Regardless what I would hold out as excellent programs supported by the Democrats, you wouldn’t accept them. There’s just no point in debating this. You and other GOP supporters have your strong point of view, other posters don’t share it as the ultimate issue. What more can be said, except for all of us to carry on and promote whomever we want to see win (or lose for that matter) in '12?
Well don’t count me out. These threads tend to end up being about this question: Is it morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a party which supports abortion on demand? Is there an issue which the Democrat party supports which rises above the level of the sanctity of life of the unborn? The answer to those questions is of course, NO. But that doesn’t stop the usual suspects from trying to engage in enough verbal gymastics and twisting of the truth to attempt to justify their diehard votes for the party of abortion. One of the posters called another a “partisan”. It seems to me the height of irrational partisanship when one would support Obama - the ultimate abortion rights candidate - out of a misplaced hatred of the GOP.
So tell us Rich just what is it that the democrat Party supports that offsets their support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand?More like a faithful Republican to despair. Your partisanship is a wonder to behold, Bob.
Abortion will remain legal in this country until Catholic Democrats come to love the unborn more than they hate the GOP.
Where’s Rich?
See #77 above. BTW, I have nothing against your support of the GOP.
The sad thing is estesbob, Republicans have had opportunities, but nothing happened. It can make someone suspect of what they say, compared to them ‘pandering’ to a bloc of voters on a single issue.
Ron Paul is a congressman - no congressman has been elected since Abe Lincoln. Ron Paul will be 77 years old in 2012. He would be the first president in his 80’s. He would lose in a landslide to Obama. He’d be easy to portray as a fringe candidate. Ron Paul won’t be getting the nomination nor will he be president in 2012. That is the political reality.
Ya, and everyone thought Hillary Clinton was the shoe in Democrat nominee in 2007. Things change.
Ron Paul is too anti-neocon for alot of people here. He is a REAL small-government conservative and has the credentials to back it up. Everyone else in the field is 20 years late to the party.
Nothing happened because of Democrat catholics like Biden, Kennedy, et al. who derailed Bork and prevented a solid justice from being approved. The truth (if you’re interested in the truth) is that the GOP has given us Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts, and tried to give us Bork. The Democrats have given us - Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayer and Kagan - all of them rock solid pro-Roe V Wade justices. That is the reality. You should consider that before you accuse the GOP of doing nothing to stop abortion.
That is an obvious strawman - no one is suggesting that God is a Republican. All we’re saying is that supporting the pro-abortion rights policies of the Democrat party goes against Catholic moral teaching on the sanctity of life.
You act as if electing a Republican president would actually do something about Roe v Wade. Historically, it has not.
Not too anti-neocon for me. One of the things I like about John Huntsman is because he has different foreign policy views than what have been the norm in the GOP for the last ten years. Here is what George Will had to say about him recently:
Based on what I have seen, these candidates would take on Roe.
