By Austin Quick
Staff Columnist
Most news organizations believe that the Democrats will follow up their 2006 sweep of Congress and take back the Executive Branch as well. Republicans are scared that this is a strong possibility, especially due to the fact that for the first time in decades the GOP doesn’t have a strong front runner.
Read more... Sure, they have Rudy but with his stance on abortion there are a lot of people wondering if he has what it takes to win the nomination of the party, let alone a national election.
Other than Hillary, Barrack Obama is the next runner up in the world of hype. Mr. Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, was a respected lawmaker in the Illinois House, but has not done anything noteworthy since moving to Washington. With his limited experience on the national scene, Mr. Obama will be lucky if he is asked to be Hillary’s running mate.
On abortion Mrs. Clinton had the following to say; “I am and always have been pro-choice, and that is not a right any of us should take for granted. There are a number of forces at work in our society that would try to turn back the clock and undermine a woman’s right to chose, and [we] must remain vigilant.” [Source: New York Times, pg. A11 Jan 22, 2000]
What are the “forces” she is referring to? I am going out on a limb here and assuming that she is speaking of Christians. It’s good to know that Mrs. Clinton (a Methodist) is afraid of turning back the proverbial clock and putting a woman’s right to choose to… oh wait, what is the phrase I am looking for? That’s right.. a woman’s right to choose to murder an innocent human being.
Abortion is not the only issue that should decide a person’s vote. We are a nation at war, and what we need now is what we’ve received for the past eight years: A president who is willing to put polls aside and follow his morals. America needs a leader who stands up for what is right, even when it makes him/her one of the most vilified people in the world. Rudy Giuliani has many great qualities our country needs right now, but the question is whether or not the American people can look past his views on certain social issues. More to come.
[Sophomore Austin M.D. Quick has an extensive background in politics, including serving a term as a Treasurer for the Illinois Republican Party. He is also a Navy veteran who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The views expressed in this column do not necessarily represent those of the Church or the university. Comments are welcome at www.smumn.edu/cardinal.]
2 comments:
I am not commenting on the political ideas that you state as much as the logic of the article. I feel that you have misrepresented the issues at hand and I would just like to speak on that.
The title of the article says "A vote for Hillary is a vote against America.” The title suggests that voting for Hillary Clinton will reduce America, or the values of America. The suggestion that expressing my democratic right and duty is anti-American is in itself doing the same thing. While I commend you for stepping out on a limb and speaking your mind, by suggesting that I am anti-American because I might vote on a different belief system then you, would suggest the idea that I should not be able to vote my conscience. That, sir, would be anti-American to not allow my freedoms to persist.
Enough with the title, on to the content of the article which is where my main grief is focused. The main argument that you state against Hillary is her stance on abortion. While you cite real evidence in something that she says (commendable), you take it to mean something that she might not have meant. This is a practice in politics called mudslinging. She says that she is pro-choice. She does not state that she is anti-catholic. The forces that she is referring to could be social pressures, the higher teen pregnancy rate, the idea of freedom for a mother, the idea of the questionable start to life, et al. She could very well be commenting on the idea of prohibition leads practices underground. As the idea of abortion does go against the Catholic beliefs, I understand your thoughts that she might be against the Catholic identity, however, I do not think that her intention is a comment on the Catholic forces.
While there are more comments that I could make on a few smaller statements in the article, I believe that I should just keep it relatively brief and conclude with the support that you have for Rudy. While personally, I like Rudy and I believe that he would be an excellent candidate for president; your logic against Hillary in this article is her stance on abortion. Rudy has stated on his website “Rudy Giuliani supports reasonable restrictions on abortion such as parental notification with a judicial bypass and a ban on partial birth abortion—except when the life of the mother is at stake… Rudy understands that this is a deeply personal moral dilemma, and people of good conscience can disagree respectfully.” [Source: Joinrudy2008.com/issues]. What is this? Rudy isn't pro-life? By the logic of the article, a vote for Rudy would be allowing for a woman's right to choose to… what was the phrase you used? oh yeah, “a woman's right to choose to murder an innocent human being.” [Source: The Cardinal, Nov 9, 2007].
Based on the article, I have yet to see how a vote for Hillary is much different then a vote for Rudy which seems to be your front runner. While I respect your freedom to express yourself in print, please do not suggest that voting my morals, not the polls, are voting against America. Your article suggests that there is more to come, and I look forward to reading it.
Rick McCoy
By Jeff David
While reading Austin’s Article this week, I was particularly moved by his take on Hillary Clinton’s personal conflict of being Christian and pro-choice and his opinion of President George Bush’s moral standards.
This article reminded me of a bumper sticker I have seen a couple of times. It reads: You simply cannot be Christian and Pro-Abortion. There are two major faults in this strong statement. I challenge anybody who reads this to have a conversation with anyone who is PRO-ABORTION. The label of Pro-Abortion signifies that the woman and her partner (it’s so easy for us to forget about him, isn’t it) are looking forward to the procedure and hope to have another abortion in the near future. Nobody is pro-abortion! Labeling someone as pro-abortion is ignorant and misleading. Also as Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Giuliani have shown us, it is very possible for a Christian to be Pro-CHOICE. Perhaps both of them as Christians can show us the other side of the abortion debate.
I must say that it is sickening to hear our President commended for his morals. A "moral president" is not one who cuts funding for international AIDS and STD prevention programs because their family planning clinics may perform abortions or terminate life-threatening pregnancies while still allowing them in his own country. Also, the Bush administration’s “high moral ground” has also completely destroyed contraception education and funding. The focus has shifted to abstinence and “return to abstinence” education.
I am amazed that an administration that had a republican majority in both houses and a conservative supreme court did not honor their pro-life voter base and create and move more laws to regulate, limit or ban abortions. It is true that Bush did sign a bill that was supported by both parties to outlaw partial birth abortions. From the time that bill was signed in 2003 to when the house and senate majority swung back to the democrats at the beginning of this year, there has been no bills brought to his table or even discussed in the oval office or in the House or Senate. My cynical and leftist mind can only imagine that these laws were left off George Bush’s desk to ensure that the Republican Party maintained it’s “religious right” voter base. It would be terrible for the Republican Party to win their battle on this social issue and have it removed to their political agenda only for their supporters to see how appalling their social programs are. There are so many more problems that republicans have ignored that are much more important than this stagnant abortion debate.
- In response to Mr. Quick’s Article “A vote for Hillary is a vote against America” I will end my article with an equally one-sided statement:
A vote for Republicans is a vote against public education, social justice, and peace. I believe that as a LaSallian institution we cannot stay true to what we have been taught in our year(s) here and vote Republican.
[Senior Jeff David has minimal/non-existent political background. He receives most of his news information from the front pages of newspapers, The Daily Show, Colbert Report and classes that he attends. Fox News and CNN Headline Prime make him want to break his TV. The views expressed in this editorial response do not necessarily represent those of the university or any other person or organization.]
Post a Comment