Friday, October 29, 2004

Michael Perry responds to the Russ Hittinger post I linked to below:

(Imagine that it is a long time ago, the issue is slavery, and there are two candidates for the presidency: Candidate A opposes slavery on moral grounds and will work to abolish it. Candidate B does not oppose slavery on moral grounds and will not work to abolish it. However, B's economic policies happen to be subversive, in the longer run, of the institution of slavery, while A's economic policies happen to be, in the longer run, not at all subversive of the institution of slavery. Assume too that there is good reason to believe that notwithstanding A's moral opposition to slavery, neither A nor anyone else will be able to achieve a legal ban on slavery. (A does not plan to start a civil war over slavery.) Assume further, however, that B's economic policies will very likely result, within a generation, in the withering away of the institution of slavery. In my judgment, a faithful Catholic could reasonably decide to vote for B, notwithstanding the fact that A is morally opposed to slavery and would try to abolish it and B is not morally opposed to slavery and would not work to abolish it, as a way of expressing "solidarity" with the victims of slavery.)

My answer: Imagine you are a slave in that situation. Whom whould you want to see elected? The one who has sworn not to change the law, or appoint anyone who would change the law, to free you from slavery, but whose economic policies might one day lead to end of slavery, or the candidate who will work to change the law to abolish slavery, but whose economic polcies may not lead to that end? For whom would a slave vote, if he could? My strong suspicion is that he'd vote for the person who would change the law to free him.

There moral value in having a president who believes slavery is wrong, and it's the government's business. Would we dream of voting for a president who favored legalized slavery today, reagardless of his inability to enact it, or whether his economic policies were subversive of slavery?

Bringing us back to the present time, how are Kerry's economin policies going to subvert abortion? Has he stated this as a policy goal? No, you know why not? Because if he did, NARAL and Planned Parenthood would freak out, and they are a big part of Kerry's coalition. Again, would we dream of supporting a presidential candidate backed by those wishing to bring slavery back?

This looks to me more like an excuse than real moral reasoning.
Hmmm.. something tells me they didn't read my letter.

Kerry - Edwards - Stronger at Home. Respected in the World.
Find events/rallies:


Thank you for your e-mail supporting John Kerry and John Edwards.
Thousands of people like you from across the country are committed and
working hard for a Kerry-Edwards victory in November.

Here are John Kerry's remarks on A New Course For America:

Vote for Kerry-Edwards before November 2. Go here for details:

Problems voting? Here is the number of the DNC Voter Hotline:

For the final stretch of the campaign, your continued efforts to support
Kerry-Edwards are more critical than ever. A strong grassroots
organization is imperative to get John Kerry and John Edwards elected.

If you are already volunteering, thank you for your great efforts. If you
haven't please take the following steps to get involved:

1) Sign up at our VolCenter by clicking on this link: Once logged in to the
VolCenter, you will find many ways to help, such as calling fellow
volunteers, traveling to swing states, and hosting house parties.

2) Contact state and local offices directly to volunteer. Go to to find Kerry-Edwards state office(s) and
other useful information. For Democratic Party offices, enter your state
in the "Get Local" section on the left of

To join forces with voters that have similar concerns, go to our
communities page: and find ways to
connect to Kerry support groups around the country.

Get straight answers to attacks and distortions:

The Kerry-Edwards campaign receives public funds for the general election,
so federal campaign finance law prohibits us from raising more private
funds. You can still contribute to the Democratic Party for critical
field programs get-out-the vote efforts to make all Democrats victorious
in November. To contribute to the Democratic Party, click on the
following link: or mail your check

Democratic National Committee
430 S Capitol St SE
Washington, DC 20003

You can also contribute to the Kerry-Edwards 2004 General Election Legal
Accounting and Compliance (GELAC) fund to help pay legal and accounting
expenses incurred by the campaign. Click on the following link: Or mail your check

Kerry-Edwards 2004 GELAC
P.O. Box 77998
Washington, DC 20013

The Kerry - Edwards Team

If you don't want further email from the Kerry-Edwards campaign, reply to with Remove in the subject line.

Your contribution is not tax-deductible as a charitable contribution for
Federal income tax purposes. Paid for and authorized by Kerry-Edwards
2004, Inc.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

On the Mirror of Justice blog, Russ Hittinger states the case of why Catholics, or anyone who professes solidarity with the unborn, could not vote for Kerry. Storng, simple, and free of the personal acrimony and jealousy that has seemed to punctuate the pro-lifers vs. Kerry debate so far.

Dear Senator Kerry,

I am writing today to tell you who will receive my vote for president and why.

I am very concerned about the President Bush’s foreign policies, his seeming eagerness to see war as the first option, his failure to plan things out fully, and the impact this has had on the United States’ reputation in the world. It is hard to be proud to be American when I turn on the news and see our soldiers abusing prisoners, and hostage after hostage being taken prisoner and executed in retaliation for our policies. I am concerned about an Administration that seems OK with using torture and setting aside international law.

So, I would welcome a change in the Oval Office. You seem to be up to the task. You take the threat of global terror seriously, but you are not so anxious to plunge us into war. You are willing to work with our traditional allies, and respect our tradition of concern for the rights of the criminally accused. You oppose the death penalty, which is a needlessly cruel practice in modern America. You were the president’s superior in all of the debates. If you were elected president, I could be prouder to be an American.

But I cannot vote for you.

Because, as you profess to agree, I believe that life begins at conception. And if there has been one thing you have been consistent on in your political career, it has been to deny the unborn any protection under the law, and to exploit them for medical research. You have pledged not to nominate Supreme Court nominees who do not see the Constitution guaranteeing a right to abortion, ensuring that legal abortion will remain the law of the land for another generation. You have the support of every radical pro-abortion group.

This is profoundly disappointing, especially since we share the Catholic faith. I do not agree with those who sought to deny you communion, but my conscience will not allow me to support a candidate with such utter disregard for the rights of the unborn. And it baffles me how someone who says he believes that life begins at conception could take very opportunity to shove the unborn aside. You say that you can’t impose this “article of faith” on those who don’t share that belief, but that strikes me as a convenient pose. If I believed that abusing my child was OK, would you hesitate to impose your moral view on me? I certainly hope not.

I understand that your political party has long standing ties to the abortion industry. But, as the Party’s nominee, you are the leader of your party, and you had the opportunity to change that. You could have sent the message that those who believe in the rights of the unborn are welcome in the party. You could have sworn off litmus tests for judicial appointees, and disentangled the party from the abortion lobby.

You did none of these things. You continued to be careful not to say anything that could conflict with the most radical pro-abortion groups. You have not only supported research that destroys embryos, you have hyped its promise unrealistically, and demagogued the president on this issue.

It is my great hope that my vote and the votes of others like me will be the reason that you are not elected president. Perhaps then, you and your party will have to honestly reconsider your tight alliance with the abortion lobby, and we can work together to work for all people both born an unborn. I look forward to that day. It is my hope that you do, too.

If you are elected, I will continue to pray for you with this awesome responsibility, and that you will change your mind and use your position to put protections in place for the unborn.

I am sorry that I cannot support you in your campaign. I will be voting for President Bush.

Friday, October 15, 2004

Thursday, October 14, 2004

I was only watching between innings of the Cardinals game, but it sure looked to me like Bush was getting it handed to him last night.

The first 20 minutes was like a catalog of what everybody hates about Bush -- the sneering, the chuckling, the sarcasm. Mean while Kerry was calmaly outinling his plans.

Too bad I can't vote for him.

Monday, October 11, 2004

I find it ironic that Katherine Hawker complained about religious leaders
other than Archbishop Burke not being heard by the media, when I don't
recall the Post-Dispatch giving Archbishop Burke or any other Catholic
leader a forum to comment on the teachings of Hawker's Evangelical United
Church or any other church.
Friday night's debate made it quite clear to me that if I don't want to expand aortion and embryonic research, I really have no choice but to vote for Bush, so that is what I'm going to do.

Friday, October 08, 2004

Let the Vatican bashing begin! This should be fun...
Great discussions on the voting guides over at Disputations Blog.

One of my problems with the various "voting guides for Catholics" that have been coming out is that, to me, they seem to start with the conclusions, and work backwards.

It's as if I wanted to make an argument for who is the greatest baseball player of all time. One set of criteria I could put down is that the best baseball player must be from the past 50 years, have hit 500 home runs, been a Gold Glove fielder at a critical defensive position, and won a world championship, and I end up with... Mike Schmidt!.

Buy why home runs, not hits or batting average? Well, that probably would have led to a different conclusion.

I see the same sort of dynamic in selecting the non-negotiable issues, especially with the "intrinsically evil" requirement. It seems designed to exclude issues that might not favor Republicans, which is unfortunate.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

From Rich Lowry:

…closing statement. Here was the end of it:

“Now we find ourselves in the midst of a conflict unlike any we've ever known, faced with the possibility that terrorists could smuggle a deadly biological agent or a nuclear weapon into the middle of one of our own cities."

See, I get the distinct feeling that these are people who love war, enjoy being at war, and can't wait for the next opportunity to wage war.

And those aren't the people I want in charge.