Home › Forums › All Things Catholic › 2004’s possible effect on 2008
- This topic has 1 reply, 4 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 1 month ago by About Catholics Team.
January 30, 2004 at 12:40 am #640AnonymousInactive
I have made no secret about who I support in 2004.
I believe President Bush has been a very compassionate advocate for the weak and the oppressed, often at conflict with his own party.
However, an unintended, yet powerful possibility exists as a consequence of his possibly being reelected.
If George W Bush is reelected and we caontinue to progress in a number of ways, I believe we may be setting the groundwork for a praticing, pro-life Catholic as one of the premier frontrunners for 2008.
His name? Bush.
Jeb Bush.January 30, 2004 at 5:20 am #2388
Wow, I didn’t know Jeb Bush was Catholic. ” title=”Cool” /> What happened to the rest of his family? Is Jeb a convert?
Anyway, there is the other side of the coin. There could be a democrat that rises up by 2008 that the American public embraces and if Jeb Bush does decide to run, he could be defeated.
Her name? Clinton.
Now, this is all just speculation of course and I am not advocating for her, but I think that if she ran she has a great chance at winning because of her power, and that she is a woman. I’m sure she could get a lot of people to the polls that don’t normally vote or vote for the Green party candidate to vote for her based on her gender. I really think she could pull it off one day.
But, I’m all for a [u:1r79c1ku][b:1r79c1ku]Catholic[/b:1r79c1ku][/u:1r79c1ku] candidate regardless of party that embraces [b:1r79c1ku][u:1r79c1ku]Catholic[/u:1r79c1ku][/b:1r79c1ku] values.February 4, 2004 at 1:50 am #2403AnonymousInactive
Just make sure you vote for a Catholic candidate with Catholic values. Kerry is self-professed Catholic but in favor of abortion.February 4, 2004 at 5:24 am #2406
Which I think is too bad because otherwise Kerry is a solid candidate. Well, there is the gay civil unions thing that he supports, but that’s another topic for discussion (the pros and cons of it).February 6, 2004 at 7:56 pm #2417
I have been wondering, if a pro-abortion candidate is elected, can/will he be able to recind/change the restrictions that Bush has put onto partial birth abortions?
I would rather not have to think about it though.February 9, 2004 at 8:46 pm #2421
[quote:k78znltx]I have been wondering, if a pro-abortion candidate is elected, can/will he be able to recind/change the restrictions that Bush has put onto partial birth abortions?
I would rather not have to think about it though.[/quote:k78znltx]
Yes, I am sure they can do that. That is what I have found bothersome about American politics is that one president can undo a whole slew of things another has done.
Of course, I think, any change would have to start off as a bill in Congress and would have to be passed by both the House and the Senate before it even reaches the president to sign it into law. So if the president wants to make changes to current laws it must go through a lot of other people first.
I think John Kerry said that if he were elected he would appoint all pro-choice judges. Of course those have to go through Congress too (and with a Republican controlled Congress you can bet that they will never be approved).February 11, 2004 at 5:21 am #2430AnonymousInactive
Despite strongly opposing the Democratic candidates on many issues,
consistently placed me as matching Kerry and Kucinich most closely. I almost feel that the test is biased (how can I be 100% Kerry & Kucinich and 97% Bush?).February 11, 2004 at 5:32 am #2433
Well, perhaps those candidates have some views that are not traditional to the Demcrat party as you suspect.
Anyway, I took it and I got 100% for Kucinich, 99% for Sharpton (and I honestly don’t like how he presents himself or what he has to say) 83% Kerry, and 33% Bush.
Take that as you will. ” title=”Razz” />February 12, 2004 at 5:28 pm #2437
I took it too, and I don’t think it is an accurate test at least for me because it seems to place benefits and educational issues on the same level of importance as abortions and the death penalty.
When I took it I indicated that I had strong opinions on abortions as well as the death penalty, but the results better matched my preferences on education and health benefits.
While health benefits and education acts, are important, I wish the test/inventory would let us indicate what specific issues are more important rather than just classifying everything as “social issues.”
However, I did find the “Compare the Candidates” section somewhat more helpful. ” title=”Smile” />February 13, 2004 at 8:43 pm #2446
[quote:287y7srw]I took it too, and I don’t think it is an accurate test at least for me because it seems to place benefits and educational issues on the same level of importance as abortions and the death penalty.
When I took it I indicated that I had strong opinions on abortions as well as the death penalty, but the results better matched my preferences on education and health benefits.[/quote:287y7srw]
Strong opinions against or in favor? ” title=”Confused” /> And what candidate did it say you best matched up with?February 14, 2004 at 2:29 am #2450AnonymousInactive
Yes…Jeb Bush is a convert to the Catholic faith..as is Bob Novak.
I took the test and received a 100% agreement rating with GWB…as if that surprises anyone *g*February 14, 2004 at 2:18 pm #2452
[quote:2vnomzxc] Strong opinions against or in favor? And what candidate did it say you best matched up with? [/quote:2vnomzxc]
I had Kucinich and three others who favor abortion on the top of my matching list for the inventory, but my point was that the the top four people on my list were totally opposite my opinions on abortion and/or the death penalty and also they stood on the other side of the spectrum for a few other issues that I had indicated I stood on the other side.
I know that no candidate fits my opinion exactly but the way it turned out almost opposite–It was pretty weird. ” title=”Confused” />February 15, 2004 at 7:34 am #2455
That’s funny. It sounds like we had about the same results. ” title=”Wink” />
Yeah, I think that little section at the end where it asks how important you rank things plays a part in how it ranks the candidates for you. If you rank social issues high I am sure that democrats will come out on top in your listing.February 18, 2004 at 2:39 am #2459
Ok, I didn’t really think of the different value each political party places on social issues. I guess my results make a little more sense now.February 23, 2004 at 8:44 am #2496
[quote:pzci8u4i]Ok, I didn’t really think of the different value each political party places on social issues. I guess my results make a little more sense now.[/quote:pzci8u4i]
Well, haven’t you ever noticed how the democrats actually care about education whereas the republicans are concerned with big business and making the rich richer? ” title=”Wink” />February 25, 2004 at 7:35 am #2520
Yeah, I have noticed that before, but it was not on my mind at the time when I was thinking about the inventory. ” title=”Smile” />February 25, 2004 at 10:34 pm #2526AnonymousInactive
I take some exception to the comment that Republicans are all about big business and making the rich richer. My complaining here stems from some personal experience of stereotypes given to the two parties (Republican and Democrat)
In ancient times(late 70’s and early 80’s) as I was finishing up my degree, studying and working with graduate students, I would hear this type of comment: all the Republicans are about is big business, the Democrats care about education.
What I thought was interesting was that everyone in that particular group was getting a graduate degree courtesy of grants furnished by none other than big business. Furthermore everysingle job both for summer and thoughout the school year was also owed to business grants. You would think this might be the case in science and technology where business has a vested interest
but this was in the field of Anthropology.
My point is that you hear that the Democrats are interested in education, and alot of somewhat useless laws and non-effective programs are started. All good intentions, but when it comes right down to it, it’s the private sector and business that actually provides the dough to run things.
” title=”Razz” /> okay I know I am just mouthing off here about my political feelings but I think that big business gets a bum rap, when it actually provides alot of good things that we just don’t hear about. Go ahead and call me on this, because I too need to make informed decisions come election time.February 26, 2004 at 6:47 am #2532
How dare my future mother-in-law disagree with me ” title=”Wink” />
Anyway, you may have evidence that supports big business, but what I was referring to are many of the large companies that pay their execultives way too much and squander the little guy. Most employees in the United States are overworked, underpaid (unless you are upper management) and burnt out.
Vacation time is hard to come by as is maternity or even paternity leave, sick days, generous benfits, etc…. I think businesses have a larger obligation to their employees and to the community as a whole to take care of their workers and keep them healthy rather than focus so much on profits.
This is just my observation.February 28, 2004 at 7:09 am #2539
Actually some people even in upper management are overworked and doing the jobs of four other people too.February 28, 2004 at 7:58 am #2542
[quote:3bivq4gb]Actually some people even in upper management are overworked and doing the jobs of four other people too.[/quote:3bivq4gb]
I’m talking about CEO level people. ” title=”Wink” />
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.