Showing posts with label catholicvote. Show all posts
Showing posts with label catholicvote. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Presidential Pragmatism or Principle?


Today we are a year away from what could be a momentous day for us as a country. One year from today, we will be waking up the "morning after" the 2012 election. That means the possibility of a new President and new congressional members. If the polls are any indication we are in for a tight and hard fought race. If the press is any indication, it will be a dirty and scandal driven race as well, but when has politics every been pretty or nice? So the next year should be interesting...

Looking to 2012
···•···
Unfortunately, we have found ourselves once again in a dilemma as Catholics. We do this every four years. We look for the "perfect" candidate, only to come to the realization that no one is perfect. But we already knew that didn't we? No one is perfect. We are a fallen people, we are sinners, so why do we continually try to find and annoint someone as "perfect"? Over the last 15-20 years conservatives have been searching for the "next Reagan", and dont get me wrong I have a picture of Dutch framed, but he wasn't perfect either? So what are we doing, who exactly are we looking for?

Joshua Mercer, one of the preeminent Catholic political analysts out there, wrote today about a "Newt Temptation."
Like voting for Reagan in 1980 or McCain in 2008, I might be disappointed in the divorce, I would not consider it a deal breaker. But Newt’s second marriage to Marianne didn’t last until death do us part either. In fact, he cheated on her. And the “other woman” became Newt’s third wife.

But wait! Didn’t Newt convert to Catholicism? Doesn’t that mean that he’s performed an Act of Contrition and has been absolved of his sins? Yes, that’s very true. And Americans are a very forgiving people.

But does that mean we should promote him to be the leader of our country?

Right now we are in the middle of a national debate on what the nature of marriage is. The Republican Party’s platform calls for keeping marriage solely as a union of one man and one woman. President Obama, by stark contrast, has refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act and he has strongly opposed state marriage amendments.

Imagine what supporters of same-sex marriage will say if Newt Gingrich becomes the GOP nominee? “Newt Gingrich has been married three times, but he won’t let gays get married once.”

Is that fair? Maybe not. Does it matter if it’s fair? No.
His point is a good one. It dove-tails with mine, and it is that politics isn't about fair, and it isn't about what a person is today. It is about the total package. When we elect a president we are electing something more than just policy and politics. What did they say about McCain - he would be one missed heartbeat away from making Sarah Palin president. Age was a huge factor in the 2008 race for some folks, even it wasn't a deciding one, it still came into play.

So why are we looking for the perfect person, and what is close enough? Why are we treating our presidential politics like canned goods? We want the perfect can, because it makes us feel better about what's inside, don't we? Why can't we pick a president and not a pastor? Shouldn't we look at this whole thing a little more... oh I don't know, dare I say: pragmatically?

Principle and Not Pragmatism
···•···
No.
No we shouldn't.
This is about principle. This is about picking the best person for the job. Maybe better written, this is about picking the best person, for the job.

Great minds can be great advisors, but at the end of the day I want the person pulling the trigger, pushing the button, signing their name to be someone I trust. Someone that I believe in at the end of the day, full stop. I fear that we might not have that person in this group of candidates, because I want the perfect person. Which takes us right back to the start of this conversation. How do we vote? What do we need to see in a person, to vote for them as president. Is this a lesser of two evils decision? Because those don't generally sit well with most Catholics.

Many say it doesn't matter who is in office. The only difference between one or the other is where they get their money from, and then who they give a bulk of the money to. They might be right on some account, but I do believe at the end of the day it is important who sits in the Oval Office. I really do.

So we need to realize that picking who we support for President isn't going to be easy, but that doesn't mean we should cash in and give up. That means we can't succumb to pragmatism or polemic abstention. We need to do the hard and dirty work of trying to see which puzzle piece most closely resembles the picture we have carved out as Catholics as to what our next President should look like.

Don't get me wrong. I think the list of current candidates on the Republican side give me a cause for concern. They certainly make me pause. I think this conversation would be a lot different is names like Pence, Christie, and Palin were involved. Not that those people are closer to perfect, but because we would be talking about much different issues.

But they aren't so we have to continue working to figure out who it is that can lead this country back into a place of principled belief and economic stability. It isn't solely on their backs, but they play an important part. Our society and culture are being shaped on a daily basis by political decisions. We need someone as President that leads the effort to defining aspects of those elements that are reflective of the morality that a majority of Americans espouse. That is why the office of President is important. Because even if they aren't the penultimate determinative factor, they are symbolic of the direction and efforts that our political system is heading. We need to take this country in a direction, where our values are reflective of our virtues. Where what we do as a people stands on the principles of Life, Family, and Freedom.


†††

Monday, September 19, 2011

Support CatholicVote - Get an Apple


I wanted to pass along a little info from CatholicVote.org. They are a great Catholic organization dedicated to educating and advocating for individuals and laws that uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church and Natural law. You can learn more about them here, if you aren't already familiar with them. 
CatholicVote.org
They are in the midst of their 3-year anniversary celebration and need your help to continue their great work. I am always willing to help great groups out and CV is definitely one of them. Here is their appeal:
Click here to chip in $3, $30, $300, or any amount to win an iPhone 5 and help CV!

Our goal is to get as many subscribers as possible to help us kick off our 2012 plans.

All of the funds contributed this week will be put to work immediately to help fund our 2012 election year program.
To find out more, and to contribute... even a couple of dollars, please their site: CatholicVote.org. This week, if you donate you are entered to win a $500 Apple giftcard to use at Apple.com - the soon to be released iPhone 5, an iPad, a Mac Book - whatever! Also you will get a bumper sticker of the top image to display how you vote, for free! So take a minute, check out the site, and see if you can't skip the Venti Vanilla Capp today and donate that amount to CatholicVote.

Here is a video they had for last years election cycle that is one small example of what they do:



###

Friday, December 17, 2010

CatholicVote.org's: Top 10 Reasons for Hope - 2010

CatholicVote.org is one of the best Socio-Political websites out there. Whether it is their awesome viral videos, their election season endorsements, or their star-studded list of bloggers, they continually are at the forefront of Catholic American Political discourse.

Well, they did it again. They have created an awesome look back at the past year and the top ten things that should give all Catholics hope. Check out their website, read their blogs, and definitely watch the video below.


"Top 10 Reasons for Hope - 2010 edition." I think it speaks for it self.

Monday, November 9, 2009

The Stupak Amendment Redux: To be or not to be...

...as the vote loomed over the weekend regarding the Stupak amendment, there were questions raised in the Twitter-verse and Blog-osphere (especially the Cathol-og-osphere) about a few Consgressmen who were questioning the best thing to do regarding the amendment.

The debate/question centered on the politics of the Health Care Reform bill. Some posited the question of whether the abortion funding within the bill wasn't some sort of red hering (either intentional or accidental) that would shift the focus of conservatives, especially the pro-life conservatives (are there another kind?), into making the fight over THAT as opposed to the bill in general. One line of thinking was that if conservatives/republicans voted PRESENT on the Stupak amendment it would do two things:
  1. It would bring out the Democrats willing to fight the HCR Bill on certain issues, especially those close to conservative hearts.
  2. It would prevent the Democrats from using the amendment as a bargaining or compromise chip.(If you don't understand this, we can expand on it in the comment boxes).
Now I will admit, when I first saw this, I was pretty concerned about the amendment passing, and even more concerned that this line of thinking may be on to something! (Fear can do odd things to a man's brain, that is why we cannot live in fear.) After reading more commentary on it, and listening to people that I respect (people like T. Peters over at AmP) I realized that I was just being whipped up into a frenzy. I had lost sight of an important moral precept that I ardently oppose - the ends justifying the means. What is meant by that? Well... Matt Bowan (a fellow Ave Maria Law grad) over at CatholicVote.org wrote an article on this very issue today. He succintly explains why the battle over abortion is not something you play politics with. Doing the right thing is always proper, and should not and cannot become a means to an end.

Check out his article here:




[Green text should be read as "sub-conscience" or "under my breath" comments for the most part... I apologize for them if they offend - they are essentially my own commentary on my blog post.]

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Health Care Updates - Today in Washington


**UPDATE - 7:31pm est**:
Michelle Malkin has live blogging going on over at her blog. She has some good updates and has other people contributing to keep things up to date.
**VOTE UPDATE - 6:30pm est**:
Rumor has it that there are 209 CONFIRMED 'NO' votes on the Bill as it stands... Lets see if that holds up. 218 are needed... which means 9 more are needed.


There is a lot going on in D.C. today surrounding the Health Care bill. There is NO way that I can keep up with it, or that I have enough time to do so... but it is very important. The best place for info is most likely going to be over at the "American Papist"- American Papist: Not Your Average Catholic!: Health Care Updates - have the bishops endorsed PelosiCare?


You can also follow him on Twitter at: "@Americanpapist" - http://twitter.com/americanpapist

His Most recent update is:
Americanpapist: "bart stupak's amendment will be discussed during this upcoming 4 hours of debate. please keep calling 202-224-3121 to contact your reps."
The quick summary of the mornings events can be read here:
House OKs Vote on Stupak Amendment to Cut Abortion Funding From Health Care

I know this is a lot of linking and reading... but this is an important issue. There is a concern though that even if things "go well" this morning that in the end it won't actually be the end, but actually the beginning of a much LARGER battle. For a take on that read what the "Creative Minority Report" says:
Careful What You Wish For


I will try to keep everyone updated as I can on this... you can also check for any "Re-Tweets" on my twitter page: http://www.twitter.com/angelsdefendus


**UPDATE**:
This Reuters Story Seems to have some good info:
Health Care Wrap-Up



Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Is Bart Stupak the new Bob Casey? - Pro-Life Democrats Starting to Emerge

There is a battle waging within the war that some call Health Care Reform.
This battle is over abortion, life, and the culture of death.

The folks over at Catholic Vote of course are right on top of this, and have posted an article on their blog regarding some Dem's who are coming out on the Pro-Life side. So the hat-tip is directed towards them.


With overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate, why are the Democrats having such a tough time getting the votes they need to pass a healthcare reform bill?

It's their insistence that healthcare reform bills pay for abortions. And the main person standing in their way isn't even a Republican. It's a Democrat by the name of Congressman Bart Stupak.

Is he a southern conservative blue-dog Democrat? No way. He's from northern Michigan and he's not a conservative. He's a blue-collar pro-union Catholic. On economics, he finds common cause with Nancy Pelosi. But unlike the Democratic leadership, Stupak opposes abortion.

As Bill McGurn says in today's Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Stupak is the kind of Catholic who once constituted the heart of the Democratic Party. Just like Gov. Casey before him, Mr. Stupak's stand for life—in this case, his fight against tax dollars for abortion—is making him a thorn in the side of a Democratic president."

Stupak wants a floor vote on removing all direct or indirect support for abortion from the bill. But as McGurn notes, Stupak's own party won't allow the vote to happen.


Now I am not saying rush out and vote for the man. But Stupak has in the past lent himself to vote a little more independent than the typical Michigan Dem who follows party lines. The question is, why this issue? Sure, one could say that it is the issue itself, but few Pro-Life Dem's have let the "life issue" stand in the way of the bigger "prize." Usually the "ends justifying the means" is a convenient excuse to ignore such an issue.

The interesting part is that Stupak wants the amendment, is the leading voice in this battle. I know more than a few Catholics who are disillusioned with both parties, and finding politicians who are interested in principles and beliefs would be a VERY WARM WELCOME.

Don't get me wrong, this is one battle, in a much larger war, but as Fr. Z says, "Brick by Brick." I don't expect to move to the U.P. to work for Stupak anytime soon, but I do applaud his stance on one of the most important issues facing Americans.