Scott Richert, on the traditionalist conservative Chronicles (their website), says Catholics ought to be wary of voting for McCain just to get Palin. Excerpt:
t's hard not to like Sarah Palin. Her accent may grate even on my Midwestern ears; she may be all too happy to accept the role of a "pit bull in lipstick" (not exactly a dignified way for a woman--much less a mother--to act); and she has certainly shown an eagerness to cast aside political positions that no longer serve her interests. (Despite her pro-life credentials, in her last political race--for governor of Alaska in 2006--Mrs. Palin refused to discuss the issue except to vow not to propose pro-life legislation if elected.) But there is no doubt that, compared with Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and John McCain, she seems more normal--more one of us. Her failings as much as her virtues bolster that feeling.But that doesn't change the decision before us in November. Anyone who votes for John McCain because of Sarah Palin still votes for John McCain, with all that that implies: rabid support for a war that two consecutive popes have condemned; the possible expansion of that war to Iran, and maybe Syria; a new Cold War with Russia; a vow to expand funding of embryonic stem-cell research, including the creation of new lines, which requires the destruction of more embryos; an unwillingness (as McCain repeatedly stated back in 1999) to overturn Roe v. Wade; support for contraception, sex education, and family-planning programs.
Anyone who planned to abstain from voting in November or intended to vote for a third-party candidate and is now considering voting for McCain-Palin needs to ask himself this question: Why? Is Sarah Palin providing cover for his desire to vote for McCain? Or is her nomination simply a convenient excuse to allow him to vote against Barack Obama?
If the latter, it would be better to own up to the reason and state forthrightly that he is not voting for McCain-Palin but against Obama-Biden. Then, his vote for the Republican ticket at least would not imply support for all of the anti-Christian policies that McCain has proposed, and the voter will not feel compelled to defend McCain when he carries through on his promises.
For myself, nothing has changed. Neither ticket will receive my vote.
Either I'll vote McCain-Palin to vote against Obama-Biden, and to elevate Palin in national politics, or I'll return to my Richertian position of not voting in the presidential race. Much depends on what we learn about Sarah Palin in the next eight weeks. I caught some of her speech today live on CNN at a McCain-Palin rally in Colorado Springs, and she was droning on about John McCain in the Hanoi Hilton, using the exact same lines we've heard from the convention. She's got to do better than that. How about talking less about who y'all are -- which is impressive, and legitimately part of your pitch -- and more about what y'all are going to do?
(H/T: Mark Shea)
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Well, we do have one of two positions espoused, often by the same people, and they conflict as to Palin's social positions, and what role she will take as VP.
The first says that a VP doesn't do much. Which, of course, a VP doesn't HAVE to do much, but certainly can. It kind of depends on the president they are serving under. Some VP's have done nothing more than PR and State funerals. Others have actually taken roles in writing and enacting policy, trying to persuade the Legislature, and serving on various important commissions. You can't be sure what Palin will be doing. But there is one thing for sure. She WILL be doing what the president does, if anything happens to McCain.
But, if McCain is fine for 4 years, AND decides to let her serve purely ceremonially, her qualifications probably don't matter. But then.. neither do her social positions. Can't really have it both ways, there.
If Sarah Palin is going to play an active and vital role as VP in this administration, then yes, her social positions might have an impact on policy. But, in that case, her qualifications ARE important.
"rabid support for a war that two consecutive popes have condemned"
Whether or not one agrees with why we are there, we are. Even Pope Benedict XVI has stated that now that we are there, the situation is different - and he was as vocal a critic as any.
As for Russia, I think the horse has already left the stable... Why don't you check the goings on in the papers today....
As for pro-life issues, are we going to vote for pro-infanticide Obama instead?
What about the lies about Palin's fiscal record, on earmarks in general and the 'bridge to nowhere' in particular? Any conservatives bothered about that?
Please don't say that Obama countenances baby killing. He voted against a bill prohibiting infanticide because Illinois already had that bill in place. To spread that lie is in and of itself a sin! By the way, the doctors as a group also decried the specific bill that Obama voted against. I worry about Palin's impetuous emotional behavior. She herself had to get married just as her daughter did. Today, many women have the baby first and then get married, but Palin represented abstinence and wasn't able to deliver on it. So, to me, that represents a lack of character!
Thank you for your honesty and stating what is so obvious to many of us. I am a conservative and I normally tend to vote Republican. I will not do that in this election. Not only is the nominee not a conservative, the man has stated on numerous occasions that he believes in Evolution. I'm sorry, but I cannot support that ideology.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.