The 2012 GOP Presidential Field Is Set

[_Abyssinia]

Those earlier Democrats - FDR, Truman, JFK, etc. would have to sign on to the secular leftist social agenda of the modern Democrat party - abortion on demand and gay rights, etc. in order to get anywhere in the primaries. Indeed, in order to merely speak at the convention.

Ishii

The Democrat party today is radically different than it used to be. There is a book called ‘Can a Democrat be Catholic’ by David Carlin. I haven’t read it, but I have read the synopsis:

When author David Carlin was a young man, it was scandalous for a good Catholic to be anything but a good Democrat. In the pews, pubs, and union halls of America’s cities, millions of poor European immigrants and their children pledged allegiance to the Church of Rome and the party of FDR.

All that changed in the 1960s, with the rise of a new kind of Democrat: wealthy, secular, ideological. Even as Carlin served the party he loved — twelve years as a Rhode Island state senator and once a candidate for Congress — he could only watch in dismay as its national leaders abandoned their blue-collar, pro-life, and religious constituencies and took up with NOW, Hollywood, and the abortion lobby.

So complete has been this transformation that we no longer speak of a natural alliance between Catholics and the Democratic Party. Indeed, Carlin here asks whether today it’s even possible to be both a faithful Catholic and a Democratic true believer.

A veteran sociologist, philosophy professor, and author of The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America, Carlin shows how his party and his religion have taken opposite sides in the Culture War. On issues of human life, sex, faith, morality, suffering — and the public policies that stem from them — the modern, secularist Democratic Party has become the enemy of Catholicism; indeed, of all traditional religions.

Carlin shatters the excuses that Catholic Democratic politicians employ in a vain attempt to reconcile their faith and their votes, and then, with what he calls the “political equivalent of a broken heart,” he examines his own political conscience. As a faithful Catholic and a Democrat approaching his seventieth year, must he now leave the party he’s called home since birth?

David Carlin’s arguments challenge all religious Democrats to ask themselves the same question.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1694203/posts

 

[ishii]

The Democrat party today is radically different than it used to be. There is a book called ‘Can a Democrat be Catholic’ by David Carlin. I haven’t read it, but I have read the synopsis:

That is a powerful article. It was the Democrat party’s embracement of the leftist, secular social agenda starting in the 60’s and continuing in later decades that gave rise to the Reagan Democrat. In addition to the social issues, the lackluster foreign policy of the Democrats starting with McGovern also contributed. The Democrat party is still owned by the abortion lobby, NARAL, Emily’s List, the gay egenda, Hollywood, etc. Whatever their supposed virtues are on worker’s issues, their social agenda is what drives the party. Try speaking at the Democrat convention if you’re pro-life. That is how rigid they are. Does that mean that the GOP has all of the answers? Of course not. But for someone who is for the sanctity of life and for traditional values, there is no other party but the GOP. I sometimes wonder what would happen if the Democrat party actually abandoned its committment to the abortion lobby, etc. Would the party self-destruct or become stronger?

Ishii

 

[Pirate_Talker]

I believe he is pro choice…if so, that’s my first problem and prevents me from discussing him as a legitimate candidate any further.

I guess Cain is out, too?

 

[ishii]

I believe he is pro choice…if so, that’s my first problem and prevents me from discussing him as a legitimate candidate any further.

Huntsman is pro-life.

Ishii

 

[StevenFrancis]

That is a powerful article. It was the Democrat party’s embracement of the leftist, secular social agenda starting in the 60’s and continuing in later decades that gave rise to the Reagan Democrat. In addition to the social issues, the lackluster foreign policy of the Democrats starting with McGovern also contributed. The Democrat party is still owned by the abortion lobby, NARAL, Emily’s List, the gay egenda, Hollywood, etc. Whatever their supposed virtues are on worker’s issues, their social agenda is what drives the party. Try speaking at the Democrat convention if you’re pro-life. That is how rigid they are. Does that mean that the GOP has all of the answers? Of course not. But for someone who is for the sanctity of life and for traditional values, there is no other party but the GOP. I sometimes wonder what would happen if the Democrat party actually abandoned its committment to the abortion lobby, etc. Would the party self-destruct or become stronger?

Ishii

If the Democratic party abandoned the pro-choice, and LGBT lobbies, they would be essentially only the party of labor, (pro-union), which was a significant factor from the 40’s - 70’s, but then all of our industry moved overseas. This leaves us as a service industry nation. Labor unions have some relevance in a service industry economy, but not enough to base an entire political party on. Unless we built stuff again, This is just personal opinion, and I don’t wish to be uncharitable, so I want to word this carefully, but I think that without the “culture wars”, the Democratic and the GOP parties would have a great deal of difficulty maintaining their popularity based on the remaining planks of their respective platforms. The country would be forced to re-examine our major parties altogether, and either come up with alternatives, or disband party politics and begin looking at individual candidates on their own personal merits, or appearances thereof. This is probably too much for our citizenry to bear responsibly, but you never know. I, for one would sure like to give it a try. George Washington warned against political parties from the very beginning of our republic. Is it possible that our founding father was on to something? I’m not sure it’s that healthy to blindly accept large and diverse groupings of ideogical stances based on habit, or group identity, or family history.

We all speak now about the economy, and foreign policy, and immigration, and we kind of try to tell ourselves that this is what we’re voting on when we elect our political leaders, but deep down I don’t think we truly believe this is true.

I believe, even though we speak of our stances on life, morality and ethics as side issues in public forums, and in the media, that it is the cultural issues which truly divide or unite us at our core. It’s not really tax reform idea A against tax reform idea B. We’re just not that shallow and concerned by mammon. We know in our hearts that the candidates stands on moral and ethical issues, and the level at which they are willing to incorporate them into their politics is what really drives us to or from a candidate based on our level of empathy with the candidates core belief system. Their economic ideas are only as realistic and likely as the Congress they face, and the staff they hire. So when electing a president, it would seem that their moral and ethical core convictions, and their willingness to show them are a foreshadowing of everything they are going to try to do in actuality if they are elected. So…though it appears to others to be disingenuous to be a “one issue voter” based on abortion, for instance, and the distance of the candidate from endorsement from NARAL or planned parenthood, that one issue, and how willing they are to stand up for life, tells me most everything I need to know about their character and their integrity, and that informs me in a very real way about how they will approach foreign policy, economics, etc.

If you’re honest with yourself, isn’t that what you find? Or are you truly most motivated by a presidential candidate’s opinions on the stock market and the tax code?

May God bless us all. Please pray for all the candidates. One of them will be our President, including the possibility that it will still be Obama. So they all need our prayers, and the prayers of the Saints.

Peace,

Steven

 

[snowpea]

I can’t vote for anyone with plastic hair

 

[ishii]

May God bless us all. Please pray for all the candidates. One of them will be our President, including the possibility that it will still be Obama. So they all need our prayers, and the prayers of the Saints.

Peace,

Steven

Well said, Steven. I believe that our country’s problems aren’t just fiscal, economic and foreign policy, but moral as well. Especially moral. I think one the big problems in our country is that all too many voters care only about this candidate’s or that candidate’s stand on the tax code or the entitlement program. If you don’t know you’re sick, then what will prompt you to see a doctor?

Ishii

 

[_Abyssinia]

That is a powerful article. It was the Democrat party’s embracement of the leftist, secular social agenda starting in the 60’s and continuing in later decades that gave rise to the Reagan Democrat. In addition to the social issues, the lackluster foreign policy of the Democrats starting with McGovern also contributed. The Democrat party is still owned by the abortion lobby, NARAL, Emily’s List, the gay egenda, Hollywood, etc. Whatever their supposed virtues are on worker’s issues, their social agenda is what drives the party. Try speaking at the Democrat convention if you’re pro-life. That is how rigid they are. Does that mean that the GOP has all of the answers? Of course not. But for someone who is for the sanctity of life and for traditional values, there is no other party but the GOP. I sometimes wonder what would happen if the Democrat party actually abandoned its committment to the abortion lobby, etc. Would the party self-destruct or become stronger?

Ishii

Its an interesting question, I am not sure. Most young people are pro life, its seen as a human rights issue. Promoting abortion rights as a party platform is not popular. I bet they didn’t expect this would happen 20 years ago.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Generation Gap and the 2012 Election:

pewresearch.org/pubs/2122/generation-gap-barack-obama-mitt-romney-republicans-democrats-silent-generation-millenials-genxers-baby-boomers

 

[_Abyssinia]

“Since Republicans took control of the House in January and secured enough votes in the Senate to block big spending bills, the economy has created 1.5 million private-sector jobs, according to the Friday report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s well above the 1.2 million created in all of 2010, when Democrats ran everything in Washington, and when stimulus money was still pouring into the economy. In fact, if you compare private job growth with stimulus spending, they practically move in opposite directions.” – IBD

Hope I don’t hear again that Republicans don’t help job creation when they get in control.

 

[CMatt25]

I guess Cain is out, too?

Well Pirate, some worry about Romney’s flip flops over the years, so I can understand why you might think Cain is out. But it must depend on which day of the week he explains things.

 

[Teelynn]

My candidate is Newt Gingrich without a doubt.

I like him too. But then again, I can see the stregnths in all of the candidates.

 

[CMatt25]

I don’t think one needs Rome to see the importance of opposing the leftist secular social agenda as embodied in the modern Democrat party of 2011. We don’t have a theocracy - a Catholic president wouldn’t be able to force everyone to abstain from eating meat on Friday. But, the issues of the sanctity of life go beyond what church we belong to. The pro-life movement has Jews, Christians of all denominations, Buddhists and even atheists.

Ishii

The only problem I see with that Ishii, is people who are pro choice can be found in various faith groups too including as well within Christian denominations. I know though as you have posted that you think they could be ignorant if they are Christian, members of the Democratic Party, and accept what you believe as a faithful Catholic are non Christian principles. It’s fine Ishii as a faithful Catholic that you consider choice and others’ views on homosexuals as un-Christian. But some of those other Christians might not and might interpret things differently. So they have a right to try to sway public policy the same as you have the right, and to hope their beliefs are not trampled on either. It’s a fine line and can be a struggle Ishii to draw the line just right in a democracy of many faith beliefs such as ours. That’s my only point.

 

[ishii]

The only problem I see with that Ishii, is people who are pro choice can be found in various faith groups too including as well within Christian denominations. I know though as you have posted that you think they could be ignorant if they are Christian, members of the Democratic Party, and accept what you believe as a faithful Catholic are non Christian principles. It’s fine Ishii as a faithful Catholic that you consider choice and others’ views on homosexuals as un-Christian. But some of those other Christians might not and might interpret things differently. So they have a right to try to sway public policy the same as you have the right, and to hope their beliefs are not trampled on either. It’s a fine line and can be a struggle Ishii to draw the line just right in a democracy of many faith beliefs such as ours. That’s my only point.

Yes, Cmatt, people who are pro-choice can be found in different denominations including the Catholic church. And people in different denominations can be ignorant or wrong, so what have you demonstrated? Why do you lecture me on others’ rights to sway policy? When have I implied that they don’t have that right? In fact, don’t you say that we shouldn’t work to change the abortion laws because others think differently and we “live in a pluralistic democracy” etc? So are you not contradicting yourself? Which is it, Cmatt, do we have a right to fight for what we believe in and an obligation to do so, or not? You seem to want to give the pro-abortion rights folks a free pass to do what they want and then say we shouldn’t work to change the laws. I am confused by your illogic.

Ishii

 

[CMatt25]

Yes, Cmatt, people who are pro-choice can be found in different denominations including the Catholic church. And people in different denominations can be ignorant or wrong, so what have you demonstrated? Why do you lecture me on others’ rights to sway policy? When have I implied that they don’t have that right? In fact, don’t you say that we shouldn’t work to change the abortion laws because others think differently and we “live in a pluralistic democracy” etc? So are you not contradicting yourself? Which is it, Cmatt, do we have a right to fight for what we believe in and an obligation to do so, or not? You seem to want to give the pro-abortion rights folks a free pass to do what they want and then say we shouldn’t work to change the laws. I am confused by your illogic.

Ishii

Ishii, I wasn’t meaning to come across like I was lecturing. It is difficult sometimes to know the tone of another poster. But I apologize if you thought I was lecturing. I thought we were just having a discussion. And I can assure you if we were face to face you would be hearing my tone as extremely kind, charitable, and soft spoken. I am not an in your face, brass kind of guy WHATSOEVER. Think of a gentle giant and you then have a vision of me.

Anyway yes Ishii, everyone has the right to fight for what they believe in. So I don’t see it as giving out a free pass to one side and not the other. Nor a contradiction. I see it as a pluralistic democratic society wrestling with issues to come up with secular laws for their land to live by. I understand the outcomes of this process might not be perfect on earth nor that everyone is going to be pleased or agree. But see Ishii here is what I think is a difference between the 2 of us. To me when it comes to faith, I’m just not going to say that someone else might be, for instance, ignorant because they have a different faith belief. That’s just not me. I’m not saying everything is relative, Ishii, as I think you implied of me earlier. But to me it is faith and I just recognize people of faith have different beliefs.

I would like to hope this helps you at least to better understand even though you don’t agree. But we’ve been over this so many times. In any case that’s just me, Ishii. God bless you and peace.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The Democrat party today is radically different than it used to be. There is a book called ‘Can a Democrat be Catholic’ by David Carlin. I haven’t read it, but I have read the synopsis:

When author David Carlin was a young man, it was scandalous for a good Catholic to be anything but a good Democrat. In the pews, pubs, and union halls of America’s cities, millions of poor European immigrants and their children pledged allegiance to the Church of Rome and the party of FDR.

All that changed in the 1960s, with the rise of a new kind of Democrat: wealthy, secular, ideological. Even as Carlin served the party he loved — twelve years as a Rhode Island state senator and once a candidate for Congress — he could only watch in dismay as its national leaders abandoned their blue-collar, pro-life, and religious constituencies and took up with NOW, Hollywood, and the abortion lobby.

**So complete has been this transformation that we no longer speak of a natural alliance between Catholics and the Democratic Party. Indeed, Carlin here asks whether today it’s even possible to be both a faithful Catholic and a Democratic true believer.
**
A veteran sociologist, philosophy professor, and author of The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America, Carlin shows how his party and his religion have taken opposite sides in the Culture War. On issues of human life, sex, faith, morality, suffering — and the public policies that stem from them — the modern, secularist Democratic Party has become the enemy of Catholicism; indeed, of all traditional religions.

Carlin shatters the excuses that Catholic Democratic politicians employ in a vain attempt to reconcile their faith and their votes, and then, with what he calls the “political equivalent of a broken heart,” he examines his own political conscience. As a faithful Catholic and a Democrat approaching his seventieth year, must he now leave the party he’s called home since birth?

David Carlin’s arguments challenge all religious Democrats to ask themselves the same question.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1694203/posts

So if that is true, how does he explain the 53% of Catholics who voted for Barack Obama in 2008? I think the Church and the Democrat party are still VERY much connected, to the Church’s great detriment. Why else do we hear almost NOTHING from the pulpit about abortion? I think it’s because no one wants to start shaking up the congregation. If priests start reminding their flock that abortion is a grave sin, and voting for a party that includes access to abortion in the party platform, as well as euthanasia and fetal stem cell research, then people will have to make the choice - am I a Catholic first, or a Democrat first? Do I follow what the Church really teaches, or do I twist myself in knots trying to explain how I can still vote Democrat and yet consider myself a Catholic? Much of what the modern Democrat party stands for is 100% AGAINST Church teaching. NO Catholic should have voted for Obama. That’s how messed up things have become.

And why has it taken Carlin another 40 years to decide to leave the party? I take it he still hasn’t left. He’s been a Democrat since birth? Hmmmmm…

 

[ishii]

Ishii, I wasn’t meaning to come across like I was lecturing. It is difficult sometimes to know the tone of another poster. But I apologize if you thought I was lecturing. I thought we were just having a discussion. And I can assure you if we were face to face you would be hearing my tone as extremely kind, charitable, and soft spoken. I am not an in your face, brass kind of guy WHATSOEVER. Think of a gentle giant and you then have a vision of me.

C’mon Cmatt, I was responding to your words and logic, not your tone. You seem to want it both ways. On the one hand you say catholics ought to hold back when trying to outlaw the practice of abortion because there are others that might disagree with us and we live in a “pluralistic democracy with different points of view”. But at the same time you say, the pro-abortion rights folks “have a right to try to sway public policy.” You’re contradicting yourself, Cmatt.

Ishii

 

[RobbyS]

C’mon Cmatt, I was responding to your words and logic, not your tone. You seem to want it both ways. On the one hand you say catholics ought to hold back when trying to outlaw the practice of abortion because there are others that might disagree with us and we live in a “pluralistic democracy with different points of view”. But at the same time you say, the pro-abortion rights folks “have a right to try to sway public policy.” You’re contradicting yourself, Cmatt.

Ishii

Sarah Weddington, the lead attorney for Roe in Roe v. Wade, claimed an absolute right for abortion on demand. To a large extent, that is what it is under our law. The pro-choice advocates recognize no right to challenge that right, which they consider to be more important than free speech, free press, or the right to exercise our faith freely. They will not be content until we have a law like that of China, for underlying it is the dogmatic thought that child-bearing is an evil thing that threatens the ability of a woman to enjoy a status equal to that of men. The liberty to have children is to them no more than a concession. they must make.

 

[_Abyssinia]

So if that is true, how does he explain the 53% of Catholics who voted for Barack Obama in 2008? I think the Church and the Democrat party are still VERY much connected, to the Church’s great detriment. Why else do we hear almost NOTHING from the pulpit about abortion? I think it’s because no one wants to start shaking up the congregation. If priests start reminding their flock that abortion is a grave sin, and voting for a party that includes access to abortion in the party platform, as well as euthanasia and fetal stem cell research, then people will have to make the choice - am I a Catholic first, or a Democrat first? Do I follow what the Church really teaches, or do I twist myself in knots trying to explain how I can still vote Democrat and yet consider myself a Catholic? Much of what the modern Democrat party stands for is 100% AGAINST Church teaching. NO Catholic should have voted for Obama. That’s how messed up things have become.

And why has it taken Carlin another 40 years to decide to leave the party? I take it he still hasn’t left. He’s been a Democrat since birth? Hmmmmm…

Because a lot of people who call themselves Catholics are only Catholic In Name Only Only, they don’t practice the faith, they may not even know the teachings of the Church when it comes to voting and the non neogitable issues.

Church going Catholics slightly favored McCain in 2008. The only one good thing I can say about the Catholic vote is that the majority of Catholic voters are not tied to the Democrat party, Catholics are swing voters, for instance in the 2010 elections, the Catholic vote swung by 18-24 points, depending on what poll you read, from supporting Democrats to supporting Republicans: catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=20989

I am not sure what David Carlin’s political party is now, he wrote an article in the New York Times in 1992 in which he described himself as a pro life Democrat, he said it was impossible to have room in the Democrat party if you are opposed to abortion:

nytimes.com/1992/08/10/opinion/the-tyranny-of-the-pro-choice-snobs.html

It says on David Carlin’s wikipedia profile that he supported James Langevin’s campaign. James Langevin is supposed to be a pro life Democrat but supports contraception distribution. :tsktsk:

 

[_Abyssinia]

So if that is true, how does he explain the 53% of Catholics who voted for Barack Obama in 2008? I think the Church and the Democrat party are still VERY much connected, to the Church’s great detriment. Why else do we hear almost NOTHING from the pulpit about abortion? I think it’s because no one wants to start shaking up the congregation. If priests start reminding their flock that abortion is a grave sin, and voting for a party that includes access to abortion in the party platform, as well as euthanasia and fetal stem cell research, then people will have to make the choice - am I a Catholic first, or a Democrat first? Do I follow what the Church really teaches, or do I twist myself in knots trying to explain how I can still vote Democrat and yet consider myself a Catholic? Much of what the modern Democrat party stands for is 100% AGAINST Church teaching. NO Catholic should have voted for Obama. That’s how messed up things have become.

And why has it taken Carlin another 40 years to decide to leave the party? I take it he still hasn’t left. He’s been a Democrat since birth? Hmmmmm…

The Catholic Bishops are doing some right when it comes to preaching the pro life message, because look what Donna Crane, policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America recently said, “We consider the two biggest opponents on the other side the Catholic bishops and National Right to Life.” “They are extremely heavy-handed on this issue.”

huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/the-men-behind-the-war-on_n_1069406.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

I agree, Priests should be preaching more in Church on contraception, abortion etc.

There are things every Catholic can do to help spreads the pro life message in your Church, you could send this information to your Priest:

Bulletin inserts for your Church:

priestsforlife.org/preaching/preach.aspx

Preaching resources on pro life liturgies, homilies etc:

priestsforlife.org/preaching/preach.aspx

priestsforlife.org/liturgy/index.aspx