Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[ishii]

In other words, there is no difference.

When it comes to abortion, the Mormon church and the Democratic party both believe it should be okay in cases of rape and incest.

I am just asking that the association with other pro-choice organizations be treated the same. Of course, as a Catholic, we cannot join another church. But should we be supporting candidates based on their stance on abortion when they obviously have no problem with belonging to a church that teaches abortion is okay?

You’re engaging in sophistry. A president cannot change the law on contraceptives. The legality of contraception is not even an issue. However, the legality of abortion is. And the president can make a difference with abortion for good or bad. But I get what you’re doing: you’re trying to muddy the issue in order to rationalize voting for pro-abortion Democrats. Incidentally what you’re saying would pre-empt voting for a Catholic like Rick Santorum because I don’t think outlawing contraception was on his agenda.

The fact is, sallybutler, you were asked what Church teaching supports your position. You responded with "I think… etc. etc. " In other words, you don’t have any Church teaching to back up what you’re saying.

Let’s be clear folks. If you believe that abortion is just another issue, say it. If you think abortion is somewhere between school lunches and increased unemployment benefits in terms of moral gravity then at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it. Do not insult our intelligence by claiming to be pro-life on the one hand, yet still voting Democrat/Obama. You can’t have it both ways.

Ishii

 

[Milasol]

---

The USCCB guide continues (emphases mine):

1. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end,** this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching**.

Thanks al mortiz it seems you posted a perfect guide. I included my emphasis now. Take note.

 

[ishii]

This:

There have been numerous salient rebuttals to your misguided perception of this administration…there are none so blind as those who refuse to see…

I’m guessing that most of them are genuinely good people who are ignorant. We are all sinners. But this thread has been one of the most disappointing threads in a long time. I mean, its illuminating to see the vacuous arguments of the Democrat catholics. But its depressing to see so much obstinacy.

Ishii

 

[Al_Moritz]

Thanks al mortiz it seems you posted a perfect guide. I included my emphasis now. Take note.

You’re very welcome, and I did take note. But obviously we have vastly different interpretations of what the text emphasized by you means.

Note that the text not only emphasizes Catholic moral teaching, but also the individual conscience of each Catholic formed by it and, given the preceding sentence, prudential judgment by each individual conscience, which will not be the same for each person.

 

[sallybutler]

Several people have posted that you can not vote for a Democrat because of the party’s position on abortion. I agree the church does not teach that. I’m asking those people who say that – what is the difference between voting for a pro-life Democrat and a candidate that says they are pro-life but belong to a pro-choice church?

 

[Milasol]

You’re very welcome, and I did take note. But obviously we have vastly different interpretations of what the text emphasized by you means.

In other words you doubt Catholic moral teaching. You doubt the Church’s teaching on probably all the moral issues including abortion.

Well, my friend, it is God who you will have to respond to.

I was reading the experience of Gloria Polo who died. She was a progressive supporter of abortion, supported leftist candidates who supported abortion.

When she died she was asked about that specific issue. She said that every time an abortion occurs is as if Christ was crucified over and over. It was one of the worst sins. Each soul that is destroyed by merely supporting directly or indirectly abortion hurts our infinite God infinitely.
Gloria also tells how all of us are responsible for not only not supporting abortion but also to actually do something about it.
And to try and justify voting for a party that supports abortion, supports the finance of it, promotes it, cozies up with the entire abortion industry and also promotes the fallacious agendas of so-called women’s health and women’s rights. All disguised to hide the horrific human sacrifice to satan abortion is.

The democrats are not only huge, hardcore, vocal, supporters of not only abortion but all the agendas that increase abortion. A hardcore anti-family party.

It is not the party that it used to be. It is not the softcore social programs regulations party. It has turned into some legion of principalities and powers domination.

You say that republicans don’t do anything, Well facts contradict you there, But even if that was true you can’t still vote for democrats. Democrats win and you get a bill such as the ACA that actually supports abortion and violates religious freedoms. uuuuuu so much for the stupak amendment.

 

[CrossofChrist]

…

Morally grave reasons aside, why vote Democratic? What have they done the past 10 yrs. that makes it worthwhile to vote for them?

…

And then take into account morally grave reasons…

 

[Milasol]

Several people have posted that you can not vote for a Democrat because of the party’s position on abortion. I agree the church does not teach that. I’m asking those people who say that – what is the difference between voting for a pro-life Democrat and a candidate that says they are pro-life but belong to a pro-choice church?

You can vote for a pro-life democrat. I think there might be one or maybe two.

However, remember parties tend to vote on blocks

As to pro-life candidates that belong to a pro-choice church… as long as they vote pro-life. If they vote pro-life I don’t care if they belong to NOW or the kumbaya church… xD

 

[estesbob]

Here we go. From the USCCB voting guide (emphases added):

1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
2. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position* may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons*. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental
   moral evil.

---

Note that all this is in full agreement with the statement by the Pope Emeritus discussed earlier in the thread:

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia.

“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

---

The USCCB guide continues (emphases mine):

1. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.
2. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

---

Note that we have discussed the ‘ability to influence a given issue’. Also discussed were ‘character and integrity’, for example when it came to Romney’s convenient flip-flopping on abortion depending on the political needs of the moment (paying lip service, that is).

Can you find a single member of the Magestrium that agrees with your personal interpretation of this guide? I have posted numerous cites explaining the teachings of the Church on this issue.All we get in return is unsubstantiated opinions

 

[Mark121359]

Iowa Democrat gubernatorial candidates joined 50 pro-abortion activists in an extended prayer for abortion rights. Here are some excerpts from the pro-abortion prayer:…

***We pray today because we see that all is not good. There are some who would shun justice, despise mercy, and lay aside humility for the sake of political influence, and in doing so perpetuate an ongoing blockade of women’s right to safe reproductive health care

We pray for women for whom pregnancy is not good news, that they know they have choices.
We give thanks, O Lord, for the doctors, both current and future, who provide quality abortion care, and pray that they may be kept safe.
We pray for the 45 million American women who have had safe, legal abortions. May they stand tall and refuse shame.
We pray for elected officials, that they may always support a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions.
Today, we pray for better access to all forms of birth control. We pray that women know the power of our own stories. May we find our voices and tell our truths.
We pray for the men in our lives, that they may offer their loving kindness and support for women’s difficult decisions.
We pray for increased financial support for low-income women to access contraception, abortion, and child care.
We pray for all pregnant women. May they be surrounded by loving voices.
Today, we pray for women in developing nations, that they may know the power of self-determination. May they have access to employment, education, birth control, and abortion.
We give thanks for the strong women in our lives who have given us examples of good decision making.
We pray for women who have been made afraid of their own power by their paternalistic religion. May they learn to reject fear and live bravely.
Today, we pray that all women will know that they are created in the image of God — good and holy, moral and wise.
We pray for an end to the stigma perpetrated against women who have abortions.
Today, we pray for the families we’ve chosen. May they know the blessing of choice.
Today, we pray for a continuous love to overflow from our spirits, and we give thanks and celebrate that abortion is still safe and legal.***

How shameful is that? Actually praying to God for*** more ***abortion! Just as shameful is the fact that if you happen to be democrat and pro-life you’re virtually shunned! When was the last time that a pro-life democrat was even allowed to speak at the Democratic National Convention? According to Kristen Day, the Executive Director of Democrats for Life, she has observed that the Democratic Party’s platform now fails to even recognize the existence of pro-life Democratic views. “Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the abortion lobby have a choke-hold on the Democratic Party." This…from a democrat! This Party is what it is…the Party of death. And I can’t reconcile the fact that any Catholic can support it. A properly formed conscience should sense this.

Peace, Mark

 

[Milasol]

Iowa Democrat gubernatorial candidates joined 50 pro-abortion activists in an extended prayer for abortion rights. Here are some excerpts from the pro-abortion prayer:…

How shameful is that? Actually praying to God for*** more ***abortion! Just as shameful is the fact that if you happen to be democrat and pro-life you’re virtually shunned! When was the last time that a pro-life democrat was even allowed to speak at the Democratic National Convention? According to Kristen Day, the Executive Director of Democrats for Life, she has observed that the Democratic Party’s platform now fails to even recognize the existence of pro-life Democratic views. “Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the abortion lobby have a choke-hold on the Democratic Party." This…from a democrat! This Party is what it is…the Party of death. And I can’t reconcile the fact that any Catholic can support it. A properly formed conscience should sense this.

Peace, Mark

unreal!!
Sacrilege!!
They think they can pray to God to help them with the killing of His own creation.
Which “god” are they praying to? Obviously not the God who created the souls they are so eager to kill.

You said it best, a properly formed conscience should sense it…

To condone murder is the same as murder in the eyes of God.

 

[ishii]

You’re very welcome, and I did take note. But obviously we have vastly different interpretations of what the text emphasized by you means.

Note that the text not only emphasizes Catholic moral teaching, but also the individual conscience of each Catholic formed by it and, given the preceding sentence, prudential judgment by each individual conscience, which will not be the same for each person.

So mr moritz: If a Catholic claimed that they believed it was okay to stone women accused of adultery based on “Prudential judgment” i’m guessing that you would judge their conscience to be not properly formed. And so, that is how I judge voters who vote for Pro abortion Democrats while claiming to be faithful catholics. A properly formed conscience would not allow for that.

Ishii.

 

[estesbob]

Here we go. From the USCCB voting guide (emphases added):

1. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
2. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position* may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons*. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental
   moral evil.

---

Note that all this is in full agreement with the statement by the Pope Emeritus discussed earlier in the thread:

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia.

“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

---

The USCCB guide continues (emphases mine):

1. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.
2. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

---

Note that we have discussed the ‘ability to influence a given issue’. Also discussed were ‘character and integrity’, for example when it came to Romney’s convenient flip-flopping on abortion depending on the political needs of the moment (paying lip service, that is).

Can you find a single member of the Magestrium that agrees with your personal interpretation of this guide? I have posted numerous cites explaining the teachings of the Church on this issue.All we get in return is unsubstantiated opinions

 

[estesbob]

You’re very welcome, and I did take note. But obviously we have vastly different interpretations of what the text emphasized by you means.

Note that the text not only emphasizes Catholic moral teaching, but also the individual conscience of each Catholic formed by it and, given the preceding sentence, prudential judgment by each individual conscience, which will not be the same for each person.

Again you have a flawed understanding of Church teaching on conscience

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performedor already committed.

1791 **This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, **or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

 

[Crossbones]

Morally grave reasons aside, why vote Democratic? What have they done the past 10 yrs. that makes it worthwhile to vote for them?

…

And then take into account morally grave reasons…

I’d say the positives of President Obama’s tenure and what I think he will be remembered for in a good light will be the ability to avoid getting the United States deeply engaged in foreign wars and foreign misadventures. From Senator McCain’s comments, it is likely he would have gotten the US more deeply involved and possibly in a full military conflict with Iran, Syria and Libya. Now how this will be looked back on is with hindsight and it will depend on how ISIS develops in the Middle East as well as the continuing Israel conflicts, so it could still go either way, but knowing what I know, I can’t fault President Obama’s foreign policies at this point.

On domestic issues, I think Obamacare has generally been positive, but it isn’t enough to resolve major issues in the delivery and expenses of health care in the US. I also think, the Democrats are generally better on the idea that tax reductions will not solve all of society’s ills. Finally, the Democrats generally did not rename torture as ‘enhanced interrogation’

Of course, there is nothing that stops the Republicans from embracing many of these positions, as they can reasonably represent conservative positions (Obamacare isn’t that terribly different to what Senator Dole was proposing in 1995). Most of the differences is a result of the weird “neo-con” mindset of political hacks like William Kristol and the good people at Fox News. If the Republicans could correct themselves on many of these points and emphasize the positive actions they have made on the pro-life front in the last few years, I think they would be in very good shape in the 2016 elections.

 

[Milasol]

IFrom Senator McCain’s comments, it is likely he would have gotten the US more deeply involved and possibly in a full military conflict with Iran, Syria and Libya. Now how this will be looked back on is with hindsight and it will depend on how ISIS develops in the Middle East as well as the continuing Israel conflicts, so it could still go either way, but knowing what I know, I can’t fault President Obama’s foreign policies at this point.

I can’t let this pass. You do know that it was Obama the one who caused the uprisings in Libya now, Egypt, Syria. See arab spring policy of this administration.

Oh and about Syria, it was this administration who wanted to go to war there. Remember? Don’t try and blame just McCain. This administration if not put in check would have gone to Syria to topple Assad. (Not Muslim Brotherhood, a shiite) Guess what? This administration wanted to support the so-called rebels that are now beheading children in Iraq. Actually they did by sending them weapons. Now they are saying that they stole them from the Iraqi army. They had many of the weapons they did in Syria already.

This administration actively supported, actually formed an international coalition to replace non-Muslim Brotherhood leaders all throughout the middle east to replace them with hardcore Muslim Brotherhood (the overarching organization of more than 100 terrorist organizations in the world). See the case of Egypt and Morsi. You know those hardcore sharia abiding Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

So nope his foreign policy is not only a disaster but dangerous.

 

[Crossbones]

I can’t let this pass. You do know that it was Obama the one who caused the uprisings in Libya now, Egypt, Syria. See arab spring policy of this administration.

Oh and about Syria, it was this administration who wanted to go to war there. Remember? Don’t try and blame just McCain. This administration if not put in check would have gone to Syria to topple Assad. (Not Muslim Brotherhood, a shiite) Guess what? This administration wanted to support the so-called rebels that are now beheading children in Iraq. Actually they did by sending them weapons. Now they are saying that they stole them from the Iraqi army. They had many of the weapons they did in Syria already.

This administration actively supported, actually formed an international coalition to replace non-Muslim Brotherhood leaders all throughout the middle east to replace them with hardcore Muslim Brotherhood (the overarching organization of more than 100 terrorist organizations in the world). See the case of Egypt and Morsi. You know those hardcore sharia abiding Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

So nope his foreign policy is not only a disaster but dangerous.

Senator McCain was talking about ‘bomb, bomb, bombing’ Iran during the Presidential campaign in 2008, was thanking England and France for their participation in the Libya conflict while accusing President Obama of not doing enough and likely would have gotten us much deeper into conflicts that most people in the US wanted no part of after the idiotic Bush induced Iraq War.

I think President Obama has negotiated the dangerous waters fairly well. The fact is that many of the messes in the region were a direct result of President Bush’s inept policies and Senator McCain has said nothing before or since the 2008 presidential election to make me think he wouldn’t be much worse on foreign policy.

So you can think that President Obama’s foreign policies are poor because you’re told so by the neo-cons over at Fox News and then you can wonder why the Republicans lost another presidential election in 2016 or you can realize that the policies of Bush/McCain are **** and help put forth candidates in the Republican party that represent social conservative values instead that of ridiculous neo-cons that think they can change the world into a democracy by force and fiscal conservatives who might get to issues like abortion if we give them 20 straight years in office. The Republicans on the state level are making good strides towards these changes, but it always seems to get fouled up at the national level.

 

[Milasol]

Senator McCain was talking about ‘bomb, bomb, bombing’ Iran during the Presidential campaign in 2008, was thanking England and France for their participation in the Libya conflict while accusing President Obama of not doing enough and likely would have gotten us much deeper into conflicts that most people in the US wanted no part of after the idiotic Bush induced Iraq War.

I think President Obama has negotiated the dangerous waters fairly well. The fact is that many of the messes in the region were a direct result of President Bush’s inept policies and Senator McCain has said nothing before or since the 2008 presidential election to make me think he wouldn’t be much worse on foreign policy.

So you can think that President Obama’s foreign policies are poor because you’re told so by the neo-cons over at Fox News and then you can wonder why the Republicans lost another presidential election in 2016 or you can realize that the policies of Bush/McCain are **** and help put forth candidates in the Republican party that represent social conservative values instead that of ridiculous neo-cons that think they can change the world into a democracy by force and fiscal conservatives who might get to issues like abortion if we give them 20 straight years in office. The Republicans on the state level are making good strides towards these changes, but it always seems to get fouled up at the national level.

The foreign policy of the region STARTED with Obama. The so-called arab spring is of THIS administration. Not Bush’s fault at all. Own up to it. At least learn something about it.

As to Iran, well look at it now.
As to Syria, did you seriously forget how Obama wanted to go? Pretty ironic how the same rebels that Obama wanted to support are now in Iraq. Oh he wanted to pull the troops out and now?

If you think ISIS and the Muslim islamists organizations strengthening across the globe is Bush’s fault, then I say to you to study history since 634 Ad and to also know the appointees of this administration. There is a vast number of hardcore supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood in this administration. If anything it was the strong support of this administration of the Muslim Brotherhood that emboldened them.

Obama didn’t negotiate anything. NOTHING. Unless it was with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Oh and FYI butchering human beings under the guise of choice would trump all of the other issues. How does it feel to have voted for someone who supported INFANTICIDE 3 times and then lied about it? How does it feel to have voted for someone who had no problem letting wounded babies rot and suffer a slow death?

 

[Crossbones]

The foreign policy of the region STARTED with Obama. The so-called arab spring is of THIS administration. Not Bush’s fault at all. Own up to it. At least learn something about it.

As to Iran, well look at it now.
As to Syria, did you seriously forget how Obama wanted to go? Pretty ironic how the same rebels that Obama wanted to support are now in Iraq. Oh he wanted to pull the troops out and now?

If you think ISIS and the Muslim islamists organizations strengthening across the globe is Bush’s fault, then I say to you to study history since 634 Ad and to also know the appointees of this administration. There is a vast number of hardcore supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood in this administration. If anything it was the strong support of this administration of the Muslim Brotherhood that emboldened them.

Obama didn’t negotiate anything. NOTHING. Unless it was with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Oh and FYI butchering human beings under the guise of choice would trump all of the other issues. How does it feel to have voted for someone who supported INFANTICIDE 3 times and then lied about it? How does it feel to have voted for someone who had no problem letting wounded babies rot and suffer a slow death?

The foreign policy of the region has been a mess for at least 70 years from a US prospective and, going back to at the very least the Treaty of Versailles, where the Middle East was getting split up by the European powers along with President Wilson. The fact is playing sides in the Cold War creating a lot of puppet states that repressed their citizenry and there is a lot of resentment directed towards the US government today as a result of their direct and indirect support of these despots.

If you want to treat the history in the region as starting in 2008, well, yes, I guess it’s all Obama’s fault. It goes back much farther and you are choosing to ignore all that. President Bush made things much worse with his horrid Iraq War, which exposed the US to both tremendous cost in human life and treasure but greatly diminished our standing in the world. Iran was part of the axis of evil under Bush, so I don’t see how that has gotten worse. We never should have been in Iraq in the first place.

Now, to make this point clear, I would like a good pro-life president to be elected in 2016. I want a President that will make life issues a priority, not nation-building the Middle East or making sure tax cuts pass. Because if you pay attention to the Republican Presidents for the last 35 years, we’re not getting much in the way of pro-life issues, but we are getting a lot of tax cuts and foreign wars. Now, I know some will blame those sneaky Democrats who keep the good Republicans from passing this great pro-life legislation, but the reality is that they are rather ineffective with stopping the foreign wars and tax cuts, so I don’t think they can stop the Republicans on pro-life issues if the Republicans are actually trying to pass pro-life issues.

So, you can slam President Obama all you want; tell everyone that every single thing he’s done is wrong, but I think that approach turns off a lot of people, especially when it is peppered with a fair amount of rudeness for the person with a differing view (like what you did to me above). And then you lose the ability to make the fundamental point that I think you are trying to make ;that pro-life issues are important to you and that the Republicans are much better on those issues (especially lately). So, we can debate the merits of President Obama’s foreign policy without the insults while having an understanding that our common goal is what I said above: a good pro-life President elected in 2016.

 

[SMGS127]

Jobs are returning except in Conservative States?

All that about Texas leading the nation in jobs is wrong I guess.

North Dakota??: Near zero percent employment?? Conservative State??

Texas has a very pragmatic job plan that is not really led by conservative policy. This is why Abbott (the actual instituter of Texan policy, not Rick Perry) was defeated by Ted Cruz in the GOP Senate primary 2 years ago. For conservative policies, look to states like Kansas and Wisconsin, both of which have had their economies completely decimated by right-wing fanaticism in economic policy. Many lives have been destroyed in the wake of conservative economic zeal.

North Dakota is a non-sequitur. They had a near-zero unemployment rate even at the height of the recession. In fact, I’m fairly certain they were the #1 state in the country in employment. The employment opportunities in North Dakota are so non-dependent on economic policy that it is disingenuous to use them as an example. Because there’s no job “growth;” just job retainment due to the types of jobs North Dakota has.

Also, I’m not saying economics trumps abortion. I’m saying that, when both candidates are roughly equal in their positions on the issue of abortion, it is an irrelevant issue to consider. People are justifying that Romney would have put in pro-life policies because he’s Republican or because he had Ryan as his VP (who would sit twiddling his thumbs 99% of the time) or because he had Bork advising him (who would not even remotely be talking about abortion policy). But he had said multiple times that he is as pro-abortion as any Democrat. People can ignore that to fulfill their obsession with conservative economics, but I’m not going to vote for a GOP candidate that’s pro-abortion. The very fact that a significant portion of the GOP platform is patently immoral means that I would never vote for them unless there was a clear expectation of a difference in abortion, one of the very few immoral things in the Democratic platform (albeit a very significant one).