Three Positive Signs for Obama's Re-Election Chances

[seekerz]

Feel free to answer the question, if you can, or feel free to duck it, which I suspect you will.

Feel free to accuse me of whatever you will. You want my proportionate reason for the 2012 election, in a nutshell?

How about I can’t in good conscience vote for a party which claims to be against abortion and yet engages in demonizing and attacking the socioeconomic prospects of the very groups (black, poor) among which its supporters detect the highest rates of abortion? Not when socioeconomic reasons rank among the top reasons women seek an abortion (guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf).

Neither party can/will end (or even substantially decrease) abortion, but I choose the one that is not hypocritical about the matter. When I find the one which respects and upholds the dignity of all human life - with particular priority to the unborn - not only in words and symbolic votes, but also in their policies and ideology, I will be happy to switch my support.

 

[Publisher]

Nimzovik Responds:

**"**no religious institution WILL dictate how I vote as an American citizen…God will lead and instruct…"

Oh my! I do believe your are laboring under a false conclusion here if you feel that this is the mechanism which Catholics function under.

The ‘Dictates’ of the Catholic Church could never violate my conscience when my conscience is being illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

Hardly “laboring”…glad you are voting your conscience…as will hopefully the majority of Catholic voters.

 

[Marie5890]

Since when is 33% 2 -1?

More like 1 in 3 to me…ya know, a third…

 

[seekerz]

Yep. That is the generally agreed upon tactic to support pro-choice candidates. This way, when the candidates you support increase abortion-on-demand, you can just claim it wasn’t your intent, so you have no culpability. Regardless of your flimsy justification, your vote still increases abortion-on-demand. How many have to die before it will make a difference to any of you?

How many have to die before you dispense with the rhetoric and actually decide to do something?

 

[rlg94086]

Feel free to accuse me of whatever you will. You want my proportionate reason for the 2012 election, in a nutshell?

How about I can’t in good conscience vote for a party which claims to be against abortion and yet engages in demonizing and attacking the socioeconomic prospects of the very groups (black, poor) among which its supporters detect the highest rates of abortion? Not when socioeconomic reasons rank among the top reasons women seek an abortion (guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf).

Neither party can/will end (or even substantially decrease) abortion, but** I choose the one that is not hypocritical about the matter.** When I find the one which respects and upholds the dignity of all human life - with particular priority to the unborn - not only in words and symbolic votes, but also in their policies and ideology, I will be happy to switch my support.

In other words, you choose to support the party who is very clear about their support of a person’s right to kill an innocent human being. How nice.

Obviously, you have no needof for a proportionate reason or to use the charade of not intentionally voting in favor of abortion. You might as well proudly state your approval of killing innocents.

 

[_Abyssinia]

No they very well might believe it. But they realize others have different religious and faith beliefs on this very personal, private issue. As well as different political beliefs existing as to whether women have the right to choose and whether abortion should be a legal option for women in some cases. They realize a democratic society attempts to come up with a law of the land as Roe has been for nearly 40 yrs now. And as they understand any law on this issue is never going to satisfy every segment of such a diverse population, they struggle with the idea of forcing their beliefs about this issue onto others in such a democracy of plural beliefs.

Or others believe it and are not pro choice but they weigh a variety of other issues in the consideration of how to cast their vote. For those Catholics here who I’ve seen express their opposition to abortion but support of Obama, they seem to understand their Church has not said a Catholic must be and vote Republican.

If somebody knows Obama’s stance on abortion, and yet they believe that life begins at conception, they could never vote for Obama. The value of life for somebody that is truly pro life would supersede any other consideration. I do not believe that somebody who is pro life could vote for Obama, he is so extreme on abortion that he opposes the Born Alive protection act. Obama, does not think there should be a law against the killing of infants who survived an abortion and are left to die. This is infanticide. Somebody who is pro life could never vote for a person who had such views.

 

[Publisher]

Since when is 33% 2 -1?

More like 1 in 3 to me…ya know, a third…

It’s “new math”

 

[rlg94086]

How many have to die before you dispense with the rhetoric and actually decide to do something?

Doing it - politically and privately.

 

[ringil]

Feel free to accuse me of whatever you will. You want my proportionate reason for the 2012 election, in a nutshell?

How about I can’t in good conscience vote for a party which claims to be against abortion and yet engages in demonizing and attacking the socioeconomic prospects of the very groups (black, poor) among which its supporters detect the highest rates of abortion? Not when socioeconomic reasons rank among the top reasons women seek an abortion (guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf).

Neither party can/will end (or even substantially decrease) abortion, but I choose the one that is not hypocritical about the matter. When I find the one which respects and upholds the dignity of all human life - with particular priority to the unborn - not only in words and symbolic votes, but also in their policies and ideology, I will be happy to switch my support.

I agree with you. And yet posting this view isnt’ going to get you anywhere here.

Just the same statements from the same posters.

Round-and-round-she-goes. . . . . .

 

[ringil]

I Somebody who is pro life could never vote for a person who had such views.

Someone has and someone will again. . . . .

 

[rlg94086]

I agree with you. And yet posting this view isnt’ going to get you anywhere here.

Just the same statements from the same posters.

Round-and-round-she-goes. . . . . .

And, we get to read the same justification for voting pro-choice from the same posters.

Round-and-round-she-goes…

Maybe, someday, we can all agree to support the end of legalized abortion in our country.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Doing it - politically and privately.

Why do people think that just because one is against the federal government “charity” that necessarily means people don’t “do” anything about poverty and health care at all?

 

[qui_est_ce]

_Abyssinia;8809479:

Somebody who is pro life could never vote for a person who had such views.

Someone has and someone will again. . . . .

The definition patrol is out again. It’s kinda like, “if you’re for the death penalty, you’re not really pro-life.”

They support the party of death and insist they are pro-life.

 

[He_Man]

Obama winning again will be the best thing that can happen in 2012. God bless Obama!!!

Not going to happen - we already debunked the 2012 end of the world theory.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Feel free to accuse me of whatever you will. You want my proportionate reason for the 2012 election, in a nutshell?

How about I can’t in good conscience vote for a party which claims to be against abortion and yet engages in demonizing and attacking the socioeconomic prospects of the very groups (black, poor) among which its supporters detect the highest rates of abortion? Not when socioeconomic reasons rank among the top reasons women seek an abortion (guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf).

Neither party can/will end (or even substantially decrease) abortion, but I choose the one that is not hypocritical about the matter. When I find the one which respects and upholds the dignity of all human life - with particular priority to the unborn - not only in words and symbolic votes, but also in their policies and ideology, I will be happy to switch my support.

Seekerz-
Have the massive government programs done anything for the poor? Since 1965, the poor have gotten poorer.

We conservatives want to help the poor, we just don’t feel the federal government has done a good job. They have made things worse for the poor.

In my own parish, we help the poor. We visit them, bring them food, help pay their rent and electricity. We give them a hand to help them up. I have personally seen people’s lives transformed, gotten off welfare, got a job, and refound their lost faith as well! They are a part of our community.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

1. As an outsider only reading newspapers and interacting a bit with Americans on interent forums it seems that the USA is quite a divided country.
2. When President Bush was in the White House all we ever read about was how he was hated yet he won a second election.
3. Then we heard President Obama had won a landslide in 2008 now all we hear about is how he is hated.
4. I remeber reading a quote by John Wayne saying how even though he did not vote for JFK he was the president and he supported him as president. Is that sort of approach a thing of the past now?

1. The news media and academia are arrayed wayyyy far to the left. You can research it … to wit that the news media overwhelmingly 95% ] voted Democrat … and also overwhelmingly 95% ] made their political contributions to the Democrats.

So, if you get your news from the main stream media, then you will read and hear that the country is quite divided. And yet, the elections are usually very close to a 50-50 split. Not 95-5.

Alternatively, read Human Events, Heritage Foundation, NewsMax, TownHall, National Review, DrudgeReport.com , SpiritDaily.com and you will get a different perspective on the news.

You could also read lucianne.com , wnd.com , johnrlott.blogspot.com , realclearpolitics.com , washingtonexaminer.com , redstate.com , or cnsnews.com and get some alternative points of view to WaPo and the NYT.

On the other hand, talk radio is about 99% right wing conservative. Radio is supported by advertising. So, radio listeners support advertisers by listening to talk radio programming that support the political views of the listeners. There are only a very few exceptions … NPR, which is government supported. And … there was one left wing liberal talk radio nationwide station, but … it keeps going out of business.

1. The news media did hate George W. Bush. There were even movies about how to assassinate him. That President Bush was re-elected suggests there is a disconnect between the news media and the American people.
2. Nobody HATES President Obama. We just disagree with him, his politics and his stances on things like abortion and taxes … and we want to vote him out in November 2012. His true colors have emerged after his election in 2008. “The scales have fallen from our eyes” … to sort of paraphrase Jimmy Carter, after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
3. President Kennedy said “A rising tide lifts all boats” … which means that economic growth is good for everybody. President Obama said he would cause the price of electricity to necessarily skyrocket and that he would also confiscate anyone’s wealth over $250,000 and redistribute it … give it to other people. [Find his comments to “Joe the Plumber”] He also has run up the highest government deficits in the history of the country. BY FAR. So, it’s not merely respect for the office.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Read this page from the NY Times and tell me Republicans don’t care about the poor.
David Brooks is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.
NYT

Political Theater and the Real Rick Santorum
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: October 29, 2006

Every poll suggests that Rick Santorum will lose his race to return to the U.S. Senate. That’s probably good news in Pennsylvania’s bobo suburbs, where folks regard Santorum as an ideological misfit and a social blight. But it’s certainly bad for poor people around the world.

For there has been at least one constant in Washington over the past 12 years: almost every time a serious piece of antipoverty legislation surfaces in Congress, Rick Santorum is there playing a leadership role.

In the mid-1990s, he was a floor manager for welfare reform, the most successful piece of domestic legislation of the past 10 years. He then helped found the Renewal Alliance to help charitable groups with funding and parents with flextime legislation.

More recently, he has pushed through a stream of legislation to help the underprivileged, often with Democratic partners. With Dick Durbin and Joe Biden, Santorum has sponsored a series of laws to fight global AIDS and offer third world debt relief. With Chuck Schumer and Harold Ford, he’s pushed to offer savings accounts to children from low-income families. With John Kerry, he’s proposed homeownership tax credits. With Chris Dodd, he backed legislation authorizing $860 million for autism research. With Joe Lieberman he pushed legislation to reward savings by low-income families.

In addition, he’s issued a torrent of proposals, many of which have become law: efforts to fight tuberculosis; to provide assistance to orphans and vulnerable children in developing countries; to provide housing for people with AIDS; to increase funding for Social Services Block Grants and organizations like Healthy Start and the Children’s Aid Society; to finance community health centers; to combat genocide in Sudan.

I could fill this column, if not this entire page, with a list of ideas, proposals and laws Santorum has poured out over the past dozen years. It’s hard to think of another politician who has been so active and so productive on these issues.

Like many people who admire his output, I disagree with Santorum on key matters like immigration, abortion, gay marriage. I’m often put off by his unnecessarily slashing style and his culture war rhetoric.

But government is ultimately not about the theater or the light shows of public controversy, it’s about legislation and results. And the substance of Santorum’s work is impressive. Bono, who has worked closely with him over the years, got it right: ‘‘I would suggest that Rick Santorum has a kind of Tourette’s disease; he will always say the most unpopular thing. But on our issues, he has been a defender of the most vulnerable.’’

Santorum doesn’t have the jocular manner of most politicians. His colleagues’ eyes can glaze over as he lectures them on the need to, say, devote a week of Senate floor time to poverty. He’s not the most social member of the club. Many politicians praise family values and seem to spend as little time as possible with their own families, but Santorum is at home almost constantly. And there is sometimes a humorlessness to his missionary zeal.

But no one can doubt his rigor. Jonathan Rauch of The National Journal wrote the smartest review of Santorum’s book, ‘‘It Takes a Family.’’ Rauch noted that while Goldwaterite conservatives see the individual as the essential unit of society, Santorum sees the family as the essential unit.

 

[rlg94086]

Seekerz-
Have the massive government programs done anything for the poor? Since 1965, the poor have gotten poorer.

We conservatives want to help the poor, we just don’t feel the federal government has done a good job. They have made things worse for the poor.

In my own parish, we help the poor. We visit them, bring them food, help pay their rent and electricity. We give them a hand to help them up. I have personally seen people’s lives transformed, gotten off welfare, got a job, and refound their lost faith as well! They are a part of our community.

Yep. “Massive government programs” harm human dignity and are against Church teaching.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church:

The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to certain forms of centralization, bureaucratization, and welfare assistance and to the unjustified and excessive presence of the State in public mechanisms. “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending”[400]. An absent or insufficient recognition of private initiative — in economic matters also — and the failure to recognize its public function, contribute to the undermining of the principle of subsidiarity, as monopolies do as well.

Yet another reason not to support the Democratic Party.

 

[Nimzovik]

Publisher wrote: " …no religious institution WILL dictate how I vote as an American citizen…"

Nimzovik Responds:

Hmmmmm… I am wondering if I am making myself clear… Let me say this - It is my assertion that the Catholic Church is indeed an… extension - for lack of a better word - of the will of the Holy Spirit. When I am voluntarily in the will of God I am also in lock step with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Ergo the word ‘Dictates’ seems out of place here. The Catholic Church, Proper, would not issue a statement of Dogma in conflict with the Scriptures. Nor would it demand that I violate the Will of the Trinity.

 

[ringil]

The definition patrol is out again. It’s kinda like, “if you’re for the death penalty, you’re not really pro-life.”

They support the party of death and insist they are pro-life.

Party of death. . . . . Oh come on. . . .