speaking of powerless
Posted By: EyesWideOpen on 2008-09-08
In Reply to: Once either one is elected we are pretty much powerless... - sam
Obama gets voted in and Dems run the House, Senate, and WH. Use your imagination to see how far left this country goes.
If people want to live in socialism, leave the USA as it was established (capitalism). Go to France, etc. since it's such a great way to live.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Once either one is elected we are pretty much powerless...
to hold anyone's feet to the fire. However, the Obama adoring masses here will make excuses no matter how many mistakes he makes or how many promises he does not fulfill. Toe that party line. If you criticize him for not doing what he said he would do, you will be a lonely voice of one I'm afraid.
Yes, I will be watching McCain/Palin to see if they keep campaign promises. Because if someone does not find a way to work in a bipartisan manner, both parties are going to continue messing us over and doing what is best for their pocketbooks and political careers. They need to forget party after the election and get about the people's business. And only one candidate has said right up front he will be on them to make them do that. That is why I am voting for him.
From a national security standpoint, I think Obama is a huge, huge mistake.
That being said...yes, I will be watching.
I'm in the powerless hazel crowd too. Very sad.
Couldn't we get some blue contacts and work some voodoo, too? That cluck in Brazil would never know the difference.
Conservative Repubs rendered Clinton powerless
. . . because they were more interested in impeaching Clinton for getting head in the oval office than allowing him to carry out his presidential duties. Blame the republicans for a lame duck presidency in the last years of the Clinton administration.
Obama is shrewd, savvy, honest, and the repubs are not going to be able to touch him. They'll try . . . but it's a waste of time.
BEAMING WITH PRIDE AT BEING AN AMERICAN FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 8 YEARS.
  
you were speaking of yourself, right?
So patriotism is a mental illness. Well, it probably is to you, so that does make sense. Yes, mental illness is love of country, pride in the military and thanks for their sacrifices. You don't have any of that, so you are fine. No problem. Glad we cleared that up.
Speaking only for myself....it is getting....
harder and harder to distinguish between liberals and leftists, as there are more and more posting calling themselves *liberals* but posting the way left stuff that only used to come from what I call leftists...the far left. In other words, the lines are becoming REAL blurry...also difficult to separate Democrats from leftists as the party slides farther and farther left....or at least it appears so, or the moderate and conservative Democrats have just gone silent in shock or apathy....I don't have the answer. You just don't hear from them anymore....at least I don't.
Was I speaking to you?
Can't resist the impulse to interrupt somebody else's conversation, I see. That's what Hannity does whenever he is losing his grip on his liberal guests. Transparent.
I was speaking of
reasoning voters. Please excuse me for not clarifying that.
speaking of ron .....
My hubs saw the "vote for Ron Paul" signs and asked me if it was a joke. I said what do you mean, and he said, "isn't that the tranny?"
Almost wrecked the car laughing so hard. Had to explain to DH that the tranny is Rue Paul. OMG LMAO!!!!
Speaking for myself,
there are not many born conservatives. I think conservatism is something that ''grows on you,'' or something that you grow into. I was a teenager in the sixties, with many of the attitudes that implies. As I aged and became more responsible and and started to ''get it,'' got a real job and wanted promotions, began earning money and wanting to hold onto it, bought a house and cared about what happened to my neighborhood, etc., I became more conservative. I dont think I am the only one to become more conservative as I've aged. I suspect celebrities are the same. You can only be a free spirit so long. As the Nationwide commercials say: Life comes at you fast.
Speaking of credibility...
You promised to grace us with your absence before, yet your posts are multiplying like bunnies all over this board. So much for YOUR credibility.
It was obvious you were speaking for
.
Your illness speaking for you again?
My take on your mental illness has nothing whatever to do with your political persuasion. But you have illustrated that you are too ill to understand that. You are annoying and I will not pay any more attention to your childish and sick comments.
It's actually a woman speaking. sm
This is very significant because this was on Al-Jazeera TV and what she says is pretty chilling. I clicked on it and it worked for me. I am sure you can find it somewhere else on the internet. Just for the record, I am not so sure he is president material myself. I dont doubt his leadership in the war on terror, but I am disappointed in other things.
I was speaking to Democrat, actually. sm
Since the story was copied and pasted here, I would like the specific source. I am sure Democrat understands.
I assume you are speaking of me.
First of all, for your information since you obviously cannot or will not read, I despise Bush. Your intolerance tells the world (these boards are read by the world, after all) that the liberal left in the United States has become the party of intolerance, anti-Israel, anti-American. You don't appreciate the freedoms you have and you live a world coloured by hopelessness and despair. I really pity you. Since I don't vote in the United States, I am neither left nor right. But of course, it's easier to label and name call, as you seem so very good at. The realisation may hit one day that you have a very narrow view of the world out there.
Plainly speaking.....
what difference does it make? But in an attempt to answer a loaded question, I thought these boards lent themselves more to ideologies than to politics. These boards are here even when elections are not. There is no "liberal party" and no "conservative party" that I am aware of. Do you only "Think Liberal" about politics? Do you build your life around politics? I thought liberalism (and conservatism for that matter) transcended politics. Pardon me if I gave too much credit.
Speaking of values
Golly how many times are you going to bring this up about Clinton like it is truly important in the problems our world faces? It's like you are completely nutso about this, over and over and over and over and over and over and over......wow!
I think it is terrifying and heart-wrenchingly sad that with the genocide, starvation, astounding poverty globally PLUS this war we have created with how many hundreds of thousands of civilians killed including babies, pregnant women, children plus the US dead and countless with TBI and amputations....that the thing that you totally obsess over is Clinton and his sex and his lie to the court over something that should never have gone to court in the first place. JFK would have been in deep you-know-what had he ever been brought to task for his philandering....and he probably would have covered things up, too.
How pathetic that this nation is more interested in sex scandals than the multitude of catastrophic problems facing our population on this planet. It shows how shallow and value-less we can be.......impeaching someone over sex.....how about impeaching someone over the death of 1/2 a million people for dubious reasons and political gain.....
Hey - just asking, Speaking from experience.
That's why I work at home.
Well then, speaking of unsupervised
If you're daughter is busy continuing her education with a toddler, and we know how much hard undivided work has to go into a master's, then your grandchild must be really unsupervised and no telling how she might turn out. And then, to have put so much time and effort into that degree, of course she would want to go for a really good job, demanding, time consuming, taking a lot of time away from her child. Would you dare tell your daughter your thoughts on that subject? Probably not!!!
Comparitively speaking........... sm
considering the UAW has been offered the same as workers in foreign companies, we would have to assume that the cut we would receive would bring us down to what the MTs in India are making. Are you ready to work for a nickle a line?
I'm not taking up for the UAW because I believe their skills needed for doing their jobs are no less than the skills needed to do our jobs. People's safety ride on our ability to do our jobs properly as well as auto workers. Just playing devil's advocate for a while.
Speaking from experience?
xx
Speaking futurewise here
I am speaking in the future here - - what artificial insemination - - there wouldn't be any.
I believe she is speaking in tongues! (nm)
:)
historically speaking
when the worker keeps less than 50% of his/her pay, it brings revolution. It is what this country was founded on. Under Obama's plans the average worker will get to keep .38 cents on the dollar. You will work 8-9 months of the year and not get one cent for it. Wow, that sure doesn't sound too good for the middle class to me, but under Obama's plan we should all be working for the "common good." Sound familiar to anyone? But personally, I see an even bigger issue here. Money is not the only riches we have. We Americans are rich in freedoms, and too many people are taking them for granted. People in this country are lining up to give away their freedoms to a charismatic new leader who promises "change." Things will change all right, but be careful what you wish for because you just might get it and it might not be what you expected.
Subconscious speaking out perhaps????
xx
You are speaking in terms of only 1 ...
Calm down and have another drink of your Obama Kool-Aid and watch the other 2, maybe you will catch it.
We would all be speaking Urdu by now.
xx
Speaking of character...
Just because a Georgia congressman needs some publicity (like a 2-year-old, bad attention is just as good as good attention) and says something stupid, people jump all over it.
There are whackos in Congress, just as there are in the general public. A perfect example is Michele Bachmann who trashed Obama on national television, and when she saw it backfired on her, she quickly produced a commercial saying some nonsense about her words not always coming out right but her heart being in the right place. (And then she blamed the host of the show for tricking her into saying these outlandish things.)
After the election, she then went on to do a 180 and issued the statement below.
After suggesting that Barack Obama had anti-American views in an exchange three weeks ago with MSNBC host Chris Matthews, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) told Politico Thursday that she was "extremely grateful that we have an African-American who has won this year." She called his victory "a tremendous signal we sent."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/06/bachmann-praises-obamas-w_n_141922.html
Did you ever think that speaking is fine, but
nm
Speaking of Americans.........
What they all need to do is not come together and accept whatever a president throws out there. Most Americans doesn't have a clue that BIG government is NOT a good thing. They actually believe the government should take care of them, that the government is to make all decisions for this country. No one ever told them that government is not supposed to be involved in their lives and no, it is not my place to sit back and be all one united group that just lets government ram anything and everything down my throat.
If you want to sit back, hold hands, and sing a little tune, then you do that. I do not care for more government; when has government ever solved a problem? Since when has government ever took your money and done something besides blow it? You think your government knows better than you how to spend your money? You think you should be paying income tax in the first place? Anyone who has fallen for "it's patriotic to pay taxes" garbage is the reason this country is where it is to this day. They hand it all over, sit back and say "we should all unite"......and do what? If you want to unite for something, then unite to tell YOUR government enough already. You don't not want more government, more taxes, more social problems, which is exactly what Obama wants. We've got enough social problems and wasted money. You want more? I don't.
You want to come together, then come together to get government out of our lives. But what do you see? Just the opposite. So many Americans are just to used to having someone else tell them how/what to do, they don't think for themselves anymore and they sit quaking in their boots when they hear a candidate that stands up and says enough government, no more government. It scares them to death because all they know is government interference in their lives. They actually believe that is their government's job, to make all their laws and tell them how to live.
I know what I am talking about, speaking from
So please don't pass judgment. You don't know me.
Speaking of ignorance....(sm)
I just love it when people try to wallow around in righteous, indignant self pity. If you're so concerned about the plight of the Jewish people, why don't you go and help out your grandmother?
Ask yourself this question. Since Great Britian and the UN thought so highly of Jews as to actually declare them a separate nation, why didn't they create that nation in Europe? My guess is that there were 2 reasons. Number one would have to be the *not in my backyard phenomenon.* The other was simply as a controlling interest in the region. The reality is that Britian didn't give a rat's butt about the Jews. They just picked the most susceptible minds (at the time) to carry out their plans. They sold the idea of backing Isreal through religion and still do, just like the US does. One big clue to this is exactly how much we actually back Israel. We have brought them up to the level of nukes while they are still just fighting against homemade bombs. We (the US) look the other way when Israel kills hundreds of Palestinians, but will run a prime time special if 2 (not 200, just 2) Israelis are killed. Yeah, that's a fair fight. We back other leaders in the middle east, but only to a point (Saddam for example). Once they get to a point where they may actually become a threat to Israel (a holding interest for the west) we always manage to call them a threat for some other reason and level the playing field.
I really wish people would look at the big picture on this one. From a political standpoint, Israel is nothing more than a bishop in a chess game.
What speaking style? You mean all his
nm
Speaking of retarded...
look in the mirror and you will see one. This proves how stupid O voters are....
He was on TV a few minutes ago speaking about this......
He said he is now waiting to hear back from the government to see if he is "allowed" to practice medicine basically. So now the government wants to tell the doctors they can't actually give healthcare to a patient unless the government tells them if they can...... yea, that's a free society alright!!
http://www.1010wins.com/Regulators-Frown-on-NYC-Doctor-s--79-Flat-Fee/3960786
speaking of sins..
Got a bunch of sins, according to your Bible. Looks like you're sinning all over the place dear - Got a million more if you want em.
accusing - Jude 9:2
arguing - Titus 3:9
bitterness - Acts 8:23
not receiving a child of God sent by God - Mark 6:11
speaking against God's children - Act 2:28
thinking evil in your heart against God's children - Matthew 9:4
busybodies - Timothy 5:13
condemning - Luke 6:37
foolish conversation - Eph 5:4
The O is speaking right now about GITMO and
the photos, national security, and transfer of prisoners.
Are you speaking of Joy or JTBB?
nm
Speaking of psychos...(sm)
Did you know that since Tiller's murder, according to The National Abortion Federation, violence at abortion clinics has been on the rise? It looks to me like Tiller's murder only served as inspiration for the rest of the anti-abortion nuts.
So, what is the result so far? Tiller's family is closing his clinic, which only leaves 2 late-term abortion clinics in the US. I'm sure you'll say that's a good thing, but what that obviously does is allow violence to supersede the law. I guess you guys are getting your violent revolution after all.
Generally speaking, I don't
But I have noticed that when things get slow on the politics board and you can't find anyone to argue with, you have no problem going to the Faith board in the hopes of goading someone into a fight.
I was speaking of the left in general. SM
I came here at first to debate. It took two posts of acting people to be reasonable in debating (all can be found on this board) before I was labeled by gt. Since then, after multiple attempts at trying to debate, I have come to point out that while you may think you have taken the higher ground, you have indeed created a cesspool. So proud that the conservative board is "quiet and peaceful" when those who made it otherwise are posting here daily. Most of the posters on the convservative board afforded you the decency and honor of not posting here. But that favor was never returned. You (and I mean others, I have no idea who YOU are since everyone picks the name of the moment) bullied, brow-beat, denigrated and beat to a pulp any poster who dared to post on the Conservative board. And it wasn't just AG and Nan and MT. It was anyone. Well, you have your wish now. You are queens of everything Masters of your domain. Live in the land where NO ONE DARES TO DISAGREE with you. Happy now? As if.
You are speaking of Orthodox Jews? SM
Yes, well, I admire their faith. And this will be my last discussion with you on this particular subject.
Speaking of muslim terrorists
tell me, if Bush is such a great leader how come he has not gotten Bin Laden..remember him? the planner of 09/11? I think you have forgotten 09/11. Oh and imagine if Bush and the administration had actually paid some attention to the memos coming across their desks, you know, the ones about how bin laden was goingto use airplanes to attack etc..maybe just maybe, 09/11 wouldnt have happened at all.
I was speaking of the Conservative board.
And I think the Iranian president is more than nuts, much the way the Iranian gentleman writing the article I speak of suggests. It might help to identify that you are posting a spoof instead of a serious article in the future.
Speaking of rude and disrespectful...
I wonder if you felt the same way about Don Imus when he roasted Bill and Hillary Clinton when he was in Colbert's place back a few years ago?
Oh, I bet it's only rude and disrepectful when it is directed towards a Republican, right?
Speaking of truth and accountability....
or lack of it........good grief.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801276_pf.html
War Crimes Act Changes Would Reduce Threat Of Prosecution
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 9, 2006; A01
The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.
Officials say the amendments would alter a U.S. law passed in the mid-1990s that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties governing military conduct in wartime. The conventions generally bar the cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners without spelling out what all those terms mean.
The draft U.S. amendments to the War Crimes Act would narrow the scope of potential criminal prosecutions to 10 specific categories of illegal acts against detainees during a war, including torture, murder, rape and hostage-taking.
Left off the list would be what the Geneva Conventions refer to as outrages upon [the] personal dignity of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts -- such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- that fall short of torture.
People have gotten worried, thinking that it's quite likely they might be under a microscope, said a U.S. official. Foreigners are using accusations of unlawful U.S. behavior as a way to rein in American power, the official said, and the amendments are partly meant to fend this off.
The plan has provoked concern at the International Committee of the Red Cross, the entity responsible for safeguarding the Geneva Conventions. A U.S official confirmed that the group's lawyers visited the Pentagon and the State Department last week to discuss the issue but left without any expectation that their objections would be heeded.
The administration has not officially released the draft amendments. Although they are part of broader legislation on military courts still being discussed within the government, their substance has already been embraced by key officials and will not change, two government sources said.
No criminal prosecutions have been brought under the War Crimes Act, which Congress passed in 1996 and expanded in 1997. But 10 experts on the laws of war, who reviewed a draft of the amendments at the request of The Washington Post, said the changes could affect how those involved in detainee matters act and how other nations view Washington's respect for its treaty obligations.
This removal of [any] reference to humiliating and degrading treatment will be perceived by experts and probably allies as 'rewriting' the Geneva Conventions, said retired Army Lt. Col. Geoffrey S. Corn, who was recently chief of the war law branch of the Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General. Others said the changes could affect how foreigners treat U.S. soldiers.
The amendments would narrow the reach of the War Crimes Act, which now states in general terms that Americans can be prosecuted in federal criminal courts for violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which the United States ratified in 1949.
U.S. officials have long interpreted the War Crimes Act as applying to civilians, including CIA officers, and former U.S. military personnel. Misconduct by serving military personnel is handled by military courts, which enforce a prohibition on cruelty and mistreatment. The Army Field Manual, which is being revised, separately bars cruel and degrading treatment, corporal punishment, assault, and sensory deprivation.
Common Article 3 is considered the universal minimum standard of treatment for civilian detainees in wartime. It requires that they be treated humanely and bars violence to life and person, including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture. It further prohibits outrages upon personal dignity such as humiliating and degrading treatment. And it prohibits sentencing or execution by courts that fail to provide all the judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
The risk of possible prosecution of officials, CIA officers and former service personnel over alleged rough treatment of prisoners arises because the Bush administration, from January 2002 until June, maintained that the Geneva Conventions' protections did not apply to prisoners captured in Afghanistan.
As a result, the government authorized interrogations using methods that U.S. military lawyers have testified were in violation of Common Article 3; it also created a system of military courts not specifically authorized by Congress, which denied defendants many routine due process rights.
The Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, however, that the administration's policy of not honoring the Geneva Conventions was illegal, and that prisoners in the fight against al-Qaeda are entitled to such protections.
U.S. officials have since responded in three ways: They have asked Congress to pass legislation blocking the prisoners' right to sue for the enforcement of those protections. They have drafted legislation allowing the consideration of intelligence-gathering needs during interrogations, in place of an absolute human rights standard.
They also formulated the War Crimes Act amendments spelling out some serious crimes and omitting altogether some that U.S. officials describe as less serious. For example, two acts considered under international law as constituting outrages -- rape and sexual abuse -- are listed as prosecutable.
But humiliations, degrading treatment and other acts specifically deemed as outrages by the international tribunal prosecuting war crimes in the former Yugoslavia -- such as placing prisoners in inappropriate conditions of confinement, forcing them to urinate or defecate in their clothes, and merely threatening prisoners with physical, mental, or sexual violence -- would not be among the listed U.S. crimes, officials said.
It's plain that this proposal would abrogate portions of Common Article 3, said Derek P. Jinks, a University of Texas assistant professor of law and author of a forthcoming book on the Geneva Conventions. The entire family of techniques that military interrogators used to deliberately degrade and humiliate, and thus coerce, detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at Abu Ghraib is not addressed in any way, shape or form in the new language authorizing prosecutions, he said.
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last Wednesday, however, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales complained repeatedly about the ambiguity and broad reach of the phrase outrages upon personal dignity. He said that, if left undefined, this provision will create an unacceptable degree of uncertainty for those who fight to defend us from terrorist attack.
Lawmakers from both parties expressed skepticism at the hearing. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the military's top uniformed lawyers had told him they are training to comply with Common Article 3 and that complying would not impede operations.
If the underlying treaty provision is too vague, asked Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), then how could the Defense Department instruct its personnel in a July 7 memorandum to certify their compliance with it? Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, who had signed the memo, responded at the hearing that he was concerned that degrading and humiliating are relative terms.
I mean, what is degrading in one society may not be degrading in another, or may be degrading in one religion, not in another religion, England said. And since it does have an international interpretation, which is generally, frankly, different than our own, it becomes very, very relevant to define the meaning in new legislation.
This viewpoint appears to have won over the top uniformed military lawyers, who have criticized other aspects of the administration's detainee policy but said that they support the thrust of these amendments. Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, the Army's judge advocate general, said in testimony that the changes can elevate the War Crimes Act from an aspiration to an instrument by defining offenses that can be prosecuted instead of endorsing the ideals of the laws of war.
Lawyer David Rivkin, formerly on the staff of the Justice Department and the White House counsel's office, said it's not a question of being stingy but coming up with a well-defined statutory scheme that would withstand constitutional challenges and would lead to successful prosecutions. Former Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo similarly said that U.S. soldiers and agents should not be beholden to the definition of vague words by international or foreign courts, who often pursue nakedly political agendas at odds with the United States.
But Corn, the Army's former legal expert, said that Common Article 3 was, according to its written history, left deliberately vague because efforts to define it would invariably lead to wrongdoers identifying 'exceptions,' and because the meaning was plain -- treat people like humans and not animals or objects. Eugene R. Fidell, president of the nonprofit National Institute of Military Justice, said that laws governing military conduct are filled with broadly described prohibitions that are nonetheless enforceable, including dereliction of duty, maltreatment and conduct unbecoming an officer.
Retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000 and now dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said his view is don't trust the motives of any lawyer who changes a statutory provision that is short, clear, and to the point and replaces it with something that is much longer, more complicated, and includes exceptions within exceptions.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Catholic Archbishops Are Speaking
Here is a mere sampling of responses to Nancy Pelosi's attempt to rewrite the abortion issue on Meet The Press on Sunday. Flame their words all you want, but this goes back throughout the archives at the Vatican. Also, Pope John Paul was just as outspoken regarding this subject as Pope Benedict is.
If someone can find a way to justify abortion after reading these posts, all I can say is "good luck." Do your own research and you'll see where many Catholics "in charge" are far from impressed with this. Search Pelosi abortion, Biden, etc., and you'll find plenty. Evangelicals feel the same way.
http://thehill.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=75650&Itemid=70
And another from the Washington Post:
Archbishop scolds pro-choice Biden
Valerie Richardson and Julia Duin
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
DENVER | Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. arrived at the Democratic National Convention on Monday amid rumblings over whether his pro-choice Catholicism would help or hurt the Democratic ticket.
An Irish-Catholic from a working-class upbringing, Mr. Biden won the nod as presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama's running mate in part because of his appeal to blue-collar Catholics, the same voters who swung during the primary for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
Although he represents Delaware in the Senate, Mr. Biden grew up in Pennsylvania, a must-win state for Democrats in November.
But the party's hopes of winning the critical Catholic vote took a hit Sunday when Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver said Mr. Biden should avoid taking Communion as a result of his pro-choice stand on abortion.
Archbishop Chaput, who was scheduled to lead a pro-life candlelight vigil Monday night here in front of Planned Parenthood, called Mr. Biden's support for abortion rights "seriously wrong," said archdiocese spokeswoman Jeanette DE Melo.
"I certainly presume his good will and integrity," said the archbishop, "and I presume that his integrity will lead him to refrain from presenting himself for Communion if he supports a false 'right' to abortion."
The archbishop, who was not invited to speak at any convention events in what appeared to be a deliberate snub, told the Associated Press that he would like to speak privately with Mr. Biden.
The debate underscored what has emerged as a central theme of this year's convention: the tension between the Democratic Party's renewed outreach to religious voters and its long-standing support for unfettered access to abortion.
At a panel discussion Monday sponsored by Google on "The Shifting Faith Vote: What It Means for the Election," panelists said that concerns over social issues, such as poverty, are moving some faith-based voters away from the Republican Party.
At the same time, they haven't aligned with the Democrats, primarily because of the abortion issue.
"The push for the Democratic Party is to have a new position on abortion," said Steve Waldman, Editor of the religious Web site beliefnet.com. "When you look at Catholics and evangelicals, you see that they agree with 80 percent of what [Mr. Obama] says, but there's this stumbling block with abortion."
Whether pro-choice Catholics should take Communion became a major issue in 2004 during Democrat John Kerry's run for the presidency when more than a dozen bishops, including Archbishop Chaput, publicly asked the senator from Massachusetts not to present himself for the Eucharist.
Their stance may have given a boost to President Bush, who increased his share of the Catholic vote from 47 percent in 2000 to 52 percent in 2004.
Catholics, the nation's largest religious voting bloc, represent 26 percent of the electorate. Alexia Kelley, executive director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, said that 11 percent of those this year are considered "swing voters," more than in any recent election year.
Catholic advocacy groups didn't wait long before weighing in on the "wafer wars." The conservative Catholic group Fidelis condemned the selection of Mr. Biden.
Me too, MS....I look forward to all who are speaking tonight.
Guiliani is speaking, Huckabee....though I am not a Republican, I have to admire them. When one of theirs has some issues that they disagree on (like Guiliani being pro choice), they don't excommunicate and demonize them. MUCH more democratic party than the Democratic party.
Speaking of substance, Sally, that is what your
nm
I was speaking to you, "sm" not oldtimer. (nm)
I saw her speaking on behalf of the campaign....
yesterday....?
|
