I’d rather take a vulgar scumbag who believes that killing babies is wrong than a high society don who believes that killing babies is ok.
I’ve worked with the ‘scum of the earth’, and I’ll do so again. :)
I agree with you about MA and CT FWIW. I’ve lived in very deep blue areas and I go with the most conservative option on the ballot.
But I think we can do better than Romney - I feel betrayed by the Republican party casting me out and other prolifers. They feel they can win without us.
No. They are taking advantage of the fact that you really have no choice.
considering this is a “Voting Guide for Serious Catholics”, why should we condone pro-lifers who have developed their own religion, a hybrid with some Catholicism and some populism which claims to be Catholic Theology?
Why should we repeal the Gospel to placate the most irrational of the American Life League pro-lifers who have never elected anyone? The ones who always look for the flaws in every candidate that is running as the conservative alternative to some leftist.
The 3 stooges are not good role models. If the 3 stooges became pro-life, this would be a setback as their foolishness would be damaging the pro-life movement which makes their folly worse.
In the CT House, we lost the gay marriage vote 80-70 and lost the transgender rights vote 77-73. yet only 15 of the 70 are genuine pro-lifers. Some pro-lifers would say job #1 is to purge the 55 allies who are fakes. They cannot differentiate between an ally and an adversary. According to them, “it is intrinsically evil to vote for one of the 55 because you are endorsing their error, and complicit” ... etc etc etc. and then judgement day talk starts.
There are 4 GOPers running in this area where it would actually be better if the leftist DEM won the race: Obsitnick CT-4, Roraback CT-5, Tisei MA-4, Bass NH-2.
There is a difference between these 4 NARAL candidates and conservatives with a good voting record who happen not to have a strong pro-family message in their campaign.