I hope this is not too controversial to post here.
A lot has been made lately of a potential Giuliani nomination for President by the Republican party. I know that Thoughts of a Regular Guy has been quite vocal about it. Recently I posted some thoughts at FrankPeach.Com – A Vote For Giuliani Is A Vote For Hillary, as to why we cannot support Giuliani even in the general election. EyeHacker Blog responded why he disagreed and would instead Hold his Noise and vote for Giuliani.
I wanted to know what other Catholic Dads thought. So here’s a chance to sound off, please keep the discourse civil, and grant that there is room for disagreement on the issue.
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Google]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[LinkedIn]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/linkedin.png)
![[Reddit]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
[Repeated from FrankPeach.com.]
For nearly twenty years now, I have been voting (mostly) Republican because of the life-and-family issues. On a lot of other issues (the environment and energy spring to mind) I have a lot more sympathy for the Democrats, but I just can’t stomach that pro-choice thing they insist on.
If the Republican candidate is pro-choice—why again should I vote Republican?
(Certainly reasonable folks can disagree here. For example, I don’t agree with EyeHacker’s argument, but there’s nothing unreasonable or un-Catholic about his position. As far as I can see, EyeHacker and I just make different prudential judgments about who will be worse for the country.)
Peace,
–Peter
An appropriate quote to recall in this discussion is one from Mother Theresa, “We have been called to be faithful, not successful.”
If there is a reasonable pro-life canidate (even if it is a third party) They will have my vote, if there is worst and still bad, I’ll do my civic duty and vote, for the lesser of two evils. I trust God will do his part . . .1Chronicals 29:11-12.
As I have watched most of the GOP debates, I have looked hard into the candidates from a solid Catholic perspective.
I had high hopes for Brownback, but as solid as he is on life, he is just as committed to big government. Pro-life amendments and pro-marriage amendments at the federal level isn’t the answer.
Huckabee is a bit more charismatic version of Brownback. More likeable, pro-life but still big government.
Giuliani is anti-Catholic in most of his stances. And he is simply a slimy politician in my book. No better than Romney or Clinton in their changing appearances.
Ron Paul is the only one I could support right now. He speaks honestly rather than looking for that 6 O’clock news sound bite.
It wouldn’t save the world and make all the wrongs right, but it sure would shake up the political establishment in Washington.
I will not vote for a candidate that is not pro-life. This is one of my guiding values. The lesser of two evils is often the more dangerous, because it gets us to compromise with evil. We are asked to stay true to our values, to fight the good fight, and run the race. We don’t have to win it all on our own, or in our time (as Mcgivney’s hands points out).
I will not vote for Giuliani. Period. He is WORSE than Hillary because a Giuliani victory tells the Republicans that they can take our support for granted. There is no compromise on this issue.
Look what compromise got so many Catholics in the Democratic Party – they were more willing to give up their faith than their politics, and now they have neither (as the Democratic Party is not our grandparent’s party).
Basically I am being asked to be faithful to the Republican party when in reality I don’t think the number of things required to happen in a Giuliani presidency to result in judges that will help overturn Roe v. Wade will happen. I am not a Republican first … I am a Catholic first.
I think people who intend to vote Republican because they agree with their core platform more would be far better served to ensure that he is not the nominee. He WILL lose the Catholic vote and that will result in another Clinton presidency. I think the number of Catholics torn over this is strong evidence that I am right about this. I am not happy about that but the fact is we are “being asked to stay on the reservation” without a real reason to other than “Hilary is worse”. I am not sure she is.
I don’t see many pro-life minds changing to being pro-Republican despite the life issue. To me, a Rudy nomination shows contempt for the pro-life vote and I personally would love to see how well the Republicans fare when they try to live their new found lives with pro-lifers having to choose on other issues. I don’t think they will like it.
I had a thought that William triggered. Remember that being Catholic used to imply being a Democrat – especially if you had any Irish in you. Many of us (me included) gave up being a Democrats because of our stand on culture of death /culture of life issues.
I won’t give up my stands on these issues so I can be a loyal Republican.
I think that if Hillary is elected, the fact that you voted for some third-party pro-life candidate who never had a chance of being elected will be of little comfort, especially if the election is close. There will be a lot of very practical, rubber-hits-the-road consequences if a Democrat is elected. If your moral principles extend beyond simply voting for candidates who espouse values consistent with Christian virtue, and require you to take actions that will prevent or at least minimize loss of life due to abortion and euthanasia, then perhaps voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning isn’t an option.
Please don’t forget 1992, when Ross Perot split the Republican party and as a result Bill Clinton was elected with less than a majority of the vote. Many conservatives voted against George HW Bush and for Perot in 1992 because Bush wasn’t conservative enough for them, and they viewed voting for Perot as a protest against Bush because he took them for granted. From the perspective of conservative Christians, Clinton’s election was an almost unmitigated disaster. He began his term, on his first day in office, by issuing multiple executive orders undoing many of the pro-life policies put into place by Reagan-Bush. Things went downhill from there.
I am not suggesting that Giulianni would keep all of the pro-life policies that George W Bush has promoted; he almost certainly wouldn’t. However, it is difficult to imagine that he would be a pro-choice activist, as any of the current Democratic presidential candidates would be if elected. Giulianni is not a good candidate for us, and I hope that someone more amenable to the pro-life view wins the Republican nomination (Thompson and Romney also aren’t ideal, but they aren’t so bad; Ron Paul, Huckabee, and Brownback simply will never have the numbers to win). However, should Giulianni win the nomination, I am certain that I will hold my nose with EyeHacker, holding my nose while I vote for a bad Catholic in the hope of preventing a social catastrophe.
“…it is difficult to imagine that he would be a pro-choice activist”
Why is this so difficult? He IS a pro-choice activist, everything he has done politically speaks to this. Giuliani is hanging his hat on Federalism, which to be fair I tend to agree with, but he has exactly zero record to run on when it comes to what this means when he has actual decisions to make. He has never held a federal office. A man who takes the position that Abortion is horrific yet should receive public funding is not a man who can be trusted to think straight.
“…he IS a pro-choice activist…”
No, he has been a 21st Century New York City politician, and he has (sadly) done and said what was expected of him by New York voters.
The reason I find it hard to believe that he’d be an activist for pro-choice matters as president of the USA is that for the first time in his political life he would answerable to someone other than New Yorkers. He would also be head of the only national party that still has a pro-choice plank in its platform and the only major party with a very sizable pro-life contingent. If elected, he will not be oblivious to those realities.
I am not saying that either of us would like his presidency. I’m not suggesting that we should like him personally. However, I don’t think it’s rational to believe that his approach to abortion as president would be as aggressively pro-choice as would be that of Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama. Unfortunately, if Giuliani receives the Republican nomination, that may be the least worst option.
I’ve blogged about this too. Rudy may very well be the candidate for the Republicans and Hillary for the Dems. Look, both are pro-abortion. Which is more likely to nominate conservatives to the court which is where the battle for the soul of the nation is being waged? Not voting or voting for some looser third party candidate is a vote for Hillary. If you (like I) don’t want Rudy as the Republican candidate then work, pray and send $ to a pro-life candidate. But if Rudy wins, he has to get my vote because any other option is unthinkable. Here’s my piece.
Anonymous,
I am going to challenge you a bit here. I will not toe the “party line” just cuz they say Hillary will be worse. Failing to stand for life and the principals of true conservatism would be worse in the long run than Hillary.
In other words if we accept Guiliani cuz he’s not Hillary, will the pro-life crowd ever get heard from again?
As much as the republocrats and demicans are really one party when in Washington, there is still that fine line. Unabashed acceptance of abortion.
Was Clinton the worst thing that happened to the country? Remember Hillary-care? They couldn’t get that passed until … Bush Jr and the republicans were in charge. How about No Child Left Behind? Another grand big government scheme of the Clintons. Dead until Bush and the republicans put it through.
At least when Clinton was president, the republicans were vigilant. They fought big government and spending. In the 7 years since, they have embraced it.
Neither Giuliani nor Clinton are likely to nominate anyone to the High Court to overturn Roe.
The consideration I see that I find determinative is this: If Clinton is elected, the pro-life movement will grow stronger in resistance to a pro-abortion Democrat President.
If Giuliani is elected, the pro-life movement will be left without a political home, without a base from which to resist the actions of a pro-abortion Republican president.
A few points I keep repeating, no one’s answered them yet:
1. If we’re not voting for pro-life candidates, then in what sense are we pro-life?
2. If we must have a devil in the White House, better it should be a Democrat.
3. If Giuliani is elected, how could the GOP possibly remain a pro-life party?
4. The GOP will win as a pro-life party, or not at all.
Why don’t we support Alan Keyes instead? It’s right on all the issues, a Catholic Dad himself, and a tremendous orator.
Answer: because he can’t win.
Neither can Giuliani.
Paul hit it well. If the Republicans win with pro-abortionists, it means the machiavellian wing of the party has taken over and can freely ignore the pro-life cause without worry.
If Hillary wins, then conservatives can mobilize and gel. What is forgotten after the mid-term election debacle is that many Dems had to run on conservative platforms, and that conservative initiatives passed overwhelmingly. Of course she will make a run at nationalizing health care, but I think it would go down in flames just like it did when Bill tried it.
When we individually stand before God we’ll have to own up to whether we “walked the walk or just talked the talk.”
Though I believe it’s political suicide, I’d advise all Catholics to stay home rather than vote for a pro-choice candidate.
I doubt there are political parties in the hereafter.
Rich,
FYI – your post is linked in the original post as the argument for voting for Giuliani.
I grant the fact that we need to support someone else for the Republican nomination. In that point I believe we are all agreed.
I still don’t see an answer to the question of what happens to the pro-life movement if Giuliani is elected President. I contend that a Giuliani Presidency is WORSE than a Clinton Presidency, because Giuliani will bring the entire Republican party farther left then all the RINO’s in congress now. The Liberal agenda now has a choke-hold on BOTH parties. If you have issues with the Republicans now, just wait until you have Giuliani leading it.
Well, I certainly appreciate all the arguments presented by Franklin and everyone. I have been thinking and praying about this issue a lot recently.
First, I think that if Rudy is the nominee, there will be no third party candidate. It would be political suicide for that candidate. No third party could win (even Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t win as a third party candidate)and would split the party vote ensuring a Hillary win. With the likelihood of multiple SCOTUS seats to be filled in the next 4-8 years, having a Democratic congress and presidency would result in a liberal majority with the expected consequences. This is a very serious consequence of a Democratic presidential win. A four year presidency could create a generation of liberal, activist federal judges.
Our considerations regarding this election have to extend beyond the short term.
Forgive my redundancy. But the federal courts are the battleground for the soul of this country.
I concur with those who would prefer an evil liberal over an evil “conservative”.
I could support Keyes, but I think his late start and lack of support severely limits him. Ron Paul at least has the momentum to make a legit run at the nomination.
Can he win? I hope and pray for it.
As far as federal courts being the battleground, does anyone thing more Souters will improve the courts? Look at what Bush tried to pull with Miers. And even his two appointees are pro-life but are also very pro-establishment.
I have blogged extensively on this back during the Miers hubub.
First, I think that if Rudy is the nominee, there will be no third party candidate. It would be political suicide for that candidate. No third party could win…
It’s not about who’s going to win. It’s about who I’m going to vote for.
There will be a minor party pro-life candidate. There are always several.
And I’ll be damned — possibly literally — it I’ll vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
Catholics and other pro-lifers should not skip the election if Giuliani is nominated. We need to get out and find someone pro-life to vote for!
As for Keyes (or Paul, or Hunter, or whomever else you like), it doesn’t matter that he can’t win!
Giuliani can’t win. That’s not slowing him down any, is it?
The Supreme Court argument for Giuliani doesn’t hold water, because he himself admitted that it would be fine with him if his “strict constructionist” appointees vote to uphold Roe. I am not comforted by the promise of what Rudy Giuliani calls a “strict constructionist”.
Somebody’s gotta do something, and fairly soon, to change the course of this nation. But probably, no one will.
It feels very much like the second act of a Shakespearean tragedy in America today. As bad as things are, there’s worse coming.
According to the consensus of polling data, not only do a mere one third of Americans favor banning abortion, but this number hasn’t changed a bit since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Thus: It would be political suicide for any party to actually ban abortion! Thus: no party will actually do anything to end abortion!
Compare this if you will, to the fall in support for the war in Iraq. According to New York Times polls, support for the war has plumeted since January 2003, when 64 percent of Americans said the United States did the right thing in taking military action in Iraq. Current numbers show a complete reversal, with 35 percent saying the United states did the right thing and 61 percent saying the country should have stayed out.
So — do we live in the real world, or what?
Do we, as Catholics continue to waste our political capital trying to change a law that the vast bulk of Americans agree with, or do we push for an end to our imperialistic adventure in Iraq?
I think Paul(that guy we know), is right on the money. It is about what WE do. I also agree that things will get worse in this country. We have to hold to our values if we want to survive with our souls intact. We need to keep the faith even when the world crumbles; even when it means “lose” as the world defines it.
We should not sell out our values for a promise that is spoken in code. Heck, we can’t believe them when they speak plainly (remember “read my lips”), much less when they “imply” something.
Finally, there is the pragmatic issue of teaching the party that they can ignore the values vote. Nothing like giving in once to build an expectation.
To summarize voting for Giuliani is bad because (in order of importance):
1. It compromises our values (lesser evils are still evil).
2. His implication cannot be trusted.
3. It weakens our long term objectives.
“It’s not about who’s going to win. It’s about who I’m going to vote for.”
Paul, it really is about who will win. Votes have practical consequences. No vote, or voting for a sure to lose pro-life candidate may feel like the right thing to do, but does nothing to lessen the impact on abortion and other important issues. Here’s what JPII wrote in Evangelium Vitae:
“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where voting would be decisive for the election of a more restrictive lawmaker who would aim at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more-permissive lawmaker already elected or ready to be elected. Such cases are not infrequent. . . . When it is not possible to prevent the election of even a partially pro-abortion lawmaker, an ordinary voter, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion is well-known, can licitly support the election of lawmakers who aim at limiting the harm done by abortion legislation and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”
Now how does your not voting or voting for a (pro-life) looser, even to some small degree, lessen the likelihood of abortions in this and other countries? Who would be more likely to sign executive orders mandating abortions on military bases and overseas US facilities? Who would be more likely to nominate conservative judges to the federal courts? Your vote and those of like mind will have practical consequences. The question then becomes, given the choices available, which choice will best advance a Catholic world view?
My view on this is that when I walk into the voting booth, I am to look at all the candidates, and determine which is the least evil and vote for them.
There are no saints. If you are looking for a saint, you will stay home every election.
If I walk into the booth and there are two candidates on the ballot, Giuliani and Clinton, I will vote for the least evil, who is in my opinion, Giuliani.
If there’s a third, less evil option, I will vote for them. This, in my opinion, is how all people of good conscience should use their vote. Don’t worry about who is “electable”. Worry about who is the person you support.
So if the Republican party nominates a pro-choice candidate, I will know then that I can no longer be a Republican. The only reason I’m not Democrat is their stands on life and family issues.
…can licitly support the election of lawmakers who aim at limiting the harm done by abortion legislation…
And in our hypothetical Giuliani-Clinton matchup, which of them aims at “limiting the harm done by abortion legislation”?
Answer: neither of them.
RobK’s three-point summary is 100% on target.
I have a bumper sticker on my car, it says, “Vote Pro-Life”. It’s good advice, and I’ll be following it.
If the GOP wants my vote, it’ll need to nominate a pro-life candidate.
Seeing as I don’t believe any candidate can really do anything to end abortion, I have to look at other issues. And right now, the idea of socialized medicine and all of the potential evils to follow (ridiculous wait times for medical help, possibilities of limiting births/sanctioned abortion (like China) and euthanasia (“you’ve cost the system too much, time for you to go home and die”)) seems far worse to me than voting for any particular candidate who honestly can’t/won’t effect a change of the status quo on abortion, when there are no candidates who in fact can/will effect such a change.
It’s like this. If there are two trains, and both are headed toward the same cliff where the bridge is out, would you rather be on the one going 45 mph or 90 mph?
Welcome to post-Christian America, where we have to do the best we can in a system that is largely hostile or indifferent to our concerns.
Section 73 of Evangelium Vitae clearly talks about laws, not politicians.
when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality.
This goes very well with the rule that we should not do evil so that good may come. Supporting a law that restricts abortion isn’t doing evil, it’s just does less good than we can.
So having stated all of that, it is my opinion (and I’m ready to have my ignoranced cured) that a Catholic can not hold his nose and vote for Giuliani, given that Giuliani will most assuredly increase evil in the form of funding to Planned Parenthood, and other government programs that involve population control. The lesser of two evils does not sound like Catholic doctrine, unlike do no evil so that good may come. The same holds true for a candidate that believes in and plans to execute pre-emptive wars. He could be the most pro-life guy but we can not do evil so good may come. But don’t just stay home. Go and write in yourself if you have to so that message is sent.
As for me, I am a Ron Paul supporter. I was on the Brownback bandwagon for a while, then Huckabee for a day but was never satisfied. I pretty much felt the same way as kalej. Ron Paul is not perfect, but he’s pretty close and his approach to the life issue is clever and under the radar of the pro-aborts. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that defines life at conception and bars the issue from being dealt with in the Federal courts. That means that with one stroke of a pen, Roe vs. Wade goes away. No more worrying about judges that may not decide correctly, and no more waiting for the day when enough states come together to put forth a solid constitutional amendment. Any state at that point could become a haven for its unborn citizens (South Carolina comes to mind). The other states will have to deal with their laws getting challenged. When a dad finds out that his child has been aborted you better believe that there will be a lawsuit. Remember…Congress will have already defined life as starting at conception.
Cesar, that’s pretty clever of Ron Paul.
Can you post a link where I can verify what you’ve said?
Paul’s website mentions the bill.
Read the bill itself,HR 1094.
Paul talks about it on this video that I shot.
You will note that he never mentions the lawsuit thing, that’s just something that I have deduced. I see it as an inevitability.
It is clear to me that Paul only talks about his pro-life stance when asked, so as not to alienate the anti-war libs that are taking a second look at him. He can sort of sound like Giuliani by stating that states should decide how to deal with abortion. The difference of course, and what is left unnoticed, is that the states will be left to deal with abortion in light of legislation such as HR 1094 which, as President, he would work for and sign.
Probably most people have moved on from this post, but I just found the following poll question on the Priests for Life website (http://www.priestsforlife.org):
“If the Republican party nominated a presidential candidate who favored legal abortion but promised to nominate Supreme Court Justices like Justice Roberts, would you vote for that person in order to help defeat the candidate who would only appoint Justices who made it clear they would uphold Roe vs. Wade?”
Father Pavone normally posts the results from the poll with his own commentary on the question (http://www.priestsforlife.org/news/poll.htm). It will be interesting to see what he says about this. Until then, the wording of the question may provide some clues to how he sees the issue.
Let us not worry about Rudy getting that far. If we would all stand up for LIBERTY and FREEDOM, throwing all of our support behind U.S. Congressman Ron Paul…..we would have a President to be proud of.
Angelo Cobrasci