Marriage and the Family
• Marriage was instituted prior to the state and should be
recognized by the state as something inviolate and necessary
to the common good.
• Prudential judgments about law and public policy should
always seek to strengthen marriage and families.
• So-called same-sex marriages cannot be recognized
by the Catholic Church, and civil unions are likely to
undermine marriage and damage its foundational role
in society.
Mike Huckabee - Republican - 100%
Duncan Hunter - Republican - 100%
John McCain - Republican - 70%
Ron Paul - Republican - 70%
Fred Thompson - Republican - 70%
Alan Keyes - Republican - 100%
Mike Koenig - Republican - 100%
Don Grundmann - Constitution Party- 100%
Dan Imperato - Libertarian Party - 100%
No disqualifications this time! The three candidates who scored 70% are fully in favor of the protection of marriage. However, they believe that the states should decide on the matter.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Sizing Up The Presidential Candidates (Part 2)
8 comments:
Your comments are valued greatly. Please adhere to the decorum on the "First time here?" page. Comments that are in violation of any of the rules will be deleted without notice.
3/11 Update - No Moderation
*Non-anonymous commenting is preferred to avoid mix-ups. Anonymous comments are, at the behest of management, more likely to be deleted than non-anonymous comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I love how you got rid of every Democratic candidate in the last one. Classic.
ReplyDeleteMcCain is the only decent Republican candidate, but not even he'll be able to beat Obama or Clinton in November. The Republicans this time around are whiners and complainers and try to get votes by making their opponents look bad, not even trying to make themselves look good. The way most Republicans are voting now is against the candidates they like least, not for the candidate they feel the strongest about. Face it, Glen, the country is fed up with the Republican party after eight. years of failure.
Once a pro-life Democrat announces his/her candidacy, he/she sure will stick around in my books. I am certainly open to having a Democrat, provided they are pro-life. I hate Republicans for their love of the death penalty (which is the issue I discuss in part 3). Ron Paul (who will soon be leading the Libertarian Party) and Dan Imperato (another Libertarian) are both fairly moderate. Although the Bush administration is known for "failing," some good things have come out of it. Of course, these will never be highlighted on the news or any mainstream media outlet.
ReplyDeleteNo kerri, you gots it all wrong. He didn't eliminate Democrats, he eliminated people that conflict with his viewpoints. Silly goose.
ReplyDeleteLets face it, Obama and Clinton are kindof sucky. Obama not so much, but I can't really tell if he is just a great speaker or if he will really get things done. Clinton is a whinny bitch and cannot handle pressure. Furthermore, the Republicans did not fail. As I recall, although the executive branch has been under republican control, the president does not have unlimited power and is not responsible for everything. Isn't that right, Congress. The congress has been democratic for a long time, and that has caused a lot of conflict with the two opposing parties in power at once...
ReplyDeleteI know that, Mogni. I also think that abortion is probably the last of our problems right now. Glen, what about the economy, the 7-year-long war we're in right now, health care; important things, you know? Abortion is a tiny blip on the radar that unfortunately too many Christians care too much about. Also, it takes a lot more to be pro-life than just being anti-abortion. Unless you're anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-Gitmo (and other such camps), support very strict gun control, etc., don't call yourself pro-life.
ReplyDeleteDemocrats are for the most part pro-life, usually because they don't let their religion into their politics as much (Obama is Christian, also pro-choice), and they believe in civil rights for all, including a woman's right to decide what to do with her body. End of story. It also makes no sense that a Libertarian is pro-life. A true libertarian is for civil rights and the right for people to do as they choose with themselves. Granted, the US Libertarian party isn't the same as theoretical libertarianism, but still. And Imperato and Paul will never win. No one's ever heard of Imperato, anyway; he's not even a politician.
Actually, Mogni, Congress had a Republican majority from 2003 to 2007. The Democrats have had a majority for only a year now. So Congress may have messed up, but it was a Republican Congress. Anyway, who do you support, Hunter?
Sure, Kerri, those are all important things. However, it is a Christian obligation to put human life at the forefront of elections. Health care is very important -- since it is a human right. Anti-death penalty? Yes. Anti-torture? Yes. Universal health care? Yes. Gun control is debatable. Ever since Britain did away with guns, the crime rate has sky-rocketed. Self-defense is permissible.
ReplyDeleteYou can't really be "for the most part pro-life." Pro-life starts with abortion. If you are against you, you are immediately a supporter of death to infants -- a human rights violation.
You wouldn't believe it -- but a true libertarian is actually pro-life. According to the basic tenets of libertarianism, we have the obligation to not violate the rights of anyone else. This includes the unborn.
"They will never win" well that isn't the spirit! We shouldn't become slaves to the two party system.
Oops, I meant "for the most part pro-choice," not pro-life. Like, most Democrats are pro-choice, but not all are, obviously. My bad.
ReplyDeleteTechnically, isn't it violating the right of the mother to do what she wants with her body if you can't let her have an abortion (or even use contraceptives for that matter)? Also, Libertarianism really doesn't believe that, I don't think. Right-libertarianism in the US, maybe, but not left-libertarianism or true classical-libertarianism.
I'm not a slave to the two-party system, but I know that it's what's here in America, and it's not leaving. It's a reality. And I'd root for the underdog, but not if it's futile. I like Kucinich's ideas, but I'd never vote for him, 'cause he has no chance. But seriously, if Paul switches when he drops out, he'll take some votes away from the Republicans, and in my opinion, that's great. More power to him!
Anyway, we all know you're going to end up with Imperato as your favorite, so why not just say so now and save everyone from reading the rest of your posts?
I should have it made it more clear: when you violate the rights of others via harmful means. Just like all political parties and systems, different factions exist. The one that I subscribe to is right leaning.
ReplyDeleteI think that all people should use the Voters Guide, but that obviously is not going to happen! I'm all for people not voting along party lines. In fact, I encourage it.
Well, the candidate who remains isn't going to be my "favorite," but rather the "favorite" of every one. That, of course, assumes everyone will be adhering to the Voters Guide.
Since, I know hundreds of people are waiting for Part 3 to be published.......