Getting To Know Mccain

[Niccolò]

When I compare McCain to Obama, on nearly every issue, it's easy for me to support McCain. If I only ever supported the "perfect" candidate, I would vote for Alan Keyes, but then that would help Obama get elected.

[kujo]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1595439' date='Jul 8 2008, 08:36 PM']Yes, so did I.

And neither major candidate is "morally acceptable" as I see it. I just cannot bring myself to pull the lever either major party candidate; and the sad thing is, the reasons for not voting for Obama are pretty much the same as the reasons for not voting for McCain.[/quote]

[i]Really[/i]???

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='kujo' post='1596156' date='Jul 9 2008, 01:28 PM'] [i]Really[/i]??? [/quote]
Sure. Both McCain and Obama strike out on the same issues.

Pro-life? Nope.

National defence? It's hard to make the argument that you are serious about "stopping them there before they get over here," when you have no interest in border security. Niether candidate is even suggesting that we secure our own country, before we go about helping to secure other countries.

Cutting taxes? Nope.

Free speech? Nope.

Both candidates even receive endorsements and financing from the left. So there are others who also recognize that both McCain and Obama would achieve the same goals, and these leftists approve. For example, McCain's campaign funding includes George Soros, and Teresa Kerry.

We have every reason to believe that both candidates will appoint the same court justices, support the same economic and national defence practices, and lead this Republic in the same general direction.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1595439' date='Jul 8 2008, 06:36 PM']Yes, so did I.

And neither major candidate is "morally acceptable" as I see it. I just cannot bring myself to pull the lever either major party candidate; and the sad thing is, the reasons for not voting for Obama are pretty much the same as the reasons for not voting for McCain.[/quote]
Correct, that is what I meant. Neither candidate is "morally acceptable" from a Catholic perspective. So the question becomes, do we vote for one of the major party candidates because they are the only two with a realistic chance of winning - which essentially means deciding which is the lesser of two evils - or do we vote for a "morally acceptable" third party candidate that has little chance of winning?

[Niccolò]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1596235' date='Jul 9 2008, 02:48 PM']Sure. Both McCain and Obama strike out on the same issues.

[...]

We have every reason to believe that both candidates will appoint the same court justices, support the same economic and national defence practices, and lead this Republic in the same general direction.[/quote]

While McCain may not be perfect on those issues, he's hardly as horrible on them as Obama.

At worst McCain has a mixed record on life issues (0% rating from NARAL but 75% rating from National Right to Life Committee; by contrast Obama is rated 100% by NARAL). On about the most important thing a president can do to change our dreadful abortion laws (that is, appointing judges), McCain has said he would appoint SCOTUS justices like Alito and Roberts. Obama? He says Justices Ginsburg and Souter are good examples of the justices he would appoint. I could see the next president appointing as many as 3 SCOTUS justices.

If you're concerned about gun rights, then the prospect of an Obama presidency should terrify you. Despite McCain's terrible record on free speech (McCain-Feingold), he's practically Charlton Heston compared to Obama.

McCain supports drilling, Obama doesn't. McCain wants to cut corporate taxes, Obama doesn't. I don't see how you can say these two candidates will be the same w/ regards to justices, the economy, and defense, not to mention gun rights.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Niccolò' post='1597115' date='Jul 10 2008, 03:04 PM']While McCain may not be perfect on those issues, he's hardly as horrible on them as Obama.

At worst McCain has a mixed record on life issues (0% rating from NARAL but 75% rating from National Right to Life Committee; by contrast Obama is rated 100% by NARAL). On about the most important thing a president can do to change our dreadful abortion laws (that is, appointing judges), McCain has said he would appoint SCOTUS justices like Alito and Roberts. Obama? He says Justices Ginsburg and Souter are good examples of the justices he would appoint. I could see the next president appointing as many as 3 SCOTUS justices.

If you're concerned about gun rights, then the prospect of an Obama presidency should terrify you. Despite McCain's terrible record on free speech (McCain-Feingold), he's practically Charlton Heston compared to Obama.

McCain supports drilling, Obama doesn't. McCain wants to cut corporate taxes, Obama doesn't. I don't see how you can say these two candidates will be the same w/ regards to justices, the economy, and defense, not to mention gun rights.[/quote]
What you've cited, apart from the "life issues," are [i]causes célèbres[/i] for Republicans / Conservatives but not necessarily considerations from a Catholic perspective, i.e. we as Catholics can disagree on "gun rights" or drilling in ANWR. As far as "life issues," McCain's support for embryonic stem cell research makes him a no-no in terms of USCCB guidance on voting. Again, contrary to the assertion of the OP, McCain is not the "only viable choice for Catholics."

[CatherineM]

McCain raised the most money in June. That's big because the person who spends the most money usually wins.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1597624' date='Jul 11 2008, 09:00 AM']What you've cited, apart from the "life issues," are [i]causes célèbres[/i] for Republicans / Conservatives but not necessarily considerations from a Catholic perspective, i.e. we as Catholics can disagree on "gun rights" or drilling in ANWR. As far as "life issues," McCain's support for embryonic stem cell research makes him a no-no in terms of USCCB guidance on voting. Again, contrary to the assertion of the OP, McCain is not the "only viable choice for Catholics."[/quote]
I absolutely agree.

The only active stance that McCain took on the life issue is his support of emrionic fetal experamentaion, and blocking pro-life legislation from being voted on.

And as far a writing legislation, McCain's signature law is McCain-Feingold. He will never want to appoint a judges that would challenge McCain's legislation. Thus, McCain would make judicial appointments accordingly: meaning left-leaning appointments.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1598017' date='Jul 11 2008, 03:13 PM']And as far a writing legislation, McCain's signature law is McCain-Feingold. He will never want to appoint a judges that would challenge McCain's legislation. Thus, McCain would make judicial appointments accordingly: meaning left-leaning appointments.[/quote]

or a replica of Justice Stevens, which won't really help the pro-life movement either...

Edited July 11, 2008 by Didymus

[Hassan]

[quote name='Pontifex' post='1523630' date='May 9 2008, 09:45 PM'][url="http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm"]John McCain on the issue of Abortion[/url]
Click the link to get know him. His record looks pretty good. While you're at it, look at the voting records of our two democrats.[/quote]



It seems inappropriate for you to claim that Catholics have a duty to vote for McCain over anyone else being that you are a Priest.

It seems especially odd given McCains support for Stem Cell research, the Death Penalty, the War in Iraq and numerous other positions that seem to fly in the face of Church teachings, and the public statements of two Popes.

I understand that you are also a private citizen and so absolutely have a right to support whoever you wish. But to, one a Catholic Board, proclaiming yourself as an "ordained Priest" to claim that he is the "The only viable option for Catholics" seems wildly inappropriate.

If your only stating your opinion as a private citizen then I apologize, or if the Church has itself officially proclaimed McCain the only viable option for Catholics I also apologize. But I have not heard the Church make such a pronouncement.

[Lounge Daddy]

I've gotta say that I took the comments as intending to spark discussion and debate--which is what these forums are for.

I think that if the post were intended to be taken as a spiritual authority figure giving direction or an order, Father would have posted under "Transmundane Lane" or some other spot under the phormation boards.

The "election section" for political discussion and debate, and I took this topic to be a part of of that discussion and debate. Priests need to work this stuff out too, just like the rest of us.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1599731' date='Jul 14 2008, 12:56 AM']I've gotta say that I took the comments as intending to spark discussion and debate--which is what these forums are for.

I think that if the post were intended to be taken as a spiritual authority figure giving direction or an order, Father would have posted under "Transmundane Lane" or some other spot under the phormation boards.

The "election section" for political discussion and debate, and I took this topic to be a part of of that discussion and debate. Priests need to work this stuff out too, just like the rest of us. [/quote]


I took it as him claiming, as a Catholic Priest, that McCain was the only candidate a Catholic could, in good conscious, support. Again, if that was not his intent I'd be more then willing to apologize.

[Niccolò]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1597624' date='Jul 11 2008, 09:00 AM']What you've cited, apart from the "life issues," are [i]causes célèbres[/i] for Republicans / Conservatives but not necessarily considerations from a Catholic perspective, i.e. we as Catholics can disagree on "gun rights" or drilling in ANWR.[/quote]

Right, but I was addressing Lounge Daddy who had brought up other issues (such as national security and taxes, he obviously being from a Conservative/Libertarian perspective).

[quote]As far as "life issues," McCain's support for embryonic stem cell research makes him a no-no in terms of USCCB guidance on voting. Again, contrary to the assertion of the OP, McCain is not the "only viable choice for Catholics."[/quote]

Correct, McCain is not perfect on life issues, as I pointed out. However, does this mean we are morally obliged not to vote for either candidate? McCain is not perfect on life issues, but Obama is exceedingly terrible on them. That was merely my point, and it makes sense to vote for the lesser evil in light of the candidates' respective records. In my view voting third party is pointless.

[Niccolò]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1598017' date='Jul 11 2008, 03:13 PM']And as far a writing legislation, McCain's signature law is McCain-Feingold. He will never want to appoint a judges that would challenge McCain's legislation. Thus, McCain would make judicial appointments accordingly: meaning left-leaning appointments.[/quote]

Perhaps, or perhaps he would appoint someone who would uphold McCain-Feingold but be more like Kennedy on life issues. My point is that even a Kennedy moderate would be better than anyone Obama would appoint.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Niccolò' post='1600043' date='Jul 14 2008, 05:32 PM']McCain is not perfect on life issues...[/quote]

Um, ya McCain is "not perfect on life issues." I would put it in stronger terms, considering the facts. John McCain never wrote any pro-life legislations, he had blocked other congressmen's pro-life work (some of that pro-life work Bob Barr was directly involved in, by the way). Further, legislation that McCain did write has cost pro-life groups time and money aggressively fighting in court.

In greater detail, McCain:

* was said to be "[url="http://web.archive.org/web/20060926070641/http://www.nrlc.org/news/2000/NRL02/doug.html"]incompatible with the pro-life movement[/url]" by Right to Life in February of 2000. (They went so far as to state that John McCain "has posed a threat to future advances by the pro-life movement.")

* was [url="http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020605.html"]endorsed by Republicans for Choice[/url] in the 2000 election before the primaries, and again during the current election's primaries in February of this year. (McCain accepted the endorsement every time.)

* [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkcVXIhssCI"]was almost the running [/url]mate to pro-choice Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 campaign. [[url="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/26/opinion/polls/main619786.shtml"]another link[/url]] [[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542473/"]and another[/url]]

* authored [url="http://www.catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=44718"]legislation that banns Pro-Life groups from supporting candidates[/url] for office. This has cost RTL groups a lot of money fighting McCain's anti-free speech legislation in court.

* [url="http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=26460"]no one has fought harder to prevent pro-life legislation[/url] from reaching the floor than John McCain. One pro-life congressman who complained several times about this is Rick Santorum, [url="http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Santorum:_McCain_Presiden/2008/01/14/64277.html"]who stated that a McCain presidency would be "very dangerous."[/url]

* McCain's campaigns have been bankrolled by pro-choice, wildly socialist, and primarily Democrat funders--[url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56177"]including George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry [/url]since 2001. Yes, Heinz Kerry--John Kerry's wife. In other words if you follow the money, no matter which one wins the election this time, the socialist and pro-choice financial backers still win.

If that all fits your criteria of "not perfect on life issues" then I agree with you. The interesting that the fact is McCain has actually done more to damage the pro-life movement than Obama; yet he tries to run as "the pro-life guy," or at least the "lesser of two evils" candidate. McCain is neither. It's both comical and sad.