Catholic Santorum winning the South ... our next Prez ?

[Pork_Roll]

I honestly thought that there were a lot more religious folk in the U.S. but after hearing everyone cry against religion and theocracy it seems as though there are a lot more atheists in this country and will definitely give Santorum a run for his money.

I think there are in general more religious folk here than Canada. Most of them would be evangelical which I believe are generally convicted Christians. Most catholics I fear in this country are not necessarily convicted or informed. This would include the many so called catholic pro-death democrats. Then there are those of the conservative/traditional pro-life catholics who try and accommodate republican/libertarian politics into their faith. They are not on the mark either but certainly a lesser of two mistakes in my opinion.

The later are quite frequent on these forums and will attack anyone who points out that some of the GOP’s polices or Ron Paul’s contradict catholic teaching. Now I admit there are no perfect candidates and many of the economic policies are debatable, but not to the extent that GOP Catholics tend to make it out to be. They think that the catholic social teachings are fine as long as they are not implemented in any real way.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Great question. I wonder the same thing. You should have heard Michael Savage bash him. The problem is, people don’t know their faith. You have many well intentioned conservative catholics who listen more to Michael Savage, Ann Coulter and Ayn Rand than they do the pope and his writings. What’s worse is that some think that the economic policies of the rank and file GOP are perfectly compatible with the church’s social teachings.

The fact that the more “catholic” Santorum is on issues the more he is attacked is proof positive to me that the media and the principalities and powers are inherently anti-catholic/traditional christian be them GOP or democrat. While I agree it is perfectly reasonable to support Romney over Obama, it isn’t reasonable for a catholic to not recognize that Santorum is by far the better candidate on the moral issues.

 

[CMatt25]

certainly you aren’t arguing that the cuts hurt the economy, are you? If so, how?

By the so called wealthy job creators not creating the necessary jobs after their tax cuts to keep unemployment from getting to the point it did.

 

[bbarrick8383]

By the so called wealthy job creators not creating the necessary jobs after their tax cuts to keep unemployment from getting to the point it did.

So give it to the wealthy politicians who create nothing?

Money is only part of the equation when creating jobs. Uncertainty plays just as much of a role.

 

[Viki63]

In answer to some previous posters, I don’t understand how anyone could vote for Obama since he voted against the Infants Born Alive Protection Act, see here.

Santorum seems a more moral candidate, but looks like he stands much less of a chance of defeating Obama for president. That may be why many Catholics would vote against him.
It seems to me that Ron Paul and Gingrich are hurting the GOP by taking votes away from other more viable candidates. They don’t stand a chance of winning, but they are preventing voters from getting behind more realistic candidates.

 

[CMatt25]

For those of you who are as liberal as Obama, and consider yourself religious or somewhat religious, I have a question:

If a liberal administration were to completely ban all religious functions aimed to help the needy in a plan that would somehow reroute those functions through the federal government, would you still support that administration?

As someone who doesn’t consider President Obama liberal but rather more centrist or slightly left of center at best, and as someone who considers himself not as but more liberal than Obama, for instance because I’d not have taken single payer health care off the table, and as a person of faith ( more than somewhat) and as someone who believes Obama is a person of Christian faith as well, I’ll give my answer. I speak for no one but myself. I myself support individuals, faith based groups, and the federal government all having a role to play in helping the needy. I believe Jesus would not turn down any such help He could get. But the question is too hypothetical for me to expand any further on. Because neither Obama nor a liberal admin is proposing any such complete ban on all religious functions in any such reroute.

 

[rlg94086]

By the so called wealthy job creators not creating the necessary jobs after their tax cuts to keep unemployment from getting to the point it did.

Again, you haven’t shown how it hurt the economy…only about how it may not have helped.

 

[CMatt25]

Again, you haven’t shown how it hurt the economy…only about how it may not have helped.

If it didn’t help, then it hurt. Think of it this way. In the same way if the sick are not served with care and helped, they’re hurt. It’s not that hard for me to grasp.

 

[bbarrick8383]

As someone who doesn’t consider President Obama liberal but rather more centrist or slightly left of center at best, and as someone who considers himself not as but more liberal than Obama, for instance because I’d not have taken single payer health care off the table, and as a person of faith ( more than somewhat) and as someone who believes Obama is a person of Christian faith as well, I’ll give my answer. I speak for no one but myself. I myself support individuals, faith based groups, and the federal government all having a role to play in helping the needy. I believe Jesus would not turn down any such help He could get. But the question is too hypothetical for me to expand any further on. Because neither Obama nor a liberal admin is proposing any such complete ban on all religious functions in any such reroute.

What Obama has said makes him extremely liberal, just because he can not do it in his first four years means nothing.

What you don’t get though is you cut the legs out from under the individuals and faith based groups who’d like to help, by forcing them to pay the government in higher taxes first.

 

[ishii]

What Obama has said makes him extremely liberal, just because he can not do it in his first four years means nothing.

What you don’t get though is you cut the legs out from under the individuals and faith based groups who’d like to help, by forcing them to pay the government in higher taxes first.

What Cmatt doesn’t understand is the politics of incrementalism. The left cannot push their entire platform all at once without suffering a humiliating election defeat. 2010 midterms were a milder example of that. The left can only pass their programs a little bit at a time - much like the frog in boiling water metaphor. (Cmatt, I’m not calling you a frog). The left believes that victory is inevitable - “history is on their side” - so they will settle for small victories as long as they are slowly achieving their goals. Think I’m wrong? Imagine calling for gay marriage approval in 1960; it would have never been considered. But after decades of campaigning, we are now at the point where those who oppose gay marriage are called intolerant bigots. In the 1960’s we were talking about the availability of the pill - it was available for those who wanted to buy it. Now we are talking about free contraception - including forcing the Church to provide contraception to their employees. What a difference a few decades makes. Cmatt may say that Obama is a “center-left” president, but Obama is anything but. He is a committed leftist who wants to fundamentally transform American according to the ideals of the left.

Ishii

 

[rlg94086]

If it didn’t help, then it hurt. Think of it this way. In the same way if the sick are not served with care and helped, they’re hurt. It’s not that hard for me to grasp.

Sorry, but that doesn’t cut it from a logic perspective. If it just didn’t help, then it is neutral. I’m sorry you can’t grasp that.

 

[CMatt25]

What Cmatt doesn’t understand is the politics of incrementalism… The left can only pass their programs a little bit at a time - much like the frog in boiling water metaphor. (Cmatt, I’m not calling you a frog).

I understand this and your entire post is what you believe Ishii. But good that you’re not calling me a frog. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

So what happened in 2010?

2010 is so yesterday and light yrs past in the realm of politics. Since then the Tea Party has seen its popularity drop and the Congress with the House under Republican control as a result of 2010 has quite dismal approval ratings. Lower than Obama’s. My 2010 elected Tea Party congressman is leaving my district for 2012 to run in a more conservative one. And my district has been a swing one. Both Democrats and Republicans have been elected to Congress previously.

 

[bbarrick8383]

2010 is so yesterday and light yrs past in the realm of politics. Since then the Tea Party has seen its popularity drop and the Congress with the House under Republican control as a result of 2010 has quite dismal approval ratings. Lower than Obama’s. My 2010 elected Tea Party congressman is leaving my district for 2012 to run in a more conservative one. And my district has been a swing one. Both Democrats and Republicans have been elected to Congress previously.

gallup.com/poll/145238/congress-job-approval-rating-worst-gallup-history.aspx

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com...roduction/Cms/POLL/abrpxffxc0ifqzln1gjqja.gif

Congressional approval ratings are hardly a good compass to measure anything with, except that the public hardly ever likes congress.

Politically speaking, yes it is a long time. But this has been more of a discussion on demographics and politics, which can take decades to make a difference.

But according to all of the factual data this so called realist provided, between the black vote and the Latino vote, the GOP might as well pack it’s bags and leave DC.

So, where were the blacks and latino’s in 2010? There were only 3 percent fewer blacks showing up to vote in the midterms than there was for Obama. Did the latino’s stay home as well?

 

[ishii]

2010 is so yesterday and light yrs past in the realm of politics. Since then the Tea Party has seen its popularity drop and the Congress with the House under Republican control as a result of 2010 has quite dismal approval ratings. Lower than Obama’s. My 2010 elected Tea Party congressman is leaving my district for 2012 to run in a more conservative one. And my district has been a swing one. Both Democrats and Republicans have been elected to Congress previously.

Funny, Obama’s poll numbers are dropping too. Obama promised that premiums would be cheaper with the passage of Obama care but they are higher. And the cost of Obama care is going to be 2 trillion instead of the 1 trillion Obama promised. This election choice will be clear: either we will elect a president who wants to give future generations huge amounts of debt or we will elect a president who will deal with the fiscal realities we face. I am guessing that if the American people are presented with the facts, they will choose fiscal responsibility over the “hope and change” (and huge deficits) of Obama.

Ishii

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

In answer to some previous posters, I don’t understand how anyone could vote for Obama since he voted against the Infants Born Alive Protection Act, see here.

Santorum seems a more moral candidate, but looks like he stands much less of a chance of defeating Obama for president. That may be why many Catholics would vote against him.
It seems to me that Ron Paul and Gingrich are hurting the GOP by taking votes away from other more viable candidates. They don’t stand a chance of winning, but they are preventing voters from getting behind more realistic candidates.

You’re not saying you believe in Universalism, are you? People choose because of Free Will.

 

[GEddie]

You’re not saying you believe in Universalism, are you? People choose because of Free Will.

Free will does not mean rationality, lamentably.

Human beings connect their will to feelings more than the mind, a lot of the time.

Gingrich is probably impossible as a candidate because he is a political insider with an extensive past. Paul is impossible because he is or at least sounds like an extremist. Yet both have a die-hard following that keeps the inter-Republican fight going and takes pressure off BHO.

Add to that many still having issues with Romney’s faith, and you have a script for BHO take 2.

May the will of our LORD be done, anyhow. ICXC NIKA

 

[Viki63]

Gingrich is probably impossible as a candidate because he is a political insider with an extensive past. Paul is impossible because he is or at least sounds like an extremist. Yet both have a die-hard following that keeps the inter-Republican fight going and takes pressure off BHO.

Exactly how I see it.
So it appears to me that Paul and Gingrich are indifferent to which party gets elected, as long as they get their moment in the sun, some attention from voters. This is horribly self centered. If all the other candidates dropped out, and got behind either Santorum or Romney, the party could pull together and defeat Obama. Why don’t they see that? Or they just don’t care?

Not that I think the GOP is great, but anything is better than the most pro-abortion president we’ve ever had.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Exactly how I see it.
So it appears to me that Paul and Gingrich are indifferent to which party gets elected, as long as they get their moment in the sun, some attention from voters. This is horribly self centered. If all the other candidates dropped out, and got behind either Santorum or Romney, the party could pull together and defeat Obama. Why don’t they see that? Or they just don’t care?

Not that I think the GOP is great, but anything is better than the most pro-abortion president we’ve ever had.

This is the primaries, not about Obama yet.

Pauls doing it to educate people, not self centered at all.

 

[CMatt25]

So, where were the blacks and latino’s in 2010? There were only 3 percent fewer blacks showing up to vote in the midterms than there was for Obama. Did the latino’s stay home as well?

bbarrick, not everyone is like me and I presume you and Ishii and others and vote in every election. Some people believe it or not, caucasians included, only vote in Presidential yrs and not midterms.