True enough, but losing by 18 points seems to imply more than just not having the right religous/party/ethnic combination. And, he is Catholic and Italian himself. If memory serves, Casey, his opponent was one of those “pro-life” Democrats that pro-life liberals fool themselves into thinking they’ll actually vote pro-life.
You apparently missed Republicans and Tea Party adherents with their posters of Obama in a Hitler mustache.
You don’t need to sell me on Kucinich. I voted for him in the 2004 primary after Kerry already had the nomination sewn up by the time my state voted.
The Bush Hitler posters were much, much more numerous, so the few Obama Hitler incidents are hardly indicative of a more polarized Right.
I would agree that Santorum would be a good choice (best). But he and most republicans are grossly negligent in applying catholic social teaching. Basically the church is opposed to nuclear weapons and arms races that are not justified. The church puts the family unit at the heart of the economy and not profit and supports a just distribution of wealth while holding to free market principles and a limited government that adheres to the principles of subsidiarity. The church, as shown by B16’s numerous statements supporting a greater level of environmental stewardship, is opposed to our country’s wasteful and environmentally damaging lifestyle.
We have seen scare tactics coming from the leadership of the Democrat party - most recently Nancy Pelosi. So who among the leadership of the GOP was carrying the Obama with Hitler moustache sign? A random wacko in the crowd is hardly reflective of the tea partiers. Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, is the highest ranking Democrat in the House! So your answer falls short. In fact, show me any Republican of note who has said anything remotely similar to Pelosi’s statement “the GOP wants women to die”.
I lost respect for Dennis Kucinich when he abandoned his pro-life position he had held for years so he could be the darling of the NARAL abortion lobby and the far-left. What a shame. If profits a man nothing who gains who gains the world, but loses his soul. Can anyone tell me why its necesary for those on the far left to be pro-abortion?You don’t need to sell me on Kucinich. I voted for him in the 2004 primary after Kerry already had the nomination sewn up by the time my state voted.
How does one reconcile a “just distribution of wealth” and “free market principles” ? Who is going to do the distributing? Also, in what way does the GOP/conservative movement support damaging the environment?
I didn’t mean to imply that most people vote on ethnicity, etc. I’m saying that a yes-man politician has a decided advantage when economic times are good. But those days are gone. A practical man who knows he needs to stick to a budget can’t compete with a yes-man. But look at the mess that the irresponsible yes-men created = bankruptcy.
In a free market society, corporations which shop for “cheap” (labor) on one side of the coin are no different than you shopping for “cheap” (goods) at the chain big box store on the other side of the coin. Failure to see both sides of the coin is bliss. So, it sounds like you’d rather take the current equality and turn it into an inequality.
I strongly disagree that Santorum is grossly negilgent regarding social teachings. He does believe in a our capitalist economy, but that is because he also believes in each person having true liberty (one cannot authentically practice their faith without liberty, at least not without deep dangers).
I like much of Ron Paul except the legalization of all drugs. People can’t even handle alcohol and porn, so legalization of drugs is going to further weaken a large portion of the population into dependency. Humanity is not that complicated. Humanity basically seeks pleasure and seeks to avoid pain. The crux is this: when faced with greater numbers of dependents due to legal drugs, what will taxpayers do: vote for higher taxes to pay for the dependency??? OR follow an Ayn Rand style of libertarianism where people are allowed to fail until the pain in their lives demotivates them enough to choose to change from harmful behaviors??? I believe there are too many bleeding hearts who don’t have the guts to allow people to be truly free and responsible for the results of their own choices, which would only sink the country even farther. On the other hand if 51% of Americans are willing to allow people to wallow in the ill effects of poor choices, then Ron Paul could be an answer, but it would be just too easy for the liberal media to show hordes of strung out Americans on the nightly news, followed by why we need to raise taxes to “help” them. There’s a serious risk of making things worse.
Right, and this is what I mean by pick you poison. All bring something to the table which is of interest. However in some area all seem to have major issues and are lacking.
The church doesn’t spell out how exactly to apply these principles, but it would involve infinitives which would promote micro loans, small/family run businesses over big corporations, local family run farms over giant agricultural companies, clean energy and environmentally sound energy production…, etc. And always, international coordination and oversight to help developing countries and efficient and just use of our natural resources.
“Legalization” is not Ron Paul’s position. Decriminalization at the federal level is his position. He wants to reduce the federal government’s role in illegal drugs and put it back on the states and local communities that have closer, more rational control over the issue. Saying that he “supports the legalization of all drugs” is a gross misinterpretation of the position. If it is being done out of ignorance, that is one thing, but if the position is being intentionally distorted, it is a form of bearing false witness.
These would seem to be worthy goals. The problem I see is that you will get catholics disagreeing on the size of companies - how big? The size of the farms - how big? The clean energy - How clean? Helping developing countries - how much money? Efficient and just use of our natural resources - who decides? Its great to have lofty goals and profess to be in line with catholic social teaching and the encyclicals and all, but as practical matter, who would implement and enforce all of this? It seems to me that its easy to agree on the goals, but how to get there is another matter.
I have. But what I keep running into is the problem of how to implement all of these ideas.
I don’t think what the Pope says will fit with many - be they conservative talk radio hosts or otherwise. I would say that what the Pope says is probably more challenging to a liberal Democrat who believes in social engineering, welfare state, abortion on demand government than to a small government conservative.