One, from the McCain campaign, was a simple reminder to get out and vote. They had my address because I contacted them months ago to ask for a clarification about McCain's ESCR support, a clarification I never actually got, sadly.
The second came from the Baldwin campaign, a little too late since I already voted for McCain. I had asked whether their party's pro-life position included opposition to federally-funded abortifacient contraception through programs such as Medicaid etc. The answer read as follows:
You asked about our abortion position. This is a position that is fundamental to the Constitution Party, which has, since it's creation, been the only 100% pro-life party. It is not a political ploy, nor merely words only, like the Republican Party. We see protection of human life one of the primary roles of government, and human life must be protected in all forms, from conception of a child to even the elderly and infirm. To make exceptions is to be inconsistent, to not truly be pro-life, for it would only be pro-life IF this or IF that condition. Life is life, and life must not be taken without due process of law, as our Bill of Rights, which applies to every American, says so clearly. Medicaid would not continue to expand: those on it currently would be continued to be provided for, since a promise had been made. But no more would be added, as it is NOT the federal government's authority to provide healthcare: nowehere is this something given to them in the Constitution.Now, this doesn't really answer my question in its entirety, though I think the person writing the email is trying to stress the 100% pro-life party position and also mentions the plan eventually to eliminate Medicaid. But since I posted the response to this question which I received earlier from the Joe Schriner campaign, I thought it would be only fair to include the Baldwin response as well.
I recognize that this election is a tough one. People of good will, Catholics included, have disagreed with each other as to the best way to vote. While I sympathize with those who are voting third-party or leaving the ballot blank, I still can't fathom the notion that a vote for Obama in any way coincides with Catholic teaching, though; I think the Catholics who are voting for Obama see him as somehow above "normal" politics, so much so that his rabid and distasteful support for partial birth abortion, his opposition to BAIPA, and his vow to sign FOCA are all overlooked as unimportant compared to their belief that this man really will heal the planet, end division, stop war, eliminate poverty, and usher in a kind of Heaven-on-earth.
I was born in Illinois, and have relatives who are all too familiar with Chicago-style politics; the phrase "vote early and often" was coined in Chicago, though three different people are credited with saying it. Maybe that's why it's so easy for me to be cynical about the "Lightworker," who is promising the sun, the moon, and the stars to his supporters--but who has never accomplished anything of note during his relatively brief political career, and who seems to have made "style over substance" a personal creed. I don't see a planet-healing, consensus-building, superstar of the political world; I see a typical Chicago politician, with dubious allies and few friends, whose past is still relatively unknown thanks to a media willing to roll over and play dead and get their collective tummies scratched by the Obama campaign--or at least, to get to say "Nyah, nyah" to the less fortunate reporters kicked off the campaign plane with only days to go before the election. Instead of a man with great humility and potential, I see a man hubristic enough to take his presidential campaign overseas in the middle of the election year, and to adopt a mock presidential "seal of the candidate" until the outcry from the right-wing media made him remove it. Instead of a man who plans to help our country move past its divisions, I see a man who plans to eliminate division by stifling dissent, through laws like FOCA and the soon-to-be resurrected Fairness Doctrine; instead of a man who will eliminate poverty, I see a man who will eliminate the incentive for hard work, by taking more and more of the income of those who earn between $50,000 and $100,000 and giving it to those who earn nothing at all.
If tomorrow's election really does go the way the media so blatantly hopes it will, then I think that the rest of the country--or most of it--will come to see Barack Obama as I see him. I'm still not sure that he will be our next president, but if he is, I think he will be a one-term president, because I don't think it will take the rest of the country more than four years to realize that he can't, in fact, walk on water, feed crowds of people with only a handful of food, or singlehandedly end war and poverty and division--no matter how grandiose his promises have been.