Are we this short sighted?

  • Thread starter Thread starter crazzeto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

crazzeto

Guest
Ok, I realize a lot of people are dissapointed with Rep Bart Stupak (personally, I’ve come to terms with and understand what he did), but are we seriously this short sighted?

This is what I’m talking about
catholicvoteaction.org/blog/cva/index.php?p=1218

The author of this blog seems rather pleased that Bart Stupak is being challenged seriously by a NOW endorsed pro-abort, and simutaiously is having support dropped by the Michigan Right to life PAC. Are we serious? Isn’t it a bit of a fallacy to sit back and watch Stupak be successfully challenged by a NOW endorced Pro Abort? And why? Because he took what victory he could? Very likely believing he might well not actually be able to actually stop health reform anyway?

Are we cutting off our noses to spite our face? Particularly given what Stupak did manage to get done? This isn’t an us v. them issue after all, or it shouldn’t be. We should be working to reform the Democratic party, to guide it back on the proper path. The likes of Stupack certainly helps with this.

I’m curious what everyone else’s thoughts are.
 
I would rather have a pro-abortionist in office than someone that claims to be pro-life and betrays that viewpoint for 750,000 bucks for an airport. 750,000 bucks for an airport is worth more than making a stand on principle? I would rather have a pro-abortionist in office and know where he stands on the issue instead of a fence sitter that has no principles and holds out for more money. You can fight a pro-abortionist. You cant fight or reason with fence sitters. Stupak is just like Newt Gingrich, Nancy Pelosi, Rick Santorum and John McCain: unprincipled. They all compromised their principles for political gain. Stupak is in their group.

Newt Gingrich: supported Scozzafava in NY over pro-life Hoffman.

Santorum: supported pro-abortion Specter over a pro-life Democrat.

McCain and Pelosi: no explanation needed.
 
To the OP:

You are reading mal-intent into this and I am not seeing it. It is very hard to unseat an incumbant for office. When an incumbant’s seat is seriously challenged, it’s usually good for both parties. It becomes a real race.

CVA isn’t throwing support to the pro-choice democrat but rather, is reminding us, and Bart Stupak not to be complacent.

Of course there’s the old adage “better the devil you know (the overtly pro-abortion politician) than the devil you don’t (the PLINO) politician”.

** PLINO = Pro Life In Name Only. 😃
 
Wow, well I certainly could not, in any case either directly or indirectly support a NOW endorsed pro-abort. Rather, I’ll just vote for the most pro-lfie candidate I can, and hope everyone else is doing the same. This is how you end the culture of death.
 
This is how you end the culture of death.

I wonder if a dying culture can end the culture of death. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top