www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall How Limbaugh convinced me not to vote for Bush

I have been going back and forth about what to do on Nov 2. Kerry, who's only consistent stand has been unconditional support for abortion, and who is a confessed war criminal, is out of the question. I could think of a few reasons for holding my nose and voting for Bush: faith based initiatives, school vouchers and the possibility, admittedly far from a given, of the appointment of prolife Supreme Court justices. Of course this is balanced by the fact that he has wreaked havoc in Iraq and seems capable of sparking a global mess in the Middle East.
So yesterday I was listening to Rush Limbaugh, a rarity as I can't stand the guy. He was talking about Iraq and was saying that we may have to use more "brutal" tactics against the insurgents, whom he reviled for hiding behind civilians [it apparently didn't occur to him that they ARE civilians, living with their wives and children]. He further said that we may need to use "other than conventional" weapons. He then said that Bush's hands are tied now because of the election, but that if he is re-elected he will then be free to finish the job with whatever it takes.
While it may be hard to underestimate the intelligence of Mr Bush, I really don't think he would use nuclear weapons -I mean if you think the world hates us now! However, Limbaugh's monologue got me thinking about what Bush may do if re-elected and I decided that I want no part of it.
I will leave the space for president blank on my ballot.
Thanks, Rush!
-Daniel, trying to walk out of the voting booth with a clean conscience

I watched a very interesting documentary on the History Channel a few days ago...about the days AFTER the end of WWII in Germany. Apparently, there were Iraqi type insurgents crawling all over the country, blowing up trains, train tracks, etc., and the way that law and order was reestablished in Germany was that each of the four countries given an area of Germany sentenced 'death' to captured insurgents.

The U.S. had them line up before firing squads, the French used the guillotine, and I don't remember what the others used, but it was equally harsh.

Ofcourse, those were the days before television, and I really don't think many people at all know about this.

No political comment is intended here, please trust me...just some thoughts at a very surprising revelation.

Dear Alice, while this does not justify such harsh measures, there are huge distinctions to be made between post-war Germany and the current situation in Iraq [one can hardly call it "post-war"]: Germany had invaded numerous European countries, Iraq has invaded only Kuwait, another Middle Eastern dictatorship, and that thirteen years ago. Germany was impelled by dreams of world conquest, Iraq had no such hopes. And while our invasion of Germany was without argument a defensive action, and one undertaken with a broad alliance, the invasion of Iraq has proven to be not defensive, but at best pre-emptive, undertaken virtually alone, aside from Great Britain [oh yeah, we have Fiji and the Phillipines, etc].
AND we had a leader worthy of the name, however much one may disagree with some of his decisions [allying himself with Stalin, for example].

The other day in my journalism class in highschool we were give a sheet with issues that have come up in this presidential election. in the right column there were the words AGREE or DISAGREE. None of the things said anything about which candidate was for which issue. The idea was to look at the issues at hand not at the candidate. Many kids were suprised but i wasn't. Alot of those kids said they would vote for Kerry on the grounds that their parents liked him or that someone famous was endorsing him. I think that. I'm not going to not vote for John Kerry just because that Leonardo DiCaprio said something bad about him but becuase I don't believe in his views and opinions. Why should we let radio talkshow hosts make the final call on whether or not we vote for a candidate.
-Katie g

Katie- I think you missed the point; Limbaugh is [ridiculously] pro-Bush, as DiCaprio is pro-Kerry. Limbaugh convinced me, not because I have some great respect for him, as I have absolutely none, but because of his enthusiasm for what I consider a horridly immoral scenario of Bush's second term...got it?

i do see your point now and i am sorry if my post seemed directly gearded toward you. that was not my intention. i'm also glad that kids under 18 can't vote becuase i dont think most of them would use their own opinion and educated views. once again my sicerest apologies.
-Katie g

Daniel, thanks for the insightful thoughts. Many people are much too blinded by polemic to see through what you have described. Better late than never.

Katie G yours was an excellent post. You have made your decision on sound reasoning and that is what the elections are all about. You have given it much consideration and you have spoken out and I say bravo. You are a young person with much potential in life, keep it up.

Sometimes adults get lost in their own conversations.
Pani Rose

Dear Daniel,

I occasionally listen to Rush. I can't take too much of him, but he makes some good points.

#1. I wouldn't take Limbaugh too seriously.

#2. when you said, "...he has wreaked havoc in Iraq" was "he" Sadaam Hussein or George Bush?

Just giving you something to think about so you will touch the screen or pull the lever for president of the United States.

Paul

Paul-
1] Limbaugh was quite serious.
2] While Hussein certainly wreaked havoc, I was speaking of Bush. Estimates of civilian deaths at American hands range from 10,000 to 100,000, and each of them is a seed of anti-American hate.

I CANNOT by conscience leave a blank in the presidential election..although there are some things I disagree with Bush on many things.

The fact that he has the power to appoint supreme court judge is powerful...that he's more likely to pick a pro-life one and on many related issues on abortion...

The judges sit on the seat for LIFE. So I cannot just walk away and allow Kerry to pick a pro-abort judge and let the babies giving silent screams in their blood simply because I don't agree with what Bush is doing to Iraq and other things.

Norma McCorvey, the "Roe" of the Roe vs. Wade, is now pro-Life and since then she has been constantly trying to reverse the law that she originally fought for. She knows the power of law, even if the country has harden hearts.

It's true that it all begins with the change of heart in everyone.

Same goes for those who are contemplating robbery, murder, rape, etc....there are laws against it...and if caught...they pay consequences for it...but they still did it because of harden hearts..but at least they're paying for the crime in prison..while those who commit abortion do not.

I simply cannot ignore the silent screams in my ears. If the laws are passed against abortion, then it would help reduce it...plus possibly allow more EDUCATION about the abortion..show the TRUTH about it...it might lead to conversion of heart? Perhaps...perhaps not.

But I can't have the legal murdering in our backyard at all...it just really shows me what the country is made up of.

I feel (in my opinion)...that if those who do not vote for president...(leaving blank)...could be doing in sin of OMISSION...how can anyone walk away from the ballot booth knowing that he/she left a blank...knowing very well that Kerry COULD win (it's possible..it's 50/50 right now)...would anyone live with that? That he/she allowed Kerry to win? To allow pro-abort judge to be appointed, more federal funding of abortion, more abortion CRAP from Kerry. The thought of being omissive just shudders me.

At first I was going to leave it blank..but now...realizing that it can also mean moral conflict here, at least for me.

Even if Kerry becomes President...there will STILL be war...except he'll let things go unfinished...let it all have unfinished business...just like Clinton did. (Even BOTH Kerry and Clinton thought there were weapons of mass destruction.....of course...you'd have to think that Bush got it from them..since Clinton left the office...handed all these current papers to Bush...so..we can't just point fingers all on Bush alone).

It's truly a very MESSY race...I mean...neither one is great for the job...but...I'll take the least of the evil...to at least see that 40% of good would come out of Bush compared to 10% of good out of Kerry. (I'm just making up the % just to illustrate you)

Anyway...

L-rd have mercy!

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine.

Dundas-
1] We have no assurance that Bush would appoint prolife justices. He specifically said there would be no litmus test, and Republican presidents have not consistently appointed prolifers. Proaborts were showcased at the Republican convention, and there is no political reason for the Republicans to risk alienating their [sizable] proabortion constituency in an effort to criminalize the murder of unborn children. Of course, Kerry has promised to appoint only proabortion justices.
2]How could I live with myself if I vote for Bush and he bumbles his way into a nuclear war in the Middle East? His policies have already led to the growth of radical Islamist groups, and he has squandered the good will the world showed America after 9/11.

I have been involved in prolife activities for 25 years; I was arrested in the rescues during the 80s; I share your concerns, and have been tempted to vote for Bush for the same reasons that you state, but in good conscience I cannot.
-Daniel

The big push by Pres. Bush in OH features Gov. Schwarzenegger, whose record on life issues is like Kerry's. Couple that with Bush's record over the last four years. Now tell me why anyone seriously believes that Bush is not a hypocrite on these issues.

In all the "proportionate reasons" talk, I have yet to see a candid discussion of the prudential judgment involved in discerning whether a candidate is telling the truth.

You expect truth in a presidential campaign? Oh you poor fellow. Please like down for awhile. You'll feel better and get back up with more realistic expectations.

How to Tell a Duck From a Fox
Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
Catholics have a duty to work tirelessly for human dignity at every stage of life, and to demand the same of their lawmakers. But some issues are jugular. Some issues take priority. Abortion, immigration law, international trade policy, the death penalty and housing for the poor are all vitally important issues. But no amount of calculating can make them equal in gravity.

The right to life comes first. It precedes and undergirds every other social issue or group of issues. This is why Blessed John XXIII listed it as the first human right in his great encyclical on world peace, Pacem in Terris. And as the U.S. bishops stressed in their 1998 pastoral letter Living the Gospel of Life, the right to life is the foundation of every other right.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/duckfox.htm

On the Duties of Catholic Politicians and Voters
Most Reverend Michael J. Sheridan
Bishop of Colorado Springs
There must be no confusion in these matters. Any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences. It is for this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/capolvot.htm

Vote as you will but you vote for someone who is pro-abortion when there is another choice, there are consequences to those actions, we have been warned by many bishops.
http://www.ewtn.com/vote/Catholic_Politicians/index.asp
Pani Rose