I’m not interested in hearing you “explain” anything until you answer the basic question,which has a YES or NO answer.

I’ll make the question even simpler, and more bare-bones. Will you be truthful about your intentions during your campaign?

But, by your waffling and side-stepping the question, which has been posed several different way, I deem the question to have been answered, and that answer is NO.

“You seem to want to make it about the pope sending his instructions to faithful Catholic politicians. It doesn’t work that way.”

Oh, yes it does, according to several of your comments on other threads, as well as posts on your own blog.

I just spent several posts explaining my point of view. I cannot adequately explain what I’m all about if you want a 4-second soundbyte answer.

If their decisions are going to be based on one set of religious beliefs or another then the electoriate deserves to be told that right up front, if a candidate’s decisions may be subject to the will of their religious leader then that is also something that needs to be stated right up front.

If I think like the religious leader in question, to begin with, are my principles and decision the product of that religious leader?

That’s what I’m trying to get at. You seem to want to make it about the pope sending his instructions to faithful Catholic politicians. It doesn’t work that way.

A voter has the responsibility to find out what he is voting for.

Only to a degree, the larger responsibility/obligation is upon the shoulders of those looking for votes to tell the voter what sort of package they are voting for.

The politician markets themselves during the campaign process and it is not unreasonable for the voter to expect honesty in this, they rarely get it, but they have the right to expect it.

If a candidate is going to toe the party line because they think therin lies the best advantage for the constituency then they must say so, and explain to the people they hope to represent why they have made that decision. If they are not going to toe the line then they should tell the electoriate, and the party, that that is the case.

If their decisions are going to be based on one set of religious beliefs or another then the electoriate deserves to be told that right up front, if a candidate’s decisions may be subject to the will of their religious leader then that is also something that needs to be stated right up front.

– anything less is dishonest.

*grits teeth to the point of breaking a molar*

THAT’S WHAT I’M TRYING TO DO!!!

NOW ANSWER THE GODDAMN QUESTION!!!.

Will you tell the voters that you will vote against their wishes if their wishes contravene the stance of the Catholic church and your personal core principles?

I will not vote against my core principles. That is the only way to be a person of integrity.

A voter has the responsibility to find out what he is voting for. One advantage of running in a smaller, values-driven party is that once you find out what the party is about, you have a pretty good idea what the candidate is about, unlike the Liberals or PC’s, where there is a big difference of principle and approach from candidate to candidate.

That’s all fine for people who know you, but voters do not know you!

The question is, will you be honest enough to tell the voters that you will vote against their wishes if their wishes contravene the stance of the Catholic church and your personal core principles?

Yes. Or. No.

I feel that a voter has every right to know what I’m all about. But if what I have to say has to be communicated in a “packaged” fashion, you won’t get the whole picture– I have to communicate in the densest fashion as possible. The person asking a question has a frame of reference that is completely at odds to what the candidate is saying. So the two talk at cross-purposes in a sense. You were trying to find out if I’m going to follow Vatican memos on voting (an exaggeration, but sufficient for my purposes) and I’m thinking: it’s not like that at all.

I sense that many voters like a politician who is skilled in the art of what might be termed “dense communication”– saying what he wants to communicate, in spite of the framing of the question. I suspect that some voters feel that it’s a sign of shrewdness and worldliness, of someone who knows how to navigate the world of politics (and is therefore competent). Many people have to do this in their professional lives, and I suspect that when they see a politician adept at this form of communication, they get the impression the person is competent.

The downside is that the message and the big picture is mangled through this form of communication. The details are fuzzy and subject to interpretation.

People who know me will know my core principles that I am not willing to betray, and those points of policy on which I am flexible.

The question that began this discussion – is a blogger’s body of work relevant for discussion when said blogger offers themselves for public office – seems to have been answered in the affirmative by pretty much everyone.

So the only unanswered question, to me, is – what is SUZANNE’s duty to the voters when it comes to informing them about the role that the Magisterium plays in determining her vote (as opposed to the wishes of her constituents)?

If your comment does not immediately appear reposting it won’t help, we’ll be checking the moderation pen as time permits and release anything trapped in error.

You all fascinated? No? Oh well. You pushed all the Geographical Buttons.

I most certainly will, vote or no vote