Kyrie Eleison Asks: "When Do We Get to See the REAL Candidates?"
Rob K at Kyrie Eleison isn't happy with the choice of presidential candidates he has to choose from. Part of the problem seems to be a misperception about the candidate whose views, in my opinion, most closely reflect the full range of Catholic social teachings:
The upcoming presidential race is already looking unfortunate.In response to Leticia's comment defending Brownback, Rob goes on to say:
***
Brownback? He is right on all the life and gay agenda issues! For everything else, he is terrible: environment, helping the downtrodden, etc. Unless you are a big corporation, Sam won't be there for your. Sorry, my pro-life agenda doesn't end at birth.
Basically, before it even starts I know there is no candidate that represents me. Gee, another election among people that I don't want. Great.
Brownback is a good guy in the culture wars, but no friend to the working or the poor in the US. I'm keeping an open mind, but he is not what I want either.This was my response:
You need to read up on Brownback a little more if you think he's "terrible [on] ... helping the downtrodden" or that he's "no friend to the poor". A good place to start would be this story in the St. Petersburg Times.
See also,
"Mr. Compassionate Conservative",
"Sam Brownback Goes to Prison",
and
"USCCB Official Expresses Gratitude to Sen. Brownback for Hearings on Capital Punishment".
Brownback has also taken a LOT of heat from conservatives for having a humane position on illegal immigration and amnesty that closely matches that of the USCCB.
Seriously, Sam Brownback is the ONLY candidate from either party who takes seriously the whole range of Catholic social teaching. I urge you to reconsider your view on his candidacy.
Labels: Brownback, Catholic Social Teaching, Elections, Voting Your Values
posted by Pro Ecclesia 12:01 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
And I urge you to reconsider Brownback's position on illegal immigration. His position and that of the USCCB (which is not the magisterium) on illegal immigration violates pro-life principles. I wrote about it here
I like Brownback best, although I have some reservations (not moral, just about possible differences of policy and approach).
This morning, as I listened to a radio report on the Democrats, I found myself trying to decide between Obama and Clinton...because if the GOP doesn't nominate someone really against abortion (and "personally opposed but" doesn't work), then I don't know why I shouldn't choose between Obama and Clinton, and another Democrat.
I'm a right winger, but I'll be blanked if I'm going to lift a finger to put a pro-abortion Republican in the White House. The prolife issue is the last conservative one the GOP still has going for it, other than taxes.
I'm with you, Father. If it's Giuliani vs. Hillary! or Giuliani vs. Obama, I'm not so sure it isn't better for the Democrat to win.
I won't vote for either of the Deathocrats, but I won't vote for Giuliani either. Guess that means 3rd party time.
As many, including you I belive Jay have pointed out, it is almost better to have a dem then a pro-choice republican, atleast that way, republican congressmen would fight them tooth-and-nail, and the party would learn a lesson it should have learned from Ford, pro-choice Republicans are a elctoral disastor.
I'm with you too that if one of the "top 3" Giuliani, Romney or McCain get the nomination, I won't be helping a Republican get elected. That will surely happen if we don't unite pro-lifers with the other conservative answers to the issues. "If we don't hang together, we will surely hang separately."
Post a Comment
<< Home