Strings such as this, discussing attributes of any competing candidate vying to become a major party’s nominee for president in 2008, are interesting, informative and, thereby, valuable. It would seem that reasons such discussions arise is that some aspects of candidates’ character, beliefs, experience and competencies aren’t known to the degree of certainty voters might wish and need, to select that candidate or a competitor, for the voter’s personal support or rejection.

This candidate-comparison process is one demanding significant energy and attention. It, surely, isn’t completely hit-or-miss but likely could leave - without full clarity - the degree of, and comparable importance of, aspects of various candidates’ character, skills, competencies, track records or other attributes or flaws. (Have not competing candidates been known to try to spin various aspects of their opponents’ makeup in ways not intended to make other candidates look their best and to spin their own favorably?  A little understating, there.)

Yes, but how does the voting public get around conducting this sort of necessary jiu-jitsu in the election process? Well, I wouldn’t recommend jettisoning this approach. Rather, I would hope that we voters would turn things around (i.e., prioritize things) so as to define clearly, OUR foundational interests so that candidates would need to address them candidly to our satisfaction. At least then, issues salient to one side of the equation (the constituency) would be a known-known (and realities about the other side might start to become more objectively knowable).

You see, instead of our trying, exclusively, to delve into the real abilities and agendas of competing candidates, all candidates would know for certainty what OUR agenda is.  And that wouldn't pertain only to competitors for the office of president but to competitors for office throughout the whole political process.  OUR priorities would play upon the whole political spectrum, not just to the one office of the presidency, as important as that office is.  But recent political games in Washington have shown how "checks and balances" can become overly weighted toward "checks" with stiffling (therefore, unproductive, expensive, dangerous) effects on government accomplishments at home and abroad. 

For Catholics and most other Americans, I believe that agenda needs to begin by the clear defining of our belief in respect to the inherent dignity of the lives of our neighbors, starting, particularly with the lives of those little, innocent, defenseless neighbors of ours who are ravaged by abortion, and of related attrocities toward human life promoted in a Culture of Death in America. (Also, young women, our neighbors as well, deserve our love and respect as - by their having been identified legally to be the exclusive agent for "fingering" an unborn human being for (legal!) death - have been placed in the untenable position of being targets of pressures from boyfriends and from the whole Death Culture apparatus whose desire is to "get rid of that kid".  Make no mistake about it loose living and abortion are not the friends of women!)

Should the Culture of Death, during this presidential campaign, care to engage and contest the truth of God’s Great COMMANDMENT: "Love your neighbor as yourself" and its relevance toward abortion where they won’t be able to practice their usual "Duck in; tell preposterous lies; then duck out" approach, they’re done for! Once the discussion becomes engaged they won’t be able to "duck out" and hide the duplicitous thinking and language on which their philosophy relies. And should they attempt, from the start, to sit out (to ignore) such a discussion through this long political campaign, that would be sufficiently revealing to all of America of their guile, so as to cook their goose!

Friends, the Culture of Death will meet its "death throes" in this campaign if we’re sensible!

Peace, Jakes