Conservatives call on GOP leaders to step down

[HansTrappist]

Interestingly, that same view IS the Mormon Church’s view* basically* but on the other hand, Rep. Ryan did say he believed in life at conception. This is a tricky issue with the electorate.

That said, I think they would have done a good job and the abortion industry would have been on its backheels.

I think Romney’s stance was enough to placate and please Catholic Clergy, after all, this is a war we are in, a war of ideas, it is very difficult. He stuck his neck out for us, I voted for him without criticism.

As it is, now we stand a chance to get a bunch of abortion because Obama won.

Well, that may be.

But notice: the Democrats consistently support intrinsic evil and they consistenly win; the Republicans consistently play the middle ground and lost in a big way.

You can never beat the Devil playing the Devil’s game. There are only two ways to win in politics: tell lies or tell the truth. Playing the middle is a losing strategy. Time will tell if the Republicans have learned their lesson but, personally, I think the Republican party is finished. Already Mr. Boehner is talking about compromising with the Democrats. Game over.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Well, that may be.

But notice: the Democrats consistently support intrinsic evil and they consistenly win; the Republicans consistently play the middle ground and lost in a big way.

You can never beat the Devil playing the Devil’s game. There are only two ways to win in politics: tell lies or tell the truth. Playing the middle is a losing strategy. Time will tell if the Republicans have learned their lesson but, personally, I think the Republican party is finished. Already Mr. Boehner is talking about compromising with the Democrats. Game over.

Time for a new conservative party to emerge.I agree,Boehner is going to roll over and let the Dems run roughshod over him.I am pretty disgusted at this point.The namby pamby conservatism is no match for the full bore liberalism that is the Democratic party.

 

[JMJSHJ]

The ironic thing about this whole election is that had Romney taken a 100% pro-life stance, he probably would have won. His exceptions for rape and incest most likely turned many Catholics off who otherwise would have voted for him. Romney’s exceptions for rape and incest still remain one of the mysteries of this election. Why did he have exceptions? I don’t think anyone knows. It certainly did not help him politically.

From what I have learned is that what turned off people wasnt that Romney hadnt taken a 100% pro life stance but that evangelicals didn`t believe he would overturn Obamacare as he got fewer white votes than what McCain did.

To those people, I would like to ask, do you expect Obama to overturn Obamacare?

 

[BroomWagon]

Well, that may be.

But notice: the Democrats consistently support intrinsic evil and they consistenly win; the Republicans consistently play the middle ground and lost in a big way.

You can never beat the Devil playing the Devil’s game. There are only two ways to win in politics: tell lies or tell the truth. Playing the middle is a losing strategy. Time will tell if the Republicans have learned their lesson but, personally, I think the Republican party is finished. Already Mr. Boehner is talking about compromising with the Democrats. Game over.

The Democrats consistently win??

2000-2008?
1980-1992?

Sorry, this is not so.

I think I would be much more critical of those who did not follow the clear principles laid out as to how Catholic voters should vote. Though I do not mean this in an uncharitable way.

If Romney got probably 10% more from Catholic Voters, he would have won. Maybe even less than that.

Obama wins, so the Democrat pet Planned Parenthood can play its game of advising 90% of pregnant women to get abortions and who end up getting those abortions. So, those who allowed Obama to win clearly are responsible for more abortions.

 

[BroomWagon]

90% of the pregnant women seen by Planned Parenthood, the Democrats top cause, end up getting abortions.

lifenews.com/2012/01/05/91-of-pregnant-women-planned-parenthood-sees-get-abortions/

lifenews.com/2012/08/07/mr-president-i-want-better-for-my-daughters-than-abortion/

Mr. President, I Want Better for My Daughters Than Abortion

Those who supported Obama voted for more abortions, pure and simple.

 

[ishii]

Time for a new conservative party to emerge.I agree,Boehner is going to roll over and let the Dems run roughshod over him.I am pretty disgusted at this point.The namby pamby conservatism is no match for the full bore liberalism that is the Democratic party.

I think the left has always been better than the right in America when it comes to politics, and I think it comes naturally. If you have an ideology in which you believe the political process and political goals/govt. programs are the ultimate end, you will organize better, fight harder and do whatever is needed to ensure victory. Can you imagine a right wing community organizer? Neither can I. Look at the right - it consists of politicians to be sure, but often it consists of people who were in the private sector. running businesses, etc. but who are not professional politicians. I think this reality was a factor in the election.

Ishii

 

[HansTrappist]

If Romney got probably 10% more from Catholic Voters, he would have won. Maybe even less than that.

I agree.

 

[meltzerboy]

I think the left has always been better than the right in America when it comes to politics, and I think it comes naturally. If you have an ideology in which you believe the political process and political goals/govt. programs are the ultimate end, you will organize better, fight harder and do whatever is needed to ensure victory. Can you imagine a right wing community organizer? Neither can I. Look at the right - it consists of politicians to be sure, but often it consists of people who were in the private sector. running businesses, etc. but who are not professional politicians. I think this reality was a factor in the election.

Ishii

I’m not sure this is always the case. I think Karl Rove was fairly instrumental in marketing George W. Bush and getting him elected. True, Rove is a political consultant, not an organizer, but still he was quite a force at the time.

 

[ProVobis]

Depends on who was the opponent, and what was his platform and stance in the election you are speaking of. Personally I don’t remember, I was about 14…

Besides, we cannot change any of the elections past, even the one that just took place. Time to get prepared to teach the faithful the truth before the next one…in other words, status quo for me.

Anyway, this is not “a line of thinking”, it is in accord with Church doctrine and teachings. It is in line with the documents by the Magisterium. it all makes sense except for the confusion. Time to teach full truths.

Right, Catholics did not HAVE to vote for Romney.

But they certainly could not vote for Obama. Why? Because Obama supports the intrinsic evil of abortion ON DEMAND. Rules him out by default and at that point his stance on lesser issues like the economy, immigration, etc. do not apply.

The ironic thing about this whole election is that had Romney taken a 100% pro-life stance, he probably would have won. His exceptions for rape and incest most likely turned many Catholics off who otherwise would have voted for him. Romney’s exceptions for rape and incest still remain one of the mysteries of this election. Why did he have exceptions? I don’t think anyone knows. It certainly did not help him politically.

Didn’t the same principles apply in the primaries when there were clearly candidates who were more pro-life than Romney? How did one justify voting for Romney, a pro-choice candidate by his own admission according to his earlier campaigns for office, when the other Republican choices were more pro-life and having a better chance of beating Obama per polls? Why wait till a general election before stating the “full truths”? Seems to show a bias against a political party rather than ideology.

 

[HansTrappist]

Didn’t the same principles apply in the primaries when there were clearly candidates who were more pro-life than Romney? How did one justify voting for Romney, a pro-choice candidate by his own admission according to his earlier campaigns for office, when the other Republican choices were more pro-life and having a better chance of beating Obama per polls? Why wait till a general election before stating the “full truths”? Seems to show a bias against a political party rather than ideology.

Well certainly there were more pro-life candidates than Romney during the primaries.

What does this have to do with the fact that the Democrat Party supports abortion and continues to support abortion on demand?

Obama’s support for abortion on demand ruled him out by default.

 

[Lapey]

Didn’t the same principles apply in the primaries when there were clearly candidates who were more pro-life than Romney? How did one justify voting for Romney, a pro-choice candidate by his own admission according to his earlier campaigns for office, when the other Republican choices were more pro-life and having a better chance of beating Obama per polls? Why wait till a general election before stating the “full truths”? Seems to show a bias against a political party rather than ideology.

I voted Santorem in the primary. What’s your point??? There is no “I gotcha” story here.

You are struggling to find a point I see. I was a Santorem supporter from teh get go, he was the best candidate in teh field.

As far as the general election, I would hope you are not suggesting Obama was more pro-life than Romney.

PS. I am a Catholic, I have always in this election cycle preached and followed full truth. I do not see the Democrat Party increasing their vote count by Catholics because of their platform, it is evil and diqualifies their cadidates; If you see that as bias against the DP, now you’ve got me. A Catholic cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate if he has a properly and fully formed conscience. Its quite simple.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Karl Rove: GOP Needs To Copy Howard Dean’s 50 State Strategy (AUDIO)

Karl Rove offered some advice to his fellow Republicans about what the party needs to do to prevent last Tuesday’s election from happening again on Sean Hannity’s radio show Monday. On the list: when it comes to engaging voters, be more like former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean.

“I hate to say it, but we need to copy what Howard Dean did,” he told Hannity. “And that is make our ground game in all 50 states.”

Rove said Republicans had a “reasonably good” ground game in Florida and Ohio, two major battlegrounds they ended up losing to President Obama. (Mitt Romney’s Florida adviser said in the days after the election that the state was “winnable” for Romney but that the organization there was lacking.)

Rove told Hannity that the lack of GOP ground game made a big difference in other states.

“We didn’t have a ground game in a lot of these states with Senate races and so we lost North Dakota by 3,300 votes,” he said. He added the lack of ground game also cost the GOP a chance at winning the Senate seat in Montana. “We need to have a better ground game in all 50 states,” Rove said.

Some more advice from Rove:

• Move the convention to June

“It made sense to have the convention in late August when you wanted to minimize the amount of time during which you could spend your general election public financing,” Rove told Hannity. “But nobody’s ever going to use public financing again, so we need to move the convention back to June or July so our nominee gets picked and then can begin raising money for the general election and doesn’t get outspent.”

• Get on social media

“I think it is absolutely vital that we recognize that the old saw in politics that if you’re responding you’re losing – in the hyperkinetic age that we live in with cable, Internet, you name it, Twitter you name it, we’ve got to have a different attitude in a presidential race,” Rove said. “Because if you’re not responding, sometimes you are losing.”

• Stop allowing the ‘liberal media’ moderate primary debates

“We need to do something about these primaries. Look we’re not going to change the structure, that’s organic, but we need to reduce the media’s power over the Republican primary,” Rove said. “The number of debates that we had was jaw-dropping. And most of the time we had some liberal media figure whose intention was to depict the GOP and conservatives as some nut fringe group. We had debates in which most of the questions were on abortion and contraception and very little on jobs, economy, deficit, debt, spending and health care.”

Rove called on future Republican presidential candidates to agree to a list of RNC-approved primary debates that would give the party a hand in selecting the moderator.

Here’s Rove talking about Dean:

 

[Michael_Mayo]

But they certainly could not vote for Obama. Why? Because Obama supports the intrinsic evil of abortion ON DEMAND. Rules him out by default and at that point his stance on lesser issues like the economy, immigration, etc. do not apply.

That is an overstatement. I did not vote for Obama but I do not place judgment on those who did. One can vote for him because of other lesser but more actionable issues in spite of his position on abortion. But they cannot vote for him *because *of his position on abortion.

 

[seekerz]

That is an overstatement. I did not vote for Obama but I do not place judgment on those who did. One can vote for him because of other lesser but more actionable issues in spite of his position on abortion. But they cannot vote for him *because *of his position on abortion.

Thank you. Coming from someone who did not vote for Obama, maybe the truth will be more acceptable to those who find it hard to come to terms with.

 

[Carlan]

Love does not tolerate sin and is not permissive of it.

Of course it doesn’t, where did I say it did?
We hate the sin ,however ,we never give up on the sinner!
I have a son, after he returned from Veit-Nam he put God on the shelf…my forever prayer for him is that God will bring him back prostrate at the foot of the cross of our Savior.My heart aches, but I trust God for him.

I have friends with sons and daughters who have given into active practice of their sin…their hearts ache with the prayer they have for them.

I know of women who have repented from the misery and regret of an abortion have been forgiven and I’ve prayed for them and rejoiced in their forgiveness.

We all hate the sin of those we love, but we do not hate them and give up on them because of their sin and and neither should we give up prayer and hope because of the sins of the President and other leaders of our country.
We pray for the redemption of all sin in the world.
In the world we will have trouble but remember what Jesus said , 'I have conquered the the world".
We are all called to pray not hate! Peace, Carlan

 

[seekerz]

Karl Rove: GOP Needs To Copy Howard Dean’s 50 State Strategy (AUDIO)

Debates? Really? If a candidate is pro-life why should he/she dodge a question on abortion? Is it the moderator’s fault if a person cannot speak up for unborn life without showing sub-zero respect for women? There is no reason why a person should have trouble enunciating respect for all life: in the womb and outside of it.

It is true that the media tends to present those who do not accept the rape exception as ‘extremists’ but I feel that is simply a reflection of where the public is on the matter. The question is why?

I submit that part of the reason is that pro-life activism has been too engaged in politics to engage the public in a manner that does not conjure up the ‘extremist’ image of someone trying to force morality on them. If people know you to be looking out for their interests, bad publicity will not sway them. Simply my opinion.

 

[seekerz]

You’re preaching to the choir here Hans!!! The only acceptable vote in this past election, for a Catholic with a fully and properly formed conscience was Romney, the lesser of two evils, or a no vote, or a third party pro-life candidate. Only one vote would have helped defeat the candidate that stands for intrinsic evils, Romney.

i apologize for not making it clear I was supporting your point.

Thanks for sharing your personal opinion.

 

[BroomWagon]

That is an overstatement. I did not vote for Obama but I do not place judgment on those who did. One can vote for him because of other lesser but more actionable issues in spite of his position on abortion. But they cannot vote for him *because *of his position on abortion.

Seems like you are saying the same thing as the post you quoted.

And let’s remember, those who voted for Obama made the uncharitable decision that some persons don’t have the right to live in this world since the Democrats are pushing late term, partial birth abortions along with having their million dollar fat cat abortion industry pals with players like Planned Parenthood.

 

[BroomWagon]

Bookmarked:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=728672

 

[seekerz]

The Democrats consistently win??

2000-2008?
1980-1992?

Sorry, this is not so.

I think I would be much more critical of those who did not follow the clear principles laid out as to how Catholic voters should vote. Though I do not mean this in an uncharitable way.

If Romney got probably 10% more from Catholic Voters, he would have won. Maybe even less than that.

Obama wins, so the Democrat pet Planned Parenthood can play its game of advising 90% of pregnant women to get abortions and who end up getting those abortions. So, those who allowed Obama to win clearly are responsible for more abortions.

Where do you get his stuff? 90% of pregnant women?

Fact: abortion has been legal in this country since Obama was a child. Fact: women are not programmable robots so that whoever controls the switch get to control them. Fact: some of us insist on living in denial of the above facts then wonder why electorate doesn’t go the way we want.

Obama won. God allowed it. Get over it.