Ignore Your Conscience and Vote?

[Michie]

Should pro-lifers ignore social issues in this upcoming election?

Some GOP officials like Governors Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour are urging pro-lifers and traditional marriage advocates to take a seat on the bench and hush their mouths so the Republican Party can focus on economic issues.

A smart political play? Maybe. But here’s the thing. I’m not smart, OK? I’m no great political strategist. I’m not James Carville or Karl Rove. I’m just a voter and I’m done trying to be smart. I mean it. I’m done. I’m done playing the angles and reading the polls. I’m voting my conscience. Every time. And it drives me crazy to hear people telling me to vote with my head and not my heart. It drives me crazy to be told to “be smart.” Smart gave Republicans Arlen Specter.

And we’re even being told to “be smart” in who we vote for in the primary because pro-lifers may vote for a candidate who can win a primary but not a general election. Are they kidding? Republicans have had that kind of majority before. How’d that work out?

Continued- http://www.ncregister.com/blog/ignore-your-conscience-and-vote

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

Being Smart as in Prudent in the real meaning of the word, does not mean selling ones soul for money. We can not pretend that the fate of our countries children is less important then the fate of it's pocket book. That's the kind of thinking that got us abortion in the first place.

 

[_Shannon_]

This illustrates all that is wrong with the two party system. We need to start sending up candidates that both are pro-life, and deeply concerned with social issues---as well as have some actually helpful economic ideas.

I am so over the "there's only these two ways of doing things"--both of which suck.

 

[Eucharisted]

Better question: Should Catholics adhere to Church teaching?

Because I'm not a prolife or prochoice Catholic, I'm not a political or apolitical Catholic, I'm not a conservative or liberal Catholic, and I'm not a modernist or traditionalist Catholic: I'm just Catholic.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Every election cycle Republicans tell prolifers: "well no, the political reality is that we can't do what you want (and in fact we can do less than we promised you last time) but if you don't vote for us you'd get a Democrat in office." The amount of concessions that Republicans make to the prolife crowd is less every election. This means that eventual (and I would argue that this is the situation now) that the only appeal of the Republican candidate from a prolife point of view is that at least they won't make things as bad as the Democrat would. The further this gets (witness Scott Brown, the "prolife" victory who doesn't even think abortion should be illegal) the more reluctantly the prolifer voter will give his vote. Eventually the appeal of the average Republican candidate will be so low that they will not be able to rely on the prolife vote in any way (for instance, if it comes down to "we both want abortions to be legal with no restrictions, but they would have more tax dollars go to support abortion.")

If the prolife community wants to have any of their demands met, it has to think long term. If the prolife vote is always Republican (and Bart Stupak made sure that it's not going to be Democrat any time soon,) then the Republican party has no reason to give any concessions to the prolife movement. Prolifers have to say "if you aren't supporting the right to life of innocents and the dignity of the human person, you aren't getting my vote, even if it means that I don't vote." It might mean that things get worse for a few years, but it's better than a future where the Democrats make things worse and the Republicans make things worse too, but perhaps an iota less quickly.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

This illustrates all that is wrong with the two party system. We need to start sending up candidates that both are pro-life, and deeply concerned with social issues---as well as have some actually helpful economic ideas.

I am so over the "there's only these two ways of doing things"--both of which suck.

How could anyone disagree with this.

 

[The Grey Pilgrim]

Even Charles Krauthammer has come out telling people not to elect so-called "weak" Tea Party candidates because it will split the "conservative" vote and help the liberals.

This is why I continue to refuse to register with a party. Both parties are in the pockets of interest groups-be it SEIU or Big Industry-because we have allowed them to grow their power and create this huge central government which provides the opportunity for them to be influenced by other groups with money who want things their way. If the governemnt remained small and weak, as the Founding Fathers originally intended it to be, there would be no reason for lobbyists and influence peddlers because the government would be as it is suppose to be-impotent.

 

[JoabAnias]

Should pro-lifers ignore social issues in this upcoming election?

Its in the best interest of morality for faithful citizens to proportionately weigh all issues independent of any party according to how they relate to Catholic teaching.

 

[Fantine]

I'm not quite sure what the problem is that Haley Barbour is referring to, because it seems to me that most social conservatives favor the Republican position on economic issues, too.

There aren't that many pro-choice Republicans except in the Northeast and the West Coast. Mayor Bloomberg will never win a national election because he is pro-choice and anti-gun, but there are plenty of other Republicans who are both socially and fiscally conservative.

Instead of criticizing social conservatives, he should be criticizing the tea-partiers, who are hoisting a number of unprepared and basically unelectable candidates on to the national stage.

 

[JoabAnias]

The extremism coming out of the Tea Party (especially early on) has irreversibly blighted their credibility.

Anyone serious about getting elected has distanced themselves from their inconsequential influence. They are their own worst enemies and only reactionary.

 

[The Grey Pilgrim]

I'm not quite sure what the problem is that Haley Barbour is referring to, because it seems to me that most social conservatives favor the Republican position on economic issues, too.

There aren't that many pro-choice Republicans except in the Northeast and the West Coast. Mayor Bloomberg will never win a national election because he is pro-choice and anti-gun, but there are plenty of other Republicans who are both socially and fiscally conservative.

Instead of criticizing social conservatives, he should be criticizing the tea-partiers, who are hoisting a number of unprepared and basically unelectable candidates on to the national stage.

Don't you think one of the major problems with politicians is that the word "professional" so often appears in front of the word?

What qualifies as "unprepared"? I would argue that Washington is full of people that are overprepared and over-qualified. These are people who have educated themselves into imbecility. Yet we continue to elect them, believeing to be "qualified" and "electable", and yet they still continue to just screw things up worse and worse?

What do they say the definition of an idiot is?....

 

[scraparcs]

I hate how the Tea Party movement has gotten so extreme. It was a great idea of self-reliance and economic movement. What happened?

 

[SolomonVII]

The last election contained a window of opportunity for pro-life to appoint some judges to the Supreme Court which could have stemmed the tide against Roe v Wade as the guiding principle.

That window has been shut, As Ginsburg has triumphally noted.

There was a time when it seemed that pro-life Democrats might hold the key to turning the tide somewhat in the health care bill, but that moment was brief as well. Stupak had other priorities it seems.

Catholics should always use their votes to end the evil of the destruction of the next generation.

 

[JoabAnias]

I hate how the Tea Party movement has gotten so extreme. It was a great idea of self-reliance and economic movement. What happened?

No vision or objectivity. To many of them seem ruled by their passions and quite radically at that.

 

[JoabAnias]

The last election contained a window of opportunity for pro-life to appoint some judges to the Supreme Court which could have stemmed the tide against Roe v Wade as the guiding principle.

That window has been shut, As Ginsburg has triumphally noted.

There was a time when it seemed that pro-life Democrats might hold the key to turning the tide somewhat in the health care bill, but that moment was brief as well. Stupak had other priorities it seems.

Catholics should always use their votes to end the evil of the destruction of the next generation.

Its as if moral principles have no chance in politics.

We had a moderate Catholic run for nomination to Gov here in MI and he and the fundamentalist basically canceled each other out so we wind up with a rhino against a rad liberal. Both of which are worse than the pro-choicer currently in. No hope in politics. Scriptures tells us of the folly of putting hope in the world or princes of the world. Constant let down. Jesus calls us to peace. Sure, vote proportionately on the morality of the issues as a good steward but keep the utmost focus on Jesus.

 

[Fantine]

I hate how the Tea Party movement has gotten so extreme. It was a great idea of self-reliance and economic movement. What happened?

Ding, ding, ding!

They joined forces with Sarah Palin?

 

[_Shannon_]

I hate how the Tea Party movement has gotten so extreme. It was a great idea of self-reliance and economic movement. What happened?

Political pundits saw an opportunity to exploit people and took it?? For ratings and money?

 

[wiggsfly]

Should pro-lifers ignore social issues in this upcoming election?

Why not? They ignore EVERY other issue during every election. Ironically they don't even vote for candidates who have or will do anything for abortion either.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Why not? They ignore EVERY other issue during every election. Ironically they don't even vote for candidates who have or will do anything for abortion either.

It would be so much easier if we had a real Catholic choice.

Seems like we are always looking for the lesser of evils.

 

[EmbattledBunny]

To me, it's easy. I just don't vote for candidates who favor legal abortion. I couldn't vote for Obama or McCain. That means I'm usually writing in some obscure nobody. So be it. Hopefully there will be enough voters like me someday that some candidate will take note and pander to our desires.