Posted on 02/18/2012 10:05:25 AM PST by pinochet
For the first 100 years of its existence (1860 to 1960), the Republican Party was viewed as a Protestant political Party. In 1928, liberal and conservative Protestants united and campaigned against Al Smith, who was the Democratic candidate for President, because he was a Catholic. How things have changed!
The Democrats, for a long time, were the home of American Catholics. With the contraception controversy, Obama has made it clear, that practising Catholics are no longer welcome in the Democratic Party. Some Catholics were willing to vote for the pro-choice Democratic Party, in the belief that Democrats would not force the pro-choice position on the church. But they were wrong. Democrats want to shove forced contraception down the throats of American Catholics.
Ronald Reagan once said that, he did not leave the Democratic Party in 1962, but that the Democratic Party left him. Today, the Democrats have not only left American Catholics, but Obama is actually pushing the remaining Catholic Democrats out of the party.
A Gingrich-Santorum ticket would be historic, in that it would feature a cradle Catholic (Santorum) and an adult convert to Catholicism (Gingrich). I predict that this year, Republicans will receive the highest percentage of the Catholic vote, that they have ever received in their history.
So, you are saying that no one has the right to share information, even when they give their source, for others to examine and check into for themselves? The conversation I had was a fact. I think people need to be aware and alert, not blindsided.
The reason that you are so angry is that the possibility that this is a back room deal scares you. I don’t blame you for that. But if you really thought this was as preposterous as you claim, me thinks thou doest protest too much.
Sorry, your source is not credible unless they are willing to attach their name to it.
That would be like me saying I know a guy in the GOP in my state who told me the dems have a lot of women willing to come out against Newt. I know this because I have sources.
Would you try to pass that off as credible? Sounds like a Politico hit piece. Don’t you agree?
Put some names to your claim and prove it. How hard is that?
My understanding is that the ones driving it are the GOP E. I don’t think they were particularly interest in asking whether the candidates were on board. What I was told is that they were confident this deal could be reached, because they don’t believe either Santorum or Romney will have the delegates to win the nomination without a combined ticket. They do not want a divided convention.
If things keep going the way they are, they may pull the rug out from under Romney, and that would be a very good thing.
Full disclosure, I am a Newt supporter and my friend who told me this was going to vote for Romney. She said, she would not vote for Romney if Santorum is on the ticket. Just local bad blood against Santorum in PA.
My friend has enough on her plate taking care of her husband who is gravely ill. I am not going to put her in the sights of anyone who is going to bombard her with the the hysterical visciousness that you like to dish out.
How would adding names to this convince you? It wouldn’t.
I reject information on the MSM all the time. Sometimes they give sources, sometimes they don’t. That is why we have to think for ourselves.
Just let this play out and we will all hope for the best.
I doled out no viciousness to you. I merely asked you to prove a rumour you have been spreading. I do not consider that being vicious.
When people make a claim and spread it as fact, they should always be prepared to back it up. If you cannot, you should weigh carefully what you are doing.
I hope our side can be honest, unlike the other side. Wouldn't you agree?
For the love of Pete, you keep falsely saying that I spread this as fact. I gave a complete detailed account of how I came by this information. Why are you so afraid to let people have information and decide for themselves whether they deem it valid?
Are you qualified to be the filter of what most of us consider free speech?
Thank goodness you are not representative of all Santorum supporters.
LOL, I would say the same about you as a Newt supporter. I am glad they all don’t spread unfounded rumors like Mitt Romney does.
Okay, enough.
There are at present 6 Catholic justices on SCOTUS, including all five conservatives.
Two white guys? Recipe for election failure as the Obama Propaganda Ministry, i.e., the MSM, would play the two white guys song 24/7.
There needs to be a woman or a minority on the ticket.
My recent thoughts have been along those lines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.