www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Roman Catholics for Obama '08

From "Catholic World Report". The Casey story is particularly galling for those who live in Pennsylvania.

Dn. Robert

http://www.ignatius.com/Magazines/CWR/kengor_june08.htm


Roman Catholics for Obama '08

Some ignore his pro-abortion voting record, others rationalize it.

by Paul Kengor | June 2008


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first time I learned about the practice I was horrified. It was the mid-1990s. The source was Sharon Dunsmore, a nurse in a hospital NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit) who wrote a small booklet about the experience. One day on the job she had been summoned �stat� to the delivery room to deal with an �oops abortion��a failed abortion in which the baby unexpectedly survived, or, as Dunsmore quoted the pediatrician on the scene, �had the audacity to survive.�

The team struggled as to whether to continue intubating the child�now a little boy, not a �fetus��who clearly was not going to make it, mangled and destroyed as he was. He gasped for air as the doctor left the room, allowing nature to take its cruel course, leaving the boy with Dunsmore. No further medical care would be administered.

Typically in these situations, the infant is left alone�on a cold metal table, in a corner, on a bare bed, in a trash can. Dunsmore did not have the heart to do that. She stayed with the boy.

In her account, Dunsmore went into painstaking detail about what happened next�the breathing, the wetting�with such vividness that I, a mere distant reader, couldn�t decide whether to cry or vomit. Recalling the scene she described never ceases to make me sad. She wrote of how she named him �Tiny Tim,� took him in her arms, held his little hand, and sang to him: �Jesus loves the little children�.� The little boy fought as best he could, but to no avail. She whispered �goodbye� to him, and told him he �did matter to someone.�

I have never forgotten that story and since then have even met some of these abortion survivors, one of whom visited Grove City College to speak before a spellbound group of our students at the campus chapel a few years ago.

OBAMA�S STANCE ON ABORTION

The United States Congress has also learned about this grisly reality, and finally, in 2002, passed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, requiring that babies like Tiny Tim who survive abortions receive medical care from the medical professionals in their midst�medical professionals who suddenly must morph from killers to their traditional roles of healers and helpers.

The bill was so obviously necessary and became so popular that it faced no real opposition, even from the most fanatical of Congress� pro-abortion extremists, including Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy. Even NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, supported the legislation.

Indeed, who could ever oppose such legislation? Actually, there is someone: Barack Obama, who appears as of May to be the frontrunner for the Democratic Party�s presidential nomination, and possibly the next president of the United States.

Obama was not a member of the US Senate at the time that the Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed unanimously through both chambers of Congress. But he was a member of the Illinois state legislature, where similar legislation was introduced at the state level. There, Obama twice voted against the legislation, in 2002 and 2003, and as chair of the Health and Human Services Committee blocked another attempt to bring the legislation to the floor of the Illinois Senate.

The pro-life community in the state of Illinois was aghast, and pro-life Catholics were horrified. Yet today Catholics around the country are lining up to endorse Barack Obama�s candidacy for president of the United States. They are stumping hard for Obama, who, if elected, has promised to do whatever he can to appoint justices and support legislation guaranteeing decades of protection for Roe v. Wade.

CATHOLICS IN HIS CAMP

Who are these Catholics? They are an eclectic bunch, from politicians like Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Democratic Governor Tim Kaine (Va.), Democratic Governor Bill Richardson (N.M.), Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-Mass.), Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) to Dan Rooney, owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers football team.

The support of the Kennedys and Kerrys is no surprise; they are pro-abortion party hacks. But the endorsement of Dan Rooney, known to be a daily communicant, is bizarre. Among other reasons, his team�s brutal Steel Curtain and Blitz-burg defenses do not call to my mind the image of the man that National Journal ranks as the most liberal member of the US Senate.

There are also, of course, the predictable �Catholic� colleges that, in defiance of repeated warnings by the bishops regarding Catholic institutions and pro-abortion politicians, have offered platforms to Obama in the form of on-campus political rallies: St. Peter�s College in New Jersey (in January) and Loras College in Iowa (in March).

But no group of Catholics seems quite as odd as the one titled �Roman Catholics for Obama �08,� which dubs Barack Obama �the best and right candidate for Catholic voters.� The group asserts: �[W]e, as Catholics, believe Catholics can and should vote for Barack Obama because his platform aligns well with Catholic Social Teaching.�

Their website (www.romancatholicsforobama.com [romancatholicsforobama.com]) leads with a long quote from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which states, �The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of the moral vision for society � In our society, human life is under direct attack from abortion and euthanasia.�

But the group completely ignores the fact that Obama�s record contradicts this statement, instead underscoring Obama�s stance on the death penalty, terrorism, Iran, American diplomacy, regional diplomacy, nuclear weapons, the �21st century military,� gun policy, global poverty, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, �new partnerships in Asia,� Darfur, and �the culture of secrecy.� In short, the group focuses on everything except the primary moral principles taught authoritatively by the Catholic Church.

Navigating one�s way around the website of �Roman Catholics for Obama �08� is a dispiriting immersion in inanity, moral equivalency, and delusional thinking. This is likewise true for another (ecumenical) website, www.faith.barackobama.com [faith.barackobama.com], which has posted a number of endorsements from Catholics like �Tamara S.� of Roswell, Georgia, who says, �I�m disturbed by the hijacking of the Republican party by far-right Christians.� Or take this one: �I have no interest in living in a theocracy,� writes Father Michael Pfleger of St. Sabina Church in Chicago, who is most concerned with �issues of poverty and issues of justice and equal access and opportunity, especially when dealing with children and education and healthcare.�

CASEY SUPPORTS OBAMA

Many of these Catholics dismiss or downplay the Church�s teachings on the sanctity and dignity of human life. But what about the explicitly pro-life Catholics who are supporting Obama? The two most high-profile, Catholic pro-life endorsers of Barack Obama for president are Bob Casey, Jr. and Doug Kmiec.

Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. is the son of and heir to the great pro-life stalwart, Governor Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania. It was hard to find a pro-life Democrat as principled as the late governor, who was named in the title of the 1992 court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The late Casey was shocked by the abortion stridency of his party, so much so that in 1996 he considered a run for the presidency against the incumbent president from his own party, Bill Clinton. In 2006, the younger Casey, who is likewise considered a pro-life Catholic Democrat, unseated the strongest pro-lifer in the US Senate, Senator Rick Santorum. Since then, Casey has been a grave disappointment, not at all picking up the torch from Santorum.

Consequently, it was not surprising to learn that in the thick of the crucial Pennsylvania primary, Casey endorsed Barack Obama for president. He then announced he would be touring Pennsylvania cities with Obama, including, incidentally, those small towns in rural areas that Obama said were comprised of �bitter� folks who �cling� to God and guns out of frustration at the federal government�s failures.

If Obama had won Pennsylvania on April 22 rather than losing to Hillary Clinton by 10 points, he would have been propelled to the Democratic Party nomination in Denver. So, Casey jumped into the fray to do his part.

Casey was also there with Obama at the April 13 �Compassion Forum� at Pennsylvania�s Messiah College, broadcast by CNN. Abortion rights fell into the category of �compassion� for Obama, who fenced a question about whether he believes life begins at conception by saying, �I don�t presume to know the answer to that question.� Earlier in the campaign Obama had made the stunning remark that if one of his young daughters got pregnant out of wedlock, he would not want her to be �punished with a baby.�

THE CASE OF DOUG KMIEC

If any of this bothers Casey, he hasn�t expressed it. Casey�s endorsement of Obama demonstrates that he is first and foremost a Democrat who places party loyalty above moral principle. The same cannot be said, however, of the endorsement of Obama by Douglas W. Kmiec, who has long been thought to be a conservative Catholic Republican.

Kmiec, a former counsel to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, was the dean of the Catholic University of America School of Law. He is currently chair of constitutional law at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California. He recently was an adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Kmiec calls Obama �a natural for the Catholic vote.�

�Today I endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States,� announced Kmiec in a March 23 statement posted at Slate.com. �I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence, and genuine good will.�

Unlike other Catholics who ignore the issue altogether, Kmiec addressed his difference with Obama over abortion. But he deals with the difference unconvincingly. Kmiec acknowledges that he believes life begins at conception, �and it is important for every life to be given sustenance and encouragement,� then renders this stance meaningless with a vague hope about Obama�s openness: �In various ways, Sen. Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced, based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of views and, as best as is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.�

To which public pronouncements is Kmiec referring? Recall Obama�s remarks to a screaming Planned Parenthood crowd last July, to whom he promised, �The first thing I�d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act,� which would overturn state pro-life laws nationwide and make abortion the supreme law of the land. In that speech, he told the appreciative women that Planned Parenthood was a �safety net provider� that needed to be given �discounted drugs� so that �all women� would have access to �affordable contraception.� In the speech, he hailed Margaret Sanger�eugenicist, racist, and Planned Parenthood founder�as a voice in the �struggle for equality.�

Amazingly, Kmiec read this speech and points to it as an example of Obama�s alleged flexibility. Kmiec sees the speech as lacking the vituperation of so many speeches by pro-choice Democrats to abortion groups, an interpretation that mistakenly assumes that style and tone trumps substance and policy for Obama.

Behind Obama�s smile is an uncompromising advocacy for unfettered abortion rights. Obama is committed to appointing strictly pro-abortion judges to the US Supreme Court. As for Reaganesque pro-life judges recently promoted to the court by President George W. Bush�namely, Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom Kmiec commends�Obama boasts of his votes against these two judges.

Obama has said that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the most stalwart abortion crusader on the high court, is his ideal justice. Kmiec, given his expertise as a legal scholar, knows this.

To be blunt, Kmiec�s perception of Obama�s openness to accommodation on abortion is pure projection. There is absolutely no reason to conclude that a President Obama would be receptive to a pro-life message. Obama himself has repeatedly made it clear that his stance on this issue will be unyielding. As president, he might say he is open to pro-lifers and that he respects them, but he would not be expected to join them on any meaningful pro-life action.

There is a psychological-emotional attraction to Obama that goes beyond the traditional reasons explaining why people, Catholics included, support certain candidates. What�s more, the Roman Catholics in Obama�s camp are largely typical of the religious left generally and left-leaning Catholics specifically who identify with and support a liberal Democrat for president. The abortion issue simply loses out to a wider swath of �social justice� issues that for them take precedence.

The Church continues to exhort Catholics to reject this moral equivalency in their voting, but Obama�s Catholic supporters don�t care, and from this atmosphere of dissent Obama hopes to ride a wave of millions of Catholic votes all the way to the White House.



Paul Kengor has most recently published God and Hillary Clinton (HarperCollins, 2007) and The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan�s Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007). He is professor of political science at Grove City College.

Shlomo Dn. Robert,

Here is what the United States Catholic Conference Of Bishops has published:

The Catholic approach to faithful citizenship
begins with moral principles. The directions for our public witness are found in Scripture and Catholic social teaching. Below are key themes from Catholic social teaching.

1. Life and Dignity of the Human Person

The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. This belief is the foundation of all the principles of our social teaching. In our society, human life is under direct attack from abortion and euthanasia. The value of human life is being threatened by cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and the use of the death penalty. Catholic teaching also calls on us to work to avoid war. Nations must protect the right to life by finding increasingly effective ways to prevent conflicts and resolve them by peaceful means. We believe that every person is precious, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person.

2. Call to Family, Community, and Participation

The person is not only sacred but also social. How we organize our societyin economics and politics, in law and policy directly affects human dignity and the capacity of individuals to grow in community. Marriage and the family are the central social institutions that must be supported and strengthened, not undermined. We believe people have a right and a duty to participate in society, seeking together the common good and well-being of all, especially the poor and vulnerable.

3. Rights and Responsibilities

The Catholic tradition teaches that human dignity can be protected and a healthy community can be achieved only if human rights are protected and responsibilities are met. Therefore, every person has a fundamental right to life and a right to those things required for human decency. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities--to one another, to our families, and to the larger society.

4. Option for the Poor and Vulnerable

A basic moral test is how our most vulnerable members are faring. In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition recalls the story of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first.

5. Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers

The economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in God�s creation. If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers must be respected--the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions, to private property, and to economic initiative.

6. Solidarity

We are one human family whatever our national, racial, ethnic, economic, and ideological differences. We are our brothers� and sisters� keepers, wherever they may be. Loving our neighbor has global dimensions in a shrinking world. At the core of the virtue of solidarity is the pursuit of justice and peace. Pope Paul VI taught that �if you want peace, work for justice.�1 The Gospel calls us to be peacemakers. Our love for all our sisters and brothers demands that we promote peace in a world surrounded by violence and conflict.

7. Caring for God�s Creation

We show our respect for the Creator by our stewardship of creation. Care for the earth is not just an Earth Day slogan, it is a requirement of our faith. We are called to protect people and the planet, living our faith in relationship with all of God�s creation. This environmental challenge has fundamental moral and ethical dimensions that cannot be ignored.

Also here are some key questions they ask us to ask:

Questions for the Campaign

The Catholic community is not an interest group. The Church does not offer contributions or endorsements. Instead, we raise a series of questions:

1. After September 11, 2001 how can we build not only a safer world, but a better world� more just, more secure, more eaceful, more respectful of human life and dignity?

2. How will we protect the weakest in our midst�innocent unborn children? How can our nation not turn to violence to solve some of its most difficult problems�abortion to deal with difficult
pregnancies; the death penalty to combat crime; euthanasia and assisted suicide to deal with the burdens of age, illness, and disability; and war to address international disputes?

3. How will we address the tragic fact that more than 30,000 children die every day as a result of hunger, international debt, and lack of development around the world?

4. How can our nation help parents raise their children with respect for life, sound moral values, a sense of hope, and an ethic of stewardship and responsibility? How can our society defend the central institution of marriage and better support families in their moral responsibilities?

5. How will we address the growing number of people without affordable and accessible health care? How can health care better protect human life and respect human dignity?

6. How will our society combat continuing prejudice,overcome hostility toward immigrants and refugees, and heal the wounds of racism, religious bigotry, and discrimination?

7. How will our nation pursue the values of justice and peace in a world where injustice is common, desperate poverty widespread, and peace too often overwhelmed by violence?

8. What are the responsibilities and limitations of families, community organizations, markets, and government? How can these elements of society work together to overcome poverty, pursue
the common good, and care for creation?

9. When should our nation use, or avoid the use of, military force�for what purpose, under what authority, and at what human cost?

10. How can we join with other nations to lead the world to greater respect for human life and dignity, religious freedom and democracy, economic justice, and care for God�s creation?

I am active in the Republican Party, but I work to put my religous principals into action. Many times there are no candidates that believe in all the goals that we as a society should work towards.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Often times in elections we have to choose the lesser of two evils, but I do not know how any Real Catholic can justify voting to Barrack Obama. I found this link helpful:

http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2008/01/catholic-analysis-on-2008-presidential.html

_________________________________________________________________

Catholic Analysis On 2008 Presidential Candidates

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The Catholic Church has a detailed compendium on Social Doctrine which can be viewed here [vatican.va] . However, comparing political candidates to this entire document would be tedious and overwhelming to most Catholic voters.

Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI has condensed the principles of this document into three important points ( read details here [catholicknight.blogspot.com] ). They are in effect "deal breakers" for any candidate who violates them, making such a candidate unworthy of the Catholic vote. The three points are as follows...

1) Pro-Life
2) Pro-Family
3) School-Choice

By Pro-Life the pope obviously means that candidates who actively work to promote "abortion" and/or "abortion rights" are automatically excluded from the Catholic vote.

By Pro-Family the pope means candidates who back policies that support the traditional family. However, in this day and age, one of the greatest threats to the institution of marriage is the rise of gay-marriage and same-sex unions. So naturally this takes a top priority in the pope's Pro-Family agenda. Any candidate who supports gay-marriage and/or same-sex unions is also excluded from the Catholic vote.

By School-Choice, the pope is very specific. The Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine explicitly describes the state's failure to subsidize private, religious, and home-schools as an "injustice." The Compendium is not specific as to how this subsidy should be implemented (whether by school vouchers or parental rebates). That is left up to individual states and nations to decide. But "school-choice" has been defined as an extremely important point of Catholic Social Doctrine. Therefore, any candidate who would oppose the concept of school-choice outright, is to be excluded from the Catholic vote. All that being said, let us now look into the 2008 presidential candidates.

red text with √ indicates a candidate agrees with the pope and the Catholic Church's teaching on that particular issue.....

Barack Obama (Democrat) - papal score: 0%
1. Pro-Life: Obama opposes the pope and supports abortion on demand.
2. Pro-Family: Obama opposes the pope and supports gay-marriage.
3. School-Choice: Obama opposes the pope and school-choice outright.

John McCain (Republican) - papal score: 33%
1. Pro-Life: McCain opposes the pope on fetal stem-cell research - abortion views mixed.
2. Pro-Family: McCain opposes the pope with mixed views on gay-marriage.
3. School-Choice: McCain supports the pope and school-choice. √

Alan Keyes (Independent) - papal score: 100%
1. Pro-Life: Keyes supports the pope and is strongly Pro-Life. √
2. Pro-Family: Keyes supports the pope and opposes gay-marriage. √
3. School-Choice: Keyes supports the pope and school-choice. √

Bob Barr (Libertarian) - papal score: 100%
1. Pro-Life: Barr supports the pope and is strongly Pro-Life √
2. Pro-Family: Barr supports the pope and opposes gay-marriage √
3. School-Choice: Barr supports the pope and school-choice √

*All information on candidates obtained from OnTheIssues.org [ontheissues.org]

I used to be more hardline on this matter, but I have to admit that in the last couple of years, I have begun to soften - a bit - as I realize there need to be more absolutes that have been left unmentioned, and even the ones that do get mentioned do not always get subject to an extensive, comprehensive examination.

So for instance:
When it comes to life, is it enough to just oppose federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? Shouldn't a candidate oppose all private funding and all practice of this in its totality and favor a complete public/private ban?

On family, is it alright to favor civil unions, domestic partnerships or legal agreements of some kind for homosexuals? Our current GOP president and vice president certainly do.

Shouldn't torture be a deal breaker?

Shouldn't a genuine understanding of unjust war be developed and that be a deal breaker as well? I'm not refering to Afghanistan or Iraq, where I believe in both cases there can be licit, legitimate prudential differences, but I do believe action against Iran would cross the line, and I, increasingly am starting to believe that military support for a country that comes into existence like Israel did also is playing with the line.

Shouldn't respect and compliance with a country's constitutional and statutory laws - assuming they don't directly contravene Natural Law - also be a must? And very few adhere to this one, that's for sure, as we've had no semblance of genuine constitutional government in over a century.

A couple of quick points, Mike L. Please take a look at Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party, which I personally consider to be the strongest voting option for 2008. And, also, if you review some of Bob Barr's latest statements, as he tries to ingratiate himself with the Libertarian jetset, I think you'll see he's not so staunch an advocate of the Pro-Life, Pro-Family agenda as he may have been in the past.

Best,
Robster

I agree


Ideally I would love to see a candidate that would like to do away with all embryonic stem cell research altogether! However, at the very least they should not allow federal dollars to fund these studies, because that means that my tax money as well as other folks whose morales this violates is indirectly funding this research.



I am no fan of many of the current GOP policies. Gay partnership of any kind is wrong in my book. However, once these partnerships are accepted by the government as equal to traditional marriage, we will see the Domestic Church (Our Family's) become less important.


I agree though we have to look at circumstances. For instance, we all know that we are not suppose to kill either, but many men have killed in times of war. Many of these killings were endorsed by the Church (see the Crusades).



I agree again, but there is overwhelming evidence that Iran is sending many the weapons and fighters that are killing US soldiers in Iraq. I for one feel we should bring home our soldiers and stop funding Israel as well. However, there are valid points to stay also.

In the words of G.K Chesterton, "The True soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him"

I agree


My post was not an endorsement of Bob Barr, it was actually a repost of someone elses thoughts that I thought would add to the topic.

I do believe that it is unlikely that any candidate outside of the powerful two party system will have a legitimate chance of winning. I still think we will need to play defense and choose between the lesser of two evils in Obama and McCain.

Serious question...is there really overwhelming evidence of Iran supporting the fighters in Iraq? I haven't seen any, but I haven't been looking either. Do you have some links? I just hope this isn't another WMD deal where we all are fooled, but this time to invade Iran instead of Iraq. Fool me once...but fool me twice...you know the saying.

"...choose between the lesser of two evils in Obama and McCain."

When faced with a choice between a Marxist-leaning leftist radical and a candidate who is more like a conservite Democrat, the latter will be less destructive to the country without a doubt. I will not vote for McCain with a smile.

^ I agree with Terry's statement ^

james

Nathan,

I certainly do not want to see an invasion of Iran either. However, we can not ignore the facts. You can do a simple google search to find many articles that speak about Iranian weapons and soldiers in Iraq.

Start with these:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/world/middleeast/11cnd-weapons.html
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/YAT147565.htm
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/11/content_8348819.htm

There are no viable openly Marxist nor Fascist politicians in the United States. The verbal insults projected by each faction to the other is far less than accurate, and much closer to rhetoric. McCain is a right-leaning moderate, Obama is a moderate liberal.

A few quick points:

I don't doubt that Iran is meddling in various ways in Iraq. I am doubtful that that can or should rise to the level of being a just cause for warfare. The Iraqi prime minister has just finished a visit to Iran, where both sides assured each other that they seek the best of ties with each other. The Iraqi pm also pledged that his country would never be used as a base from which US forces attack Iran.

This may lack my normal inclination for precision, but if the leaders of the country we're helping are having chummy meetings with a potential adversary, it's hard to see that such a potential adversary can be seen as a genuine enemy.

I'm pretty sure the Iraqis don't want us escalating into Iran, and don't think it's called for or appropriate.

As for voting, I admit it, I've gone to 'extremes' in a sense. We can only hope to get what we want if we start voting for what we want, even if that means being out in the political wilderness for years. I think McCain is ultimately more like Obama than he is different. Deciding between the two major parties is like deciding between being driven off a cliff at 60 mph vs. being driven off a cliff at 35 mph.

Time to throw the car into reverse! I ask that people please give the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin/Darrell Castle ticket your strong consideration.

The only wasted vote is the one that doesn't represent your views and values. As Howard Phillips once said, it is up to us only to decide where we will invest our precious franchise, the results are in God's hands.

Best,
Robster

Thanks for the links. I'm still not sold. My two brothers over there right now find the idea of now going into Iran as ridiculous (and both are Captains, one a Commander). I haven't asked them point blank about if they feel Iran has been meddling in Iraq (they get tight lipped over things like that because of security), but it seems they do not support an Iranian invasion (both are strong Republicans too).

Question is...are we going to invade Iran to stop it's support of Iraqi insurgents or are we going to bomb their nuclear facilities or both?

Either way, I would think it would increase the problems we have in the Middle East by bringing a whole new country into the fold.

Well, I guess the question is not "if" we attack Iran, but "when". Hearing both McCain and Obama kiss the feet of the American Israeli Political Action Committee and vow to do "whatever necessary" to stop Iran from developing nukes makes an attack seem inevitable.

Thanks Robster,

I haven't made a decision yet for November, so I will consider them. Right now I'm thinking the following:

Obama: 100% No
McCain: 75% No
Barr: %60% No
Writing Ron Paul's name: 50/50

That said, I haven't looked too much into the Constitution Parties candidates, so I may consider them too.

My answer is the same as always.

anyone who supports Barak Obama supports Infanticide and Communism.

That sums up my position .

What is sad here is most everyone, including me, agrees we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Deciding who will do the least harm is a bad substitute for who will do the best job. The only thing I will feel good about when voting in this election will be that I will not be voting for Obama.