Fox News' Highly Reluctant Jesus Follower

[SMGS127]

Are you sure it isn’t Bush’s fault?

Let’s see your list of 64 “prolife Democrats” and their ratings from both NARAL and NRL, as well as their votes on Obamacare. Not some liberal opinion piece, now, but the real stuff.

And both NARAL and NRL say that yes, there are fewer than ten prolife Dems in Congress. About the same as the number of pro-abortion Repubs.

Time to admit the party with abortion in its platform is the abortion party by choice.

As to Melancon. he did, indeed, vote against Obamacare’s passage (once it was known his vote wasn’t needed). But he did refuse to keep it from coming out of committee. Possibly voters remembered that.

Ratings don’t mean anything. Surely the fact that NARAL and NRL are widely disparate on many Senators should tell you that. They grade in ways to make members of the opposing Party look bad, even if the bill graded has nothing to do with the topic they’re supposed to be grading upon. But my list of 64 members of the HoR pre-2010:

clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll884.xml

As of now, I can’t tell you what pro-life Democrats are remaining in the House, but there are 5 in the Senate: Mark Pryor (except for incest/rape/life of mother), Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin, Robert Casey, Jr., and Harry Reid.

Also, I realize that you do like being snarky regarding my comment about gerrymandering, but it is true (and snarkiness isn’t very charitable anyway). If you compact as many pro-abortion radical Democrats as you can into a small number of districts and then try to stuff all the moderate Democrats in those districts as well, guess who wins the nomination? Gerrymandering causes a severe increase in cohesion on all Party issues. You see this right now with how many crazy Republicans win nominations/seats in the House, but how few actually win seats in the Senate. The same concept runs true for Democrats as well. When the House was more competitive with less gerrymandered seats, a quarter of the House Democratic caucus (and roughly 60% of the House in general under Democratic control) was pro-life. Now the number is probably closer to 3-5% of the House Democratic Caucus and the number is about 9-10% of the Senate Democratic Caucus. If we don’t reverse gerrymandering and allow moderate Democrats to win seats in the House, we won’t continue to have moderate, pro-life Democrats like Joe Donnelly have the stepping stones to get into the Senate and the number there will continue to decline as well. And abortion will never end when we only allow one Party to oppose it.

 

[Darryl1958]

Its an interesting theory that Democratics controlling the Senate, the House, and the Presidency would somehow be a good strategy for pro-lifers to work toward.

Having a bigger tiny minority of Democratic politicians elected pro-life would be a game changer, for sure. People who don’t see the wisdom of that plan are just being incorrigibly partisan in their thinking.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ratings don’t mean anything. Surely the fact that NARAL and NRL are widely disparate on many Senators should tell you that. They grade in ways to make members of the opposing Party look bad, even if the bill graded has nothing to do with the topic they’re supposed to be grading upon. But my list of 64 members of the HoR pre-2010:

clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll884.xml

As of now, I can’t tell you what pro-life Democrats are remaining in the House, but there are 5 in the Senate: Mark Pryor (except for incest/rape/life of mother), Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin, Robert Casey, Jr., and Harry Reid.

Also, I realize that you do like being snarky regarding my comment about gerrymandering, but it is true (and snarkiness isn’t very charitable anyway). If you compact as many pro-abortion radical Democrats as you can into a small number of districts and then try to stuff all the moderate Democrats in those districts as well, guess who wins the nomination? Gerrymandering causes a severe increase in cohesion on all Party issues. You see this right now with how many crazy Republicans win nominations/seats in the House, but how few actually win seats in the Senate. The same concept runs true for Democrats as well. When the House was more competitive with less gerrymandered seats, a quarter of the House Democratic caucus (and roughly 60% of the House in general under Democratic control) was pro-life. Now the number is probably closer to 3-5% of the House Democratic Caucus and the number is about 9-10% of the Senate Democratic Caucus. If we don’t reverse gerrymandering and allow moderate Democrats to win seats in the House, we won’t continue to have moderate, pro-life Democrats like Joe Donnelly have the stepping stones to get into the Senate and the number there will continue to decline as well. And abortion will never end when we only allow one Party to oppose it.

I realize it’s one of the Democrat talking points to accuse Repubs of being responsible for the virtual nonexistence of any prolife Dems in congress. But one never sees any real substantiating evidence of it. It’s just an assertion. I’m not being “snarky”. I’m just saying no reliable evidence of the assertion has been produced.

How anybody voted on the Stupak amendment does not tell one anything about the person’s overall record; if for no other reason that the Stupak amendment would not have prevented Obamacare from supporting abortion. The Stupak amendment only prohibited direct government funding of abortion by Obamacare. But most Obamacare funding of services comes from insurance companies, as Catholics learned when the HHS mandate required religious organizations to provide abortifacient coverage despite the bogus Obama executive order.

If you want to demonstrate that the 64 Dems really were prolife, please produce their names and their NARAL and NRL ratings. One vote in a tangential and essentially meaningless amendment does not tell us anything about their overall record.

You can’t really accuse either organization of simply being “political” in a partisan sense. NARAL is a business-supporting organization (the business of abortion) and promotes its own interests. NRL is not aligned with either party and has one interest only-prolife. Neither enters into the broad range of political issues. Both closely study the records of politicians with a narrow focus. There is no better source.

Bob Casey’s ratings by both NARAL and NRL are quite mixed. He’s a straddler.

I can agree with you 71% on Donnelly. That’s his NRL rating.

The jury isn’t in on Manchin yet. Not enough votes to make a clear record. Presently his NRL record is 25%. Not a cause for unbridled optimism. NARAL doesn’t know what to make of him just yet.

Harry Reid’s NRL rating is 0%. NARAL rates him as a 100% supporter of their abortion cause.

So there are the “prolife” Democrats mentioned in your post. Hardly stellar.

Abortion is at the heart of the Dem party. It’s in their platform. Their national convention was absolutely full of it, and virtually every Dem congressman supports it. The leader of the party (Obama) was just fine with the idea of one of his daughters killing his own grandchildren. The Democrat head of HHS countenanced and supported partial birth abortion. If it isn’t the “party of death” at present (and I think it is), it’s closer to that description than any party in the U.S. has ever been.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Its an interesting theory that Democratics controlling the Senate, the House, and the Presidency would somehow be a good strategy for pro-lifers to work toward.

Having a bigger tiny minority of Democratic politicians elected pro-life would be a game changer, for sure. People who don’t see the wisdom of that plan are just being incorrigibly partisan in their thinking.

Abortion is too interwoven into the fabric of the Dem party to give much cause for optimism in changing it. I was a Democrat all my life, worked for the party, held office in the party, ran campaigns, raised funds, all of it. At a point, it became painfully obvious that I could not remain a true Democrat and a true Catholic. Unlike Reagan, I didn’t become a Repub. I’m just a Catholic now. But I do examine candidates’ positions and records. Doing that, I always vote Repub, because they’re almost always prolife, whereas Dems on my ballot have not been, for years.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Abortion is too interwoven into the fabric of the Dem party to give much cause for optimism in changing it. I was a Democrat all my life, worked for the party, held office in the party, ran campaigns, raised funds, all of it. At a point, it became painfully obvious that I could not remain a true Democrat and a true Catholic. Unlike Reagan, I didn’t become a Repub. I’m just a Catholic now. But I do examine candidates’ positions and records. Doing that, I always vote Repub, because they’re almost always prolife, whereas Dems on my ballot have not been, for years.

This!

 

[qui_est_ce]

Ratings don’t mean anything. Surely the fact that NARAL and NRL are widely disparate on many Senators should tell you that. They grade in ways to make members of the opposing Party look bad, even if the bill graded has nothing to do with the topic they’re supposed to be grading upon. But my list of 64 members of the HoR pre-2010:

clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll884.xml

As of now, I can’t tell you what pro-life Democrats are remaining in the House, but there are 5 in the Senate: Mark Pryor (except for incest/rape/life of mother), Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin, Robert Casey, Jr., and Harry Reid.

Also, I realize that you do like being snarky regarding my comment about gerrymandering, but it is true (and snarkiness isn’t very charitable anyway). If you compact as many pro-abortion radical Democrats as you can into a small number of districts and then try to stuff all the moderate Democrats in those districts as well, guess who wins the nomination? Gerrymandering causes a severe increase in cohesion on all Party issues. You see this right now with how** many crazy Republicans win nominations/seats in the House**, but how few actually win seats in the Senate. The same concept runs true for Democrats as well. When the House was more competitive with less gerrymandered seats, a quarter of the House Democratic caucus (and roughly 60% of the House in general under Democratic control) was pro-life. Now the number is probably closer to 3-5% of the House Democratic Caucus and the number is about 9-10% of the Senate Democratic Caucus. If we don’t reverse gerrymandering and allow moderate Democrats to win seats in the House, we won’t continue to have moderate, pro-life Democrats like Joe Donnelly have the stepping stones to get into the Senate and the number there will continue to decline as well. And abortion will never end when we only allow one Party to oppose it.

You have made charges of gerrymandering to support your version of why “crazy Republicans” got elected. If that’s your only proof, that’s not good enough. I’ll call your attention to some “crazy” Democrats, Elijah Cummings and Sheila Lee Jackson for starters. Were their districts gerrymandered? Tell me exactly which districts are gerrymandered.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional_district

The 4th Congressional District of Illinois includes part of Cook County, and has been represented by Democrat Luis Gutierrez since January 1993.

It was featured by The Economist as one of the most strangely drawn and gerrymandered congressional districts in the country[2] and has been nicknamed “earmuffs” due to its shape.[3] It was created to contain two majority Hispanic parts of Chicago.

Is it really that inconceivable to you that people would actually vote for people with whom you strongly agree? Well, that’s how I feel about how in the world Obama got re-elected.

And senators represent the state, not districts. Until 1913, senators were appointed by state legislators. This was, in part, to give each state, regardless of population, equal representation.

 

[qui_est_ce]

[snip]

Abortion is at the heart of the Dem party. **It’s in their platform. Their national convention was absolutely full of it, and virtually every Dem congressman supports it. **The leader of the party (Obama) was just fine with the idea of one of his daughters killing his own grandchildren. The Democrat head of HHS countenanced and supported partial birth abortion. If it isn’t the “party of death” at present (and I think it is), it’s closer to that description than any party in the U.S. has ever been.

And Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, called it “sacred ground.”

 

[Tampa_Dave]

I will pray for Kirsten Powers. I’ve always admired her honesty and intelligence, all the while while disagreeing with many of her liberal views. I believe she is genuine in her newly discovered faith. I find the discussions touching on evangelicals and Charismatic Catholics interesting. My wife is very orthodox in her Catholic beliefs, but she’s quite active in the Church-approved Charismatic movement. We attend different parishes: my dear wife is not likely to be found within 10 miles of a Latin Mass, nor will you find me at a healing Mass or Charismatic prayer group. That’s okay. We both remain devout Catholics faithful to the Magisterium and the Holy See. Different strokes, I guess.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I will pray for Kirsten Powers. I’ve always admired her honesty and intelligence, all the while while disagreeing with many of her liberal views. I believe she is genuine in her newly discovered faith. I find the discussions touching on evangelicals and Charismatic Catholics interesting. My wife is very orthodox in her Catholic beliefs, but she’s quite active in the Church-approved Charismatic movement. We attend different parishes: my dear wife is not likely to be found within 10 miles of a Latin Mass, nor will you find me at a healing Mass or Charismatic prayer group. That’s okay. We both remain devout Catholics faithful to the Magisterium and the Holy See. Different strokes, I guess.

Bless you!

Where have you been??

 

[Tampa_Dave]

I’ve been active at the northamericanmotoring.com site (NAM) ever since I ordered a 2014 MINI Roadster S in August. Tracking the production of an English sports car overseas is fascinating. It’s a two-seat ragtop not unlike my British Leyland MGs from the 1970’s.

I actually departed the site earlier. I became disillusioned with politics following the November 2012 election. As you well know, Catholic Forums contains many a controversial thread that draws vitriolic political discussions. I simply didn’t want to get involved in the arguments. Nor do I particularly like engaging in heated discussions with exceptionally liberal Catholics or atheists who visit CA. I do not question the teachings of the Holy Church, so why bother arguing with those who do (Catholic or not). I periodically read the threads and post a random comment or two. Essentially, I’ve become a lurker.

Thank you for asking! You were always one of my favorite CA posters, qui est ce!

 

[Tampa_Dave]

I attached a photo of my '14 MINI Roadster S. Given my technical ineptitude, I hope you can see it okay.

 

[PaulinVA]

I attached a photo of my '14 MINI Roadster S. Given my technical ineptitude, I hope you can see it okay.

Cool!

I’ll keep a look out for you!

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Thanks, PaulinVA,

I’m technically in Clifton, but you’re likely to see me in the Centreville area. I attend Latin Mass at St. Andrew the Apostle off Union Mill Road.

 

[SMGS127]

Harry Reid’s NRL rating is 0%. NARAL rates him as a 100% supporter of their abortion cause.

ontheissues.org/Notebook/Note_03n-NARAL.htm

ontheissues.org/Notebook/Note_06n-NRLC.htm

You might notice on here that NARAL rates him at 29% and NRLC at 50%, largely due to his support of stem cell research and not the fundamental issue of legal abortion. The fact that you claim something patently untrue makes the rest of your post irrelevant.

Also, may I have the entire list of votes that NARAL and NRLC graded, in the interest of complete transparency to prove me wrong?

You have made charges of gerrymandering to support your version of why “crazy Republicans” got elected. If that’s your only proof, that’s not good enough. I’ll call your attention to some “crazy” Democrats, Elijah Cummings and Sheila Lee Jackson for starters. Were their districts gerrymandered? Tell me exactly which districts are gerrymandered.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional_district

Is it really that inconceivable to you that people would actually vote for people with whom you strongly agree? Well, that’s how I feel about how in the world Obama got re-elected.

And senators represent the state, not districts. Until 1913, senators were appointed by state legislators. This was, in part, to give each state, regardless of population, equal representation.

Exactly! Senators represent their whole state, so they are naturally moderated; that is why you see significantly more moderate Republicans and Democrats there. And I agree with you; the gerrymandered seats in Illinois led to many crazy Democrats (and Republicans) being elected; I merely am stating that gerrymandering is massively in favor of Republicans (only IL + MD + MA for Democrats, and at least 10 states for Republicans, PA/MI/FL/NC/TX to name a few).

So you see, you are agreeing with me in actuality.

 

[estesbob]

ontheissues.org/Notebook/Note_03n-NARAL.htm

ontheissues.org/Notebook/Note_06n-NRLC.htm

You might notice on here that NARAL rates him at 29% and NRLC at 50%, largely due to his support of stem cell research and not the fundamental issue of legal abortion. The fact that you claim something patently untrue makes the rest of your post irrelevant.

Also, may I have the entire list of votes that NARAL and NRLC graded, in the interest of complete transparency to prove me wrong?

Exactly! Senators represent their whole state, so they are naturally moderated; that is why you see significantly more moderate Republicans and Democrats there. And I agree with you; the gerrymandered seats in Illinois led to many crazy Democrats (and Republicans) being elected; I merely am stating that gerrymandering is massively in favor of Republicans (only IL + MD + MA for Democrats, and at least 10 states for Republicans, PA/MI/FL/NC/TX to name a few).

So you see, you are agreeing with me in actuality.

Actually the 2010 redistricting republican advantage had a lot less to do with gerrymandering than it did people fleeing from high tax, high regulation states to low tax regulation states. ie: Texas picked up additional seats in the House-NY lost them.

You are aware that the USSC has held that gerrymandering is constitutional? Elections have consequences. republicans legislatures were able to gerrymander because the people put them in power.

 

[SMGS127]

Actually the 2010 redistricting republican advantage had a lot less to do with gerrymandering than it did people fleeing from high tax, high regulation states to low tax regulation states. ie: Texas picked up additional seats in the House-NY lost them.

You are aware that the USSC has held that gerrymandering is constitutional? Elections have consequences. republicans legislatures were able to gerrymander because the people put them in power.

Unjust rules should always be criticized, regardless of if they are legal or not! And the redistricting advantage was HEAVILY due to gerrymandering. You don’t gain a 7 percentage point handicap in every House race without heavy gerrymandering; it isn’t possible.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Agreed, LP is now back-peddling to say she was laughing at herself. There were no smilies in her original post, just at the idea of an Evangelical church in her neck of Manhattan.

Liberals can be so intolerant and bigoted.

She’s being intolerant, indeed----and so are you, in a way.

LP is just being her old hypocritical self.

It is surprising that you do not see that.

She honestly cannot see Mnahattanites who dare to step outside her ideology comfort zone.

She is a CINO-----Catholic in Name Only--------and the sooner everybody sees that, the better. She STILL has a right to speak here freely.

She is being herself.

Don’t judge her for being that.

Please.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

As long as they don’t vote.

There ARE Pro-Life Democrats in Congress, Estesbob, to be perfectly fair.

Not many, but there are some.

Sheesh.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

What is quite heartening about the first few posts in this thread at least, is the unmitigated happiness of Catholics over the fact that one of Jesus’s lost sheep has been brought back to the fold of Christianity, although not Catholicism per se.

True indeed.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

There ARE Pro-Life Democrats in Congress, Estesbob, to be perfectly fair.

Not many, but there are some.

Sheesh.

I understand that the DNC is offering a reward for their capture. Shouldn’t take long, as there are only 3 of them.