermont it will be 9 months, you get the picture I am sure. Fred is a good guy with many good qualities, protecting the lives of the unborn is definitely not one of them, he supports genocide of the most innoncent. The ACLU and Planned Parenthood will have a field day with him as President, they will start in the liberal facist states and just move their way throughout the Country, things can get worse, believe it or not.This is not an endorsement for Huckabee, I see to much Jimmy Carter in him, that to is scary, he needs to show me a lot more before he would get my vote.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:59 AM By margie
Time will tell with these candidates. I want my President to listen to my voice. I do not want the Attorney General investigating prolifers as public enemy number one. I do not want lip service.
My litmus test? Let me see who walks with us in Washington,D.C. Let me see who stands with in in SF in the Walk for LIfe. I don't want phonecalls. I want physical presence. Is there any candidate running for President of the United States who will march for the unborn?
Which candidate truly cares about our posterity? I invite Huckabee, Thomspson, McCain and any other candidate who seeks my vote to march with us. Let's end this Holocaust not with our words but with our actions!
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:27 AM By Ronnie
I agree with Bill May too! Fred Thompson is not very inspiring and was actually considered, although he had a pro-life record while in the Senate, a more liberal Republican while there. And John McCain is exactly the same. He supports "embryonic stem cell research", voted against the "Federal Marriage Amendment Act", which would have kept marriage between one man and one woman, and gave us "McCain-Feingold Campaingn Fiance Reform" which literally prevented pro-life organizations from informing the public about the records of politicians on abortion....Mike Huckabee is my candidate and should be the candidate of all serious Catholics...
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:29 AM By Brian
Huck scares me. As a Catholic i understand how great this country is and what we have in place that allows us to be free.
When huck open his mouth saying people need to take medamucil. Thats classless and not Presidential
then this http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/15/huckabee-lets-amend-the-constitution-to-bring-it-in-line-with-gods-standards/
will Catholics be next? iIm sure he dont agree with the Holy Eucharist. Is he want to change that in the Constitution?
Dont touch my FREEDOM.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:53 AM By Thomistic
A detailed response to the errors Bill May makes in his assessment, including the error of claiming Fred Thompson is not pro-life, is on Roman Catholic Blog.
This page is linked, and Roman Catholic Blog continues to encourage readers to read California Catholic Daily.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:29 PM By Vincent DiCarlo
Thanks, Bill. A lot of these attacks on Huckabee are, I think, emanating from the greed wing of the Republican party, but neither he nor the other potential nominees is perfect. Among those in the double digits: McCain, while he has a good prolife voting record, has never, as Rick Santorum recently pointed out, made the life issues a priority or taken the lead on them, has voted to fund more research using killed human embryos, and is apparently not interested in fighting for prolife judicial appointments. Huckabee is the only real prolife warrior left in the bunch since Brownback withdrew, and the most personable candidate, but he sometimes keeps company with anticatholics like Hagee, and the press may find it easy to attack him in the general election, rightly or wrongly, as a religious extremist. Thompson's interest and sincerity are subject to question over his past willingness to represent Planned Parenthood and his continued opposition to a right to life amendment, and he shows little ability to attract significant popular support. Romney's conversion to the cause remains to be proved, and he comes across to me as a gladhander who will say whatever he thinks will get him elected. Who to support? Among the credible candidates, Huckabee seems to be the only one who seems both sincere and serious about the life and family issues, and I think we should support him at this point in the process.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:55 PM By Mary McCurry
Rev. Phil Floersh: “ Which type of politician would be more inclined to help us restore the rightful power of the electorate after helping to wrestle it away from the power brokers within and outside of the major parties? Federalism may not be the easy path to the Culture of Life but it may be the surest.”
The answer - the Mitt Romney type! It is that key philosophical difference combined with demonstrated ability to lead, to organize, to bring together the most talented and experienced leaders of diverse perspectives working collaboratively to effect successful results. Mitt Romney has the demonstrated moral, spiritual and intellectual depths combined with God given gifts of leadership driven by an optimistic and energetic confidence that calls each of us to greatness. As members of the Catholic laity we are also called to the same, using Gospel based Magisterial teachings of Catholic social doctrine to which we conform our lives and let our lives speak in our domestic churches and reaching out to the wider society. It is a more difficult road but ultimately more virtuous. We, as a diverse and often disparate American society, need to do the work ourselves to come together as a strong and moral people. We should not - cannot abdicate this responsibility to any one person. To think otherwise is to foolishly reward him who, using the name Jesus as Lord and Savior, seeks to lull us into believing we should now vote for a new Lord and Savior who will make our decisions, social, moral, economic for us as his autocratic record as Gov of Ark. and his own words clearly prove. No one need listen to Gov Huckabee's detractors. Just listen to the man himself carefully. Neither the lives of the unborn nor people of deep faith will benefit from such an auto/theocrat in the White House.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 1:18 PM By Thomistic
Check out the response here: A Catholic Huckabee Supporter Gets It Very, Very Wrong: http://romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2008/01/a-catholic-huck.html
People are saying Huckabee is a liberal, because he is a liberal. He destroyed the Republican party in Arkansas, largely by consistently endorsing policies at odds with conservative principles, sparking infighting within the party. (See: Up and down Huckabee's y-axis: http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2008/01/09/DavidJSanders/344761.html) The Republican party in Arkansas isn't endorsing Mike Huckabee, they're endorsing Fred Thompson. (See: Arkansas Republican Assembly Endorses Fred Thompson: http://arkansasgopwing.blogspot.com/2007/11/arkansas-republican-assembly-endorses.html)
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 2:38 PM By Dr. K
It appears "Thomistic" has missed the boat in his evaluations.
Compare Huckabee with our very own "Catholic", "Republican" Governor, ex-terminator, and for my money, I will take Baptist Mike Huckabee any day as a Presidential candidate for Catholics.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 3:36 PM By Fredi D'Alessio
I am grateful for Mr. May’s assessment because I view his support for Huckabee as advocacy for a candidate who is more in line with Catholic Church principles, what I think of as the mind of Christ. Mr. May’s viewpoints and his courage to express them publicly have increased my respect for him.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 6:07 PM By Paul Rosenthal
In fairness to your readers, kindly publish the true identity of prominent layman "Bill May."
Whoever Bill May is, he should be writing as himself to enable readers to more readily identify and evaluate his liberal bias. Is he deliberately trying to confuse folks into thinking he might be the wonderful writer, William E. May? The latter would surely not appreciate that. Based on "Bill May's" likely connection to the Catholic Alliance For The Common Good who published the slick voter's guide which misleads Catholics into equating support for intrinsic evils like abortion with matters of prudential judgment, like capital punishment, war and on differing approaches to help the poor. Those folks, like Alexia Kelley, supported John Kerry and no doubt will be supporting the Democrat nominee in 2008. I doubt that the anonymous "Bill May" would support or endorse the excellent voter's guide published by Catholic.com. Writers should be required to write under their own name.
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 6:19 PM By John L. Sillasen
What is conservative about any of the candidates?
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 6:52 PM By Jon
I have had it with the Republican Party. I have always voted Republican, but the party obviously is controlled by a socially liberal country-club establishment that cares only about the dollar. If they nominate anyone but Huckabee – the only true pro-lifer among the candidates (other than Keyes) – I will write in Huckabee or Keyes, or not vote. As Mother Theresa said, “God doesn’t call us to be successful; He calls us to be faithful.” And, voting for a pro-abortionist simply because he is slightly less pro-abortion than the other candidate is not being faithful to Christ and the “least of these.”
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 8:38 PM By John L. Sillasen
Jon, what about the Constitution Party?
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:32 PM By cjo
With the exception of abortion, Huckabee is a big government liberal and no "friend" of Catholics [remember his friend Hagee?] . Romney can beat the DemocRAT Socialists and is both Pro Life and the best bet for the USA !!!
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:08 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
As probably the only contributor to this Blog who has really been involved in the political process, once a Young Democrat leader under Congressman Clyde Doyle, once a Republican Nominee for the U.S. House of Representatives, 4 term elected member of the Orange County Republican Central Committee, and former President Anaheim Republican Assembly I am not completely satisfied with any of the candidates, all have serious blemishes in their political lives, McCain has done great harm to the pro-live cause with his "Campaign Finance Reform", and Romney's record as Governor of Massachusetts is abominable.
When push comes to shove, we unfortunately will have to chose which one has the least serious blemishes. Right now I support Huckabee because I would rather have a President who is strong on moral issues and weak on fiscal ones, than one who is a strong fiscal conservative but a moral liberal! Of course that could change as well.
We must turn to Our Lady of Fatima and seek her intercession for our very troubled Nation.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
www.crcoa.com
|
Posted Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:25 AM By Diane
There seems to be too much emphasis about pro-or-con re. abortion when selecting a president. Somehow, when we are drowning, glug-glug-glug, in trillions of dollars of debt in this country, do you not think that voting for a business man (instead of a Washington D.C. politician) might be better to select a candidate whose business has been rescuing businesses in trouble? This country is in trouble financially and the only candidate who can do something about this is Romney. Romney was governor of Massachusetts at a time when the state was close to bankruptcy. He cleaned house, tightening up the departments, getting rid of deadwood, and brought the state into the black. He did the same for the Olympics in Utah. No doubt this is the reason that so many politicians are afraid of his candidacy. In addition, he is a family man, married to his first and only wife, young and in good health, and can give 8 years to our country to help streamline our economy for the benefit of all Americans. Unfortunately, if any of the Democratic candidates win, they will immediately tax us for all of their promised giveaway programs which have been priced out to cost billions(no streamlining the economy to cover the costs of really needed programs!) So, vote your wallets, people!
|
Posted Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:42 AM By Thomistic
The comments here are distressing, in that they indicate a astonishing level of ignorance and confusion. Mike Huckabee and Alan Keyes are certainly not the only pro-life candidates, and it is an outright lie to claim they are. Fred Thompson has been endorsed by the National Right to Life, as well as by most local right to life organizations. He has a 100% pro-life voting record in the senate, and has committed himself to the pro-life movement in his campaign (including the commercials). Fred Thompson is the only viable pro-life candidate who is also a fiscal conservative and a national defense conservative. All the other candidates are lacking in one or more areas. None of you would be unhappy with Thompson if you are authentic conservatives. Most of the party would be unhappy with Huckabee. Look at Arkansas. The Republican party in Arkansas was devastated by Huckabee's policies. He created all sorts of infighting within the party by insisting that conservatism entails only social conservative policies such as being pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, and that Republicans who don't want larger government and don't see the government as the panacea to all of society's ills are selfish, greedy, and not real Christians. Huckabee will not get the nomination, I can promise you that, but he may well have contributed to causing a weaker candidate supported by only a fraction of the party who is unpopular with most of the party to squeak by with the nomination and thereby do serious harm to the Republican party on the national level in much the same way he did it in Arkansas.
|
Posted Wednesday, January 16, 2008 8:56 AM By Vincent DiCarlo
“ Which type of politician would be more inclined to help us restore the rightful power of the electorate after helping to wrestle it away from the power brokers within and outside of the major parties? Federalism may not be the easy path to the Culture of Life but it may be the surest.”
Federalism may be a good thing if properly understood (though it is not nearly as important as the protection of millions of innocent lives), but it is not the surest path to the culture of life. Regardless of what the supremes say, if the constitution guarantees anything, it guarantees the right to the equal protection of the laws. Abortion, like slavery, is not an issue of states' rights. Roe v Wade, while it was a violation of federalism, was more fundamentally a violation of the separation of powers, and more fundamentally still a denial of equal protection. Deciding that there is a right to an abortion in the consitution was mendacious judicial tyranny. Recognizing that the constitution protects all human beings in this country would be simple justice.
|
Posted Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:27 AM By ssoldie
Catholic....... I beg to differ....... the only Catholic representives are Alan Keyes and Duncan Hunter.
|
Posted Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:30 AM By Jon
Those of you fooled into thinking Romney is prolife need to read this: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2008/jan/08010307.html As indicated, his actual record – as opposed to his rhetoric – is one of dutiful support of abortion rights and homosexual rights.
|
Posted Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:17 AM By John L. Sillasen
Roe v Wade instituted a false dignity into society. With the perpetuation of this false dignity, it makes no difference whatsoever whether the nation is one dollar in debt or one trillion trillion dollars in debt. Without respect for unborn human life, the nation is doomed no matter who is elected. It all hinges on protecting unborn babies. Anything else is simply selling the soul to the devil. Any woman who does not put babies before bread has lost her sense of the meaning of life. Jesus, in his temptation by the devil, told us plainly that it is every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God that is our bread, not just the loaf offered by the devil.
|
Posted Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:25 AM By sam
yes!!!! someone telling the truth!!!
mike is the only guy running who actually got pro life legislation passed: "he got five bills through the Democratic legislature in Arkansas: partial birth abortion, parental notification, women's right to know, fetal pain and liberal hospital drop-off provisions for newborns. "
totally.
mike is not a liberal.
mitt is (or was)
mccain is totally a lib
rudy is so wrong on his "social" issues
thompson never passed anything big, much less anything really concerning pro-life stuff.
someone can call themselves pro life and never do anything about it.
i call that being a spectator.
this is not a spectator sport.
this is a "full contact sport", as mike rightly quipped.
hunter is awesome but hasn't generated any momentum at all.
so mark my words!!!! mike is THE conservative cantidate.
MIKE all the way!!!!!
|
Posted Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:34 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
The bloggers on this site make one thing very clear, and that is that there is no consensus on who is really conservative and that is exactly what morally liberal Rudy is relying on!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc. www.crcoa.com
|
Posted Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:46 PM By Brian Francis
You guys don't get it. Fred is 100% pro-life, and IS NOT against the human life amendment in principle, only as a matter of prudence. The reality is that the only constitutionally sound step possible in the near future is to overturn Roe, and return the question to the states, after which, we can focus on a human life amendment. Wake up everyone, we can't even pass an abortion ban in South Dakota, let alone a national human life amendment. Huck is pretending he is the only one in favor of the HLA. Nonsense. He is the only one willing to pretend that it is possible. And I say all of this, even though I like both Fred and Huck. But Bill is totally incorrect. Go read the transcripts. And stop with the "Huck is the 'Catholic' candidate stuff. That makes you look silly.
|
Posted Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:46 PM By Sheila
John, how might society get rid of abortion? What are your views? I am opposed to abortion,but for many pro-life people its a struggle to figure out what is the best course of action. I think what we must do is figure out what causes women to get an abortion in the first place and then go from there in using an argument against taking life. The most difficult group I think would be those who base their decision on "controlling my body" and "a matter of convenience". Unfortunately for the past 40 years anything approaching self-sacrifice and unconditional love has been laughed at. We have become a materialistic society more concerned with MacMansions, tummy tucks, Caribbean vacations, the latest gadgets, etc. Abortion is a all part of this self indugent mindset
Our nation and world is doomed with this 'me first' attitude.
|
Posted Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:52 PM By Brian Francis
You guys don't get it. Fred is 100% pro-life, and IS NOT against the human life amendment in principle, only as a matter of prudence. The reality is that the only constitutionally sound step possible in the near future is to overturn Roe, and return the question to the states, after which, we can focus on a human life amendment. Wake up everyone, we can't even pass an abortion ban in South Dakota, let alone a national human life amendment. Huck is pretending he is the only one in favor of the HLA. Nonsense. He is the only one willing to pretend that it is possible. And I say all of this, even though I like both Fred and Huck. But Bill is totally incorrect. Go read the transcripts. And stop with the "Huck is the 'Catholic' candidate stuff. That makes you look silly.
|
Posted Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:54 PM By John L. Sillasen
Sheila, society would end abortion two ways: 1. Outlawing it; 2. convincing all people to obey this law. They would all do this because God would tell them all to be perfectly charitable.
|
Posted Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:56 PM By John L. Sillasen
On candidates, I just read an Anne Coulter column pitching Romney. She makes some acutely valid points, assuming her facts are accurate.
|
Posted Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:16 AM By Sheila
I wouldn't put much stock in what Anne Coulter says or does.
I read that Tom Monaghan is also backing Romney. I hope the pro-life movement gets its act together and decides on one candidate. Abortion will never be outlawed if the pro life movement remains divided.
|
Posted Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:47 AM By McFox
Brian,
Fred is not pro-life, if you would do a little research you would find out that he has always supported abortion in the first trimester. Mike Huckabee is the only candidate that is 100% pro-life.
Go Huckabee
|
Posted Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:20 AM By John L. Sillasen
More comprehensively on candidates and contemporary politics: Stepping back for a moment to look at the political scene from a little more distance, what I'm seeing, or think I'm seeing, is the utter lack of any religious values in the whole hootenany of electioneering at this time. Not a single value or position in any candidacy reflects any eternal good ... it is all temporal buying and selling, marketing, merchandising, hocking, hyping, wheeling/dealing, bargaining for the sake of giving everyone their worldly desires. Show me even one position out there which is an eternal religious value.
|
Posted Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:01 AM By John L. Sillasen
Sheila, for once, you've hit the nail on the head. Coulter is witty, not necessarily a sage. The pro-life movement is, as you say, not united. The Church members are not united. Not a single politician says anything that has eternal value ... it's all buy and sell, and that includes religion, just another commodity in their eyes.
|
Posted Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:19 PM By sam
John L. Sillasen - i just read ann coulter's article pushing romney and she got a lot of stuff wrong. one of the things was that she said that "Even when Romney was claiming to support Roe v. Wade, he won the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for
Life".
wrong.
he gave a huge donation to them and then recieved an award from a local chapter of the organization. and that award was not for his being pro-life (in fact they specifically said that it wasn't), it was for him being a "good leader".
here's a link to this: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2008/jan/08010307.html
ann, ann, ann.
she also said that it would be ok if he had done pretty much anything in his race against ted kennedy for the senate. so she is ok with him saying lieing just to get elected?
i never thought i would see the day when all the "icons" of conservative punditry would get caught in the sway of a millionaire flip flopper who has perfect hair.
well...
they will see.
they had better be wathcing out for HUCK'S ARMY!!!!
GO MIKE!!!
|
Posted Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:09 PM By Sheila
Well John ---I guess there is some hope for me! At least we agreed on something!
|
Posted Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:36 PM By Jonathan Monnereau
Compare Huckabee's response on the same matter (Terri Schiavo) when George Stephanapoulous tried to corner him:
“In that case [congress getting involved in the matter], I believe that it ultimately was because anything to do that will help save a human life and at least show the importance, imperative of valuing life, I think is a good thing, George, and I, one thing, if anything, and that’s consistent on the fact that every human life has dignity and intrinsic worth and value and I think it’s fundamental to the very essence of our civilization that we treat each other with that sense of dignity. If we don’t, if we ever violate the idea that we’re all of equal worth, I think we’ve lost something more that a political debate, I think we’ve lost our moral center because if one person is more valuable because of IQ, ancestry, net worth, if one person is more valuable than another because of ability or disability, then we really have redefined what it means to be not just a human being but specifically what it means to be an American”.
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/news/2008/01/08/schiavo_disability_rights/
|
Posted Thursday, January 17, 2008 5:43 PM By RR
John L. : I mostly agree with your posts and have only disagreed on a few. I have to 100% agree with what you said in your post today at 8:20 A.M. It's all a big farce. Call me un-American, but nobody will be getting my vote.
|
Posted Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:31 PM By Catholics for Mike
Please visit our site at WWW.MYSPACE.COM/CATHOLICSFORHUCKABEE for more info. on Huckabee and the other candidates.
|
Posted Friday, January 18, 2008 11:10 AM By JK
For those fellow catholics who will not vote for Huckabee because he is a Southern Baptist, would you rather vote for a Mormon, who lies constantly. Thompson has been OK with everything but he is NOT pro-life. And pro-life issue is important to ME. Let's not judge a person because of religion. When I said about mormon earlier, I don't mean that I am against mormon as a religion. Although personally I cannot believe what they say, I have no hard feelings about it. I don't withdraw my business to a local restaurant after I find out the owner is a Mormon. I am against a LYING MORMON-or more accurately LYING politician. Go to Youtube.com and see it for yourself.
|
Posted Friday, January 18, 2008 7:53 PM By Penny Smith
As a former Church of Christ member and now Catholic, I know Fred Thompson is Pro-Life. He represented me in the Senate from 1994-2002, and liberal is NOT in his vocabulary! He ABSOLUTELY is 100% PRO LIFE. The lie being circulated at the present stating the opposite comes from an organization that has received thousands of dollars from some of Huckabee's contributors. They have been push polling on Huckabee's behalf, sending out hundreds of thousands of automated telephone calls to voters in South Carolina attacking Huckabee's opponents (Thompson and McCain) for the Republican nomination for president.
. One needs only to lookat The Arkansas Republican Assembly, who recently endorsed none other than Senator Fred Thompson. Go to their website and see the truth about Governor Huckabee. I have NEVER voted for a candidate that endorses or promotes a woman's right to choose. I am proud of the conservative views that Senator Thompson has always held. Go to his website and read "The White Papers." Concerning abortion Senator Thompson states: Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007)
I will appoint strict constructionist judges. (Jun 2007)
Have never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Please let's get our facts straight and vote for the person who truly does reflect the moral principles of life and TRUTH. Penny Smith, Cordova, TN
|
Posted Saturday, January 19, 2008 11:14 AM By ann
Dirty politics. How can we know the truth?
There is a lot of prejudice against Mormons. Baptists have a real hard time with Catholics.
Prolifers beware. They are trying to fool us and divide us.
|
Posted Saturday, January 19, 2008 3:40 PM By Maria G.
Thought I could get some answers to prepare for the election but now I am more confused than ever on the best candidate for the job. With 48MILLION+ children dead because of LEGAL abortion, we have to make it our number one issue. However, seems impossible to get accurate information.
|
Posted Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:37 PM By John L. Sillasen
Maria G., my take on your question is this: Neither the Democrat nor the Republican Parties are willing to overturn Roe v. Wade. Anyone who thinks any Republican president will make it happen should look at the GOP track record. A. A Republican congress can do a legislative set aside, and in one moment remove this issue from the domain of the Supreme Court. B. No Republican Congress, even with a Republican president took the action necessary to outlaw abortion. The Congress has both the power and the authority, no matter who is president or what the Supreme Court wants to do about it. If you want to outlaw R v. W, then you won't do it by voting for either government party. The slick campaigners have begun to address this by claiming there is a new party forming in GOP-land. Hopefully the columnist who just made this claim is on target, but not likely. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but look at the track record. The big names right now are those of presidential candidates ... but it's Congress which can pull it off. That particular columnist, in my opinion, has long been trying to put together economics and a law against abortion: I do not see how it can come about ... because of the immoral climate pervading the nation today. It is a small percentage of people who call for outlawing abortion during these past decades of unprecedented high standard of living in the west; when times get tough as could happen, they'll have to get so tough that most of the population will be fighting for their very survival ... then they'll turn to God. So, when do you think that's going to happen?
|
Posted Saturday, January 19, 2008 9:06 PM By ann
We will get McCain if we are not careful. That means McCain Feingold which has crippled the pro-life cause, gay marriage to the states where if just one state says o.k. to gay marriage every other state will have to recognize any marriage performed in that state because of the full faith and credit clause, amnesty for illegal aliens to pander to the big corporations, federally funded embryonic stem cell research and a stepford wife to hang on his arm. EEEEEEEK
|
Posted Saturday, January 19, 2008 10:45 PM By John L. Sillasen
The pro-life cause is not being crippled by any particular person. It is the way of the world at this time in history ... it is money. Everyone is out to maximize the economy ... no holds barred. What is absurd is states' rights politicians claiming to be pro-life: That is identical to the old Ted Kennedy et al line about being personally opposed to abortion, but politically going with the pro-abortion crowd. The states are not going to overturn Roe v. Wade ... it's the economy that demands government regulation of population. The old supply and demand curve f(or those who know what it is) rules the roost at this time in history. The government wants to rule this law of economics. Babies are mere slaves to this "principality" of money in our world at this time. The only way it will change is the course of civilization-level self restraint according to the moral law of God. This nation is not even close to turning back to God. Each candidate has his or her own view of managing the economy -- the outcomes are not categorically different, but only differ in how fast they implement or how marginally more efficient they are than their competitors. There is no major candidate who will seek to stop abortion, because when they attempt this, they immediately find themselves overwhelmed by the economic powers. This is a critical teaching of Jesus: Your choice, mammon or God. Now is the time, or do you think it is always down the road just far enough so that you can sell just one more tub of butter to line your nest before it's all over?
|
Posted Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:25 PM By Mary
Fred is out
So no more clout.
Mike is brolke
and that's no joke.
Rudy is game
But he's too lame
and Johnny is one
come lately.
So no one is fit except for Mitt
His ways refined and stately.
Mitt Romney for President
Condoleeza Rice for Vice
That would be oh so nice!!
|
Posted Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:26 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Mary,
Condoleeza Rice is very pro-abortion and Romney is an unproved specimen!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc. www.crcoa.com!
|
Posted Sunday, January 27, 2008 7:30 PM By Mary McCurry
A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Guiliani or McCain. Why Evangelicals and Catholics should NOT vote for Huckabee and YES on Mitt Romney.
Great Article:
http://brucewilson.blogspot.com/2008/01/unintended-consequences-of-vote-for.html
|
Posted Sunday, January 27, 2008 11:01 PM By Maria C
My vote is for Huckabee.
|
Posted Monday, January 28, 2008 4:26 AM By BJ
The unfortunate truth is that the pro death forces are almost certainly going to be in power. It seems to me more realistic from a pro life position to attempt to secure the nomination of the lesser of these two evils. One of those candidates has accused the other of being ´less pro abortion than me'. A frightening statement from anybody, let alone one who would be 'President'.
This party will win the election i am sure so now there's a very good reason to support the candidate being attacked. This is someone who has already shown signs and willingness to discuss the issue - and someone who can be
persuaded..... if enough Americans approach him... for real change.
|
Posted Saturday, February 02, 2008 2:39 PM By Mary McCurry
Re: the above post - I have no idea who or what you are talking about. Try specifics and names.
|
Posted Sunday, February 03, 2008 2:48 PM By Jack Clough
Many years ago, when I first began in the business world, I got some advice from an older gentleman. He told me, “Never discuss religion, politics, or another man’s wife. I did well with the third caution. However, I never could keep my mouth shut when it came to religion or politics. So, here goes. I will not vote for John McCain. I believe a vote for Huckabee or Paul is a wasted vote – neither one can win. This Tuesday, I will vote for Mitt Romney. Please visit (www.jackclough.com) for the reasons why you should, too. www.jackclough.com
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|