If Rudy get the GOP Nomination is Hillary the Catholic Choice?

It appears I am going to be talking about Rudy again. Yesterday I mentioned the more we talk about Rudy the more likely he will be the nominee. I am also feeling compelled to write a response to all these "Ron Paul is the Great Catholic Candidate" posts I keep seeing. I am not sure these Catholics know who Paul has been lying with over the years.

However Astonished Yet At Home had some observations at his post Pat Loves Rudy that I think are important to respond too. He said:
Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton are pro-abortion and pro-gay agenda. Clinton does not come close enough to opposing unjust war, but she is a whole lot more humane on the issue than Rudy. Hillary is less likely to break the backs of the poor while propping up the rich. Giuliani may give us strict constructionist judges, but his idea (echoed by many "conservative" legal theorists) is that a strict constructionist judge need not reverse Roe.For a principled Catholic, the pro-life cause is reason to vote Republican. If Rudy is the nominee, there is reason to bolt the party. If there is no revolt, Hillary Clinton is the candidate who more closely reflects our principles. That vote would certainly be remote material cooperation with evil, but it would also be the lesser evil.
Now as I have said and I firmly believe threats to bolt and just threats period are pretty counterproductive. The American voter, democrat, republican, or independent , just responds badly to it. What threats do is just cause people to do the opposite of what the person threatening wanted them to do. Now Tobias does not strike me as a republican Party person but for those in the republican camp take note. People would do well to start making arguments to the Great and Good American people why their guy or gal is better instead of screaming that they will take their toys and leave if you do X.

Now when Tobias is talking about "Our Principles" that OUR I take it means Catholic and Christian voters. Now the GOP voter should take note. The view that Tobias has is one that exist among many people and no matter how we might wish it away or think it shortsighted it is still there. I am just hoping not to have to deal with it come convention time in case Rudy gets the nod. By the way Check out Mike Huckabee which I think saves us from all this mess

Now again I hate to sound like a Rudy Apologist here especially since I am Huckabee supporter and fighting Rudy's nomination tooth and nail. However; I do have a tendency to look past next week or even past the next couple of months.

If Huckabee, or Thompson, or McCain, or Romney gets the nomination we are going to need to have the Rudy voters get behind one of our guys. If I was a Rudy supporter and basically knew that what you are asking of me you yourself would not have done if the roles were reversed my reaction would be to BUZZ OFF.

Now all these seems all so common sense and in fact human nature when you are in a "party" ,but in the heat of the moment we forget that. The fact is if enough GOP Rudy voters tells us supporters of the nominee to Buzz off then we lose. I rather take my chances by making a argument to the voters myself instead of threatening to bolt if my golly I can't make a case in the public square.

On to his arguments. In all the doomsday scenarios of a Rudy nomination I can't help but notice that something obvious is left out of the discussion. That is the office of Vice President. I will bet dollars to donuts if RUDY got the nod he would have to put a pro-lifer in. I also bet an accommodation would be made for the VP to vote his morals on certain issuea if his vote was needed in case of a tie in the Senate. That is significant on many levels. If Hillary Clinton puts a strong pro-lifer a heart beat away from Presidency, then perhaps we shall see as Tobias puts it that she might be a "candidate who more closely reflects our principles". I for one am not holding my breath on that one. But hey if she puts a Staunch Pro-lifer as VP on the ticket well she has got my attention.

I also think that bolting the party might very well destroy it. One must really think if losing one primary election is worth losing the power and influence that pro-lifers have in the party. Again perhaps I am too pragmatic but another election is always just around the bend. I am not sure it is worth breaking humpty dumpty into a thousand pieces and finding us four years later as powerless as the pro-life party of New York because we lost an party primary election. In fact it seems foolhardy.

A few remarks on judges. I know that is incredible to believe but generally GOP Presidents don't ask a potential nominee how they will rule on Roe V Wade. Even "wink wink" like. The reason is because when they are under oath they will be asked if the President ASKED THEM THAT. IF the answer is yes he did and he says I would overturn it then his nomination is dead. Strict Constructionist though on average are more likely than not to find abortion as an absolute right at the Federal level very suspect.

I have no idea what he mean by she would be more humane on unjust war. Perhaps he will elaborate later today when he goes into Presidential politics more. However I do hope he talks about her voting record and oh yes the THE IRAQI LIBERATION ACT that was enacted under her husband. I have not heard her repudiate that yet.
In the end at least with Rudy Pro-lifers and others would have influence. He does have to work with us on other concerns.
I think it is quite clear the party of the democrats in which will a President Hillary would have to placate would not. The Vatican Secretary of State a few months ago in Nashville was referencing the Democrats when he said:
I don’t understand how a person in public office or one engaged in political activity can be obliged to renounce his Catholic identity because the party, be it in the U.S. or in other countries, imposes an ethical choice on the basis of the party’s program.This, according to me, does not respect freedom of conscience. It even seems to me to be an oppression of conscience. Where is the freedom of conscience that is so proclaimed and defended in America?
I am speaking here about the question of abortion, about homosexual marriage, about embryonic research, all the points that were discussed so eloquently yesterday by the Supreme Knight, Mr. Anderson.

Now this was was direct shot across the bow to the House Democrats that made the statement that the Pope was violating the Separation of Church and State by well being the POPE and acting like one. I am not sure how this is helping "Our Principles". At least with Rudy I know that he thinks if the Pope or Bishops want to act like Pope's and Bishops that is their business and fine with him. Also I have a big feeling that he will not be influenced by those that think the Pope saying you can't have the BODY of CHRIST is somehow a violation of the US Const.
As to the arguments as to the poor. Well I have not seen where Rudy would screw the poor to be honest. In fact his economic plan does not seem totally fleshed out to me at this stage.

The Anchoress summed it up best a month ago in her post Clintons and the Christians third party gambit - UPDATED.
The third-party pipe-dreamers will once again make the Clinton tag team victorious. And with a Supreme Court likely to need three quick replacements in ‘09, the third party folks will watch as the court becomes a permanent 5-4 liberal majority activist court - for decades. Decades, folks. The America you think you’re going to “preserve” with your third party candidate may become unrecognizable in a very short time. The Roe v Wade you think you’re going to reverse with your unelectable third candidate will seem almost quaint when compared with the “compassionate” euthanasia and the “practical, community-serving, environment saving” limitations on life you’ll be watching get handed down as law by an activist court determined to see the Constitution as a “living” and flexible document.
And all of this will come about because the only person seemingly capable of beating the Clinton’s wasn’t a good enough Christian for the Christian right. I think it’s a mistake, folks. Create a third party in order to give yourselves a “good Christian” to vote for - one who doesn’t offend any of your principals - and you lose. And life loses, too.

By the way see those Huckabee Links on the left of my blog. Please Go to them and Learn About the Man that can save us from all this mess. The fact is if Rudy gets the nod we shall how convince the voter that Astonished Yet At Home represents that Hillary does not represent "our principles" better than Rudy. We may not be able to convince enough in time Oh and Please Donate. We need the money

Geaux Huckabee!!!!!!