Radical Ryanism

The first thing I'm going to say is that the news about Dr. Wright comes as no surprise to me at all. In fact, the only thing that does surprise me is that Obama is so "blah" in his attempts at distancing himself from this fruit-loop... I mean, how shocking does it seem that you'd want to keep THIS man's voice out of your campaign?

Why do you think both Barak and Michelle are so proudly "anti-American" in their positions? He won't wear an American flag pin on his lapel... EVER... and she can't say she has ever been proud to be an American. Could this be because they have been listening to the rhetoric of a racist for the last 20 years?

I'm sorry people... everyone seemed to think that there was going to be some kind of Muslim connection, but it is the Christian link that is going to give Obama and his team their first real "black eye" in this campaign.

Secondly, when did I EVER say I "supported" Obama? Were I inclined to vote for EITHER candidate in the general election, I'd probably lean towards Clinton for the simple reason that nothing she says during the campaign is going to matter once she is in office, and the DoD and the NSA could very well convince her of the need to finish the job in Iraq rather than remove ALL the troops within 18 months. After all she isn't going to want to look like an idiot when terrorists and radicals take control of Iraq within 24 months of her removing all US forces, and she is forced by national security interests to SEND THEM BACK before the end of her first term.

Obama's platform equals Clinton's in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan, in my opinion. The only difference is that I feel Clinton my be more inclined to put functional staff in place within the Administration that will support functional policy... after all, that was the secret of her husband's success... good people in the right jobs, making sure the President looks good by THEIR decisions (Reno being the obvious exception).

I have never said I was supporting anyone on the Democratic side of the isle. While I don't think McCain would have been my first choice, I have defended his surge in the delegate count over the nay-sayers of conservative talk-radio from the beginning. Yutzes like Wilkow, Levin, Hannity and Church all mock and malign McCain as a "liberal" and nothing more... and I have argued the point from the beginning.

McCain is the "people's" choice... no other GOP candidate could compete, not even Romney. He is exactly what I have been saying the GOP needs to carry the White House another four years (I just didn't think it would be HIM). Someone who appeals to the average morally and socially conservative, church-going, tax-paying, hard-working American that wants clear answers to tough questions about the environment, government spending, Iraq and the war on terror, et al. He hasn't changed his tune in 20 years, and has shown an ability to "work" with the other side on issues that he feels are important. That tells me he is connecting with a large segment of America that isn't as concerned about "What would Reagan do?" as they are about "What is going to get done right NOW?"

McCain is telling ME what is going to get done right NOW... and has made it abundantly clear that he couldn't give a shit less what Ronald W. Reagan would do. McCain gets my vote for THAT reason... not because he is a war hero that pulled pilots from burning planes or because he spent 5+ years getting the sit knocked out of him on a daily basis. If THAT were a requirement for my vote, then perhaps I should encourage John Murtha to run for PotUS...

Now, on to the meat and potatoes of Ryan's post... my "cafeteria Catholicism".

George W. Bush took office in 2001 with a "conservative" court... meaning the majority of the Justices were appointed by GOP Presidents. He took office with control of BOTH Houses of Congress firmly in GOP hands. He took office at a time when 39 of 50 State Governors were also Republican.

He did not end abortion, nor did he overturn Roe v Wade. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 was upheld by the US Supreme Court on a count of 5-4. Of those voting against the ban as unconstitutional were two judges appointed by Bush Sr. and one appointed by Nixon (Ginsberg was the fourth... a Clinton appointee). Where is the "conservative" principals that Nixon and Bush Sr. saw in these three Justices that would bring about their appointments in the first place? Or did they simply think that sticking a pair of scissors into an infant's head AT BIRTH for the sole purpose of sucking out it's brains really WAS a Constitutional right in need of protection?

I have never denied the importance of the President's ability to appoint Justices to the Court. I have never denied that the President's authority to veto legislation is important. I understand the need for a morally and ethically conservative President to exercise these powers while in office.

My faith, and my Church, offers me the ability to exercise my free will to cast a vote to the man or woman most able to lead the nation in the direction I think it should go. I cannot actively support abortion or euthanasia, and I am encouraged to work for programs and efforts of social justice and welfare on a national level.

Were I to base my vote purely on that point, I would be forced to try and find a national candidate that supported national health-care AND an end to abortion and euthanasia, as well as a national welfare system that provides equal access to food, medicine, shelter and employment to all who ask.

If you can find a national candidate that fits that mold in modern American politics, I'd love to see it.

I choose to cast my vote the for the person most likely to lead the country to a point of ethical and moral conservatism that provides for the common good without denying ANY segment of the society its rewards for a "hard-days-work"... in other words, a tax on the rich that would solely and completely provide for the poor. I cannot support a welfare state, nor a Marxist system of wealth redistribution, so I choose my candidates according to my CONSCIENCE. What more can I do?

Abortion is not the only issue a President of the United States will have to face in four years, so why should it be my ONLY measure for suitability as a candidate... for the sole reason that I am a Catholic?

Both John Paul II and Bennedict XVI support and encourage national health care as a means to provide basic health standards on a national level... should I then look for THAT as requirement for President? My "conscience" says that to support a system that REQUIRES the standard level of care to be reduced to the lowest common denominator is wrong, both morally and rationally, so I won't support national health care that I feel does just this.

Both John Paul II and Bennedict XVI have called for an end to violence in Iraq and Afghanistan... should I support the immediate withdrawl of troops? My "conscience" tells me that the withdrawl of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan at this point would only allow greater violence and more violent people to fill the void we'd leave behind, so I cannot support that kind of action.

Are these two great leaders of my Catholic faith wrong for calling for these results? No, for the simple reason that they do not say HOW it must be done... only that it is something to strive for, to pray for, and to hope for. Working honestly and openly for an end to violence in the Middle East is exactly what the troops are doing now... so I will support them with all my heart. Health care reform is something that is achievable, so it is something I can support whole heartedly, too.

I am called to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in all I do, say and think, and I am given the Church as a tool and a teacher to help me better understand how to do this in my life. This is the Church that tells me to "Vote my Conscience" at each and every election I particpate in.

Lest we forget, it was only 36 years ago that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had it as "scriptural" that ALL black men were outside of God's crace because they wore the mark of "Cain" upon them, and that no salvation would be achieved until the whole world was "white and American". These are the words of more than 100 years of Mormon leadership and practice, until they decided to take a "vote" on what God really wanted in 1972. Thank God there was a "liberal" majority on THAT vote, huh Ryan?