Dear fellow Ohioans who are not socialists:

The people who wrote this indictment of President Obama’s failure to be liberal progressive enough:

[W]e have no illusions about the audacity of hope, no faith that the re-election of President Obama alone will accomplish the radical change this magazine has championed. For America to be on a different path in 2016 from that of 2012, progressive movements will have to “occupy” all the levers of power—in Washington, in the states and in the streets.

then immediately wrote this:

Most immediately, that means strengthening the progressive coalition in Congress that includes Senators Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders, who are up for re-election, and adding crusaders like Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren to the mix.

(Article here.)

Catch that? Barack Obama has not been far enough to the left for them, but Sherrod Brown? He’s their guy! Right up there with self-described socialist Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, who riffed on “You didn’t build that” before Obama, and Tammy Baldwin, one of the most liberal members of the House of Representatives, who is running for Senate in Wisconsin.

His ads paint him as some kind of centrist, and now that he needs the political support he’s trying to get back the Delphi pensions he didn’t seem to care about before. But Ohio is not nearly as far-left liberal as Sherrod Brown.

Can Ohio afford someone as far-left liberal as Sherrod Brown?

More to come…

Yes, Sherrod Brown is to Obama's left.

4,279 views

Categories:Uncategorized

27 thoughts on “Dear fellow Ohioans who are not socialists:

  1. BufordJr says:

    Bad news Crowe – your Josh Mandel looks like a loser!

  2. Jordan says:

    As someone who self-identifies as a social democrat (and reads this website because double-perked coffee doesn’t give me enough of a jolt in the morning), let me suggest that the religious Right has more to fear from a Romney presidency than the social Left.

    Romney’s no culture warrior, for sure. Over the course of this campaign, Mitt’s done a Nadia Comaneci-esque quintuple flip on abortion (as of today, he’s pro-choice). Gay rights? Mitt only fired a gay aide because Bryan Fischer blew a head gasket when he found out that Romney had a gay man on his staff. SCOTUS? Mitt will have to settle on a center-Right justice after a hyper-rightist gets slammed in the Senate. Healthcare? Mitt will repeal Obamacare only to put Romneycare in its place. HHS? Other than vague platitudes in his closing arguments on October 3rd, and a lone TV ad, Romney’s not really tuned into the “religious liberty” shtick.

    Why does CV.org go bonkers over Obama when there ain’t that much daylight between Mittens and O.?

    1. James Reyes says:

      Because this blog is predictably partisan and divisive and is part of the problem in further pitting our people against each other for a goal I have yet to identify.

      1. John son of John says:

        because this site stands for God, the dignity of every human person, social justice, the ten universal principles of every successful civilization, and is against the five non-negotionables, etc….
        some people just can’t stand the reality of natural law and may possibly guided by the world, the flesh, and “the prince of the air”
        so there is always room for diologue with those whom do not espouse the fullness of truth, the bride of Christ, the church, and those who because of ignorance seek to divide or hide because they only have part of the truth.
        Shalom
        God Bless You on you’re Journey

        1. James Reyes says:

          Ah, so God looks approvingly upon this rotten, destructive, “burn-and-pillage anything-for-profit” Republican Party. I get it, now.

          1. John son of John says:

            who said anything about the republican party?
            i was talking about what Venerable Fulton J. Sheen said about “authentic catholics”
            Shalom
            God Bless you on you’re journey

          2. Rich says:

            And you defame the late Bishop Sheen by that comparison. At least he was civil and never told people that they were not Catholic. Although he was pre-cable.

          3. John son of John says:

            it may be just my subjective experience but, every person whom i’ve met or talked to that has met His Eminence Either portrayed him in the way i did by his comments or they said he was an apologist against communism and heresy.
            also is may the right word or is civil?

            Shalom
            God Bless you on You’re journey

          4. James Reyes says:

            Whoa… LOL! I was talking about the Republican Party in response to Jordan’s original post. I was commenting on the blind partisan nature of this blog. Who said anything about Bishop Sheen? Talk about derailing a discussion.

          5. John son of John says:

            sorry about that i am mentally challenged and i was an atheist so i am still effected by that mentality in a way.
            shalom
            God Bless you on you’re journey

    2. Joe M says:

      Jordan.

      Why should a person be fired for identifying themselves as gay? That isn’t something that CV (to my knowledge) or Catholic teaching has promoted. The aide in question wasn’t fired. He stepped down.

      Why would Romney have to settle with his supreme court appointments? It appears that Republicans are doing just fine in the Senate races.

      The healthcare reform proposal Romney has put out for the federal level is not similar to what he did in Massachussetts.

      Romney has consistently and repeatedly spoken out for religious liberty. He has given specific attention to Catholic concerns and repealing the HHS mandate: http://www.mittromney.com/coalitions/catholics-for-romney

      There is so much daylight between Obama and Romney that you could fit a sun between them.

      1. abadilla says:

        Joe,
        “Why should a person be fired for identifying themselves as gay? That isn’t something that CV (to my knowledge) or Catholic teaching has promoted. The aide in question wasn’t fired. He stepped down.” Recently I fund out about a young man who won Great Britain Has Talent because of his incredible powerful singing. That happened in 2009. He became famous and had concerts all over England, and then at 22 some members of the gay community in Great Britain threatened the young man to say he is gay or they were going to tell the world he was gay. It was not the Catholic Church or Christians or Muslims who did that, it was his own community. The young man came out, his record company discontinued his records, and who can we blame for his early demise? The very community that supposedly stands for gay rights, not the Catholic Church or Christians as so many folks at CV would have us believe.
        As for the comment about CV being partisan, it is, so what? At least they don’t pretend to possess the mantle of objectivity like the hypocrital left-wing media that promotes openly a partisan and left-wing President.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          This site is not “partisan.” It does have a very specific public policy bent, which can give the appearance of partisanship because one of the parties has, largely, disqualified itself from consideration. From abortion to defense of marriage to stem cell research to religious liberty (you know: non-negotiables for a Catholic) the Democrats, by and large, have planted their flag on the wrong side of those bright lines. To be sure, not all Republicans are perfect on these issues, and blind partisanship is dangerous, but if this country is to head in the right direction the likes of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid must be removed from the levers of power.

          1. Rich says:

            Yeah Tom – everyone “believes” you – the site is not Partisan is just leans to the right because it has a weak foundation and the sand is shifting. And without regard to the site – you are a complete partisan.
            Not even you believe your lies. And you understanding of Catholic “non-negotiables” is quite lacking. By and far, the likes of you are more dangerous, (uneducated untruths used to manipulate faithful people) than any public servant no matter how much you work to demonize those you disagree with.
            Even Romney speaks with more integrity as he aligns his words to the audience of the day. You just put on a act, that is neither funny nor enlightening.

          2. AuthenticBioethics says:

            The fact is the Democrat party has moved further and further left and has in the process abandoned virtually any connection to a prudential approach to Catholic social teaching. I personally would be a democrat if they didn’t embrace such extreme and alarming positions on many issues. I come across as very partisan, too, but it is only because the Democrats are soooooo faaaaaarrrrrrr aaaaaaawwwwwaaaayyyyy that it looks like I’m a right-winger in comparison. Sorry, on the bioethical issues alone, the Democratic Party platform is bankrupt from a Catholic point of view — and that does NOT necessarily mean I think the Republican platform is wonderful. But from way out in left field, it may look that way.

          3. abadilla says:

            Tom,
            I just don’t see anything wrong with being “partisan” if by partisan one believes one is choosing the side of truth. I get your argument that the Democratic Party stands for so many things that we, Catholics, reject, that we appear partisan, but there is no denial that we favor Mit Romney over Obama but we don’t do so merely because of politics, but because the Democrats have taken positions that are anti-thetical to Catholicism. If tomorrow the Republican Party were to take those same positions, I would expect CV not to support the Republicans either.
            “To be sure, not all Republicans are perfect on these issues, and blind partisanship is dangerous.” I fully agree and believe that CV is not “blindly” partisan but at this point the Dems’ positions have forced us to become pretty Republican and Catholic in outlook, or am I wrong?

        2. Rich says:

          What does Great Britain HasTalent have to do with the price of tea in China?

      2. Jordan says:

        Richard Grenell’s departure from the Romney team has nothing to do with Catholicism, but handily resembles the hysteria towards LGBT people displayed on this website. Per the Washington Post (“Romney defends gay staffer who resigned, calls Grenell ‘very accomplished’ “,
        05/04/2012)
        , Mitt Romney praised the work of Richard Grenell as “capable” and “very accomplished”. Okay, technically Mr. Grenell wasn’t fired; quite the contrary — Mitt rather liked the guy. Romney let Grenell go because Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, threw a nutty because Romney had a gay man on his staff. Romney was certainly wrong to throw Grenell under the bus simply because a bigoted shock jock couldn’t deal with diversity on Team Mitt. Goes to show you how much pull bald hatred has in the RR. This also goes to show the way in which Mitt, a once tolerant man, had to kowtow to religious right beserkoids to rack up some votes.

        Bob Vander Plaats, (“Romneycare and Abortion”, Weekly Standard, December 12, 2011), “a leading Iowa social conservative” and sometime Huckabee staffer, ultimately did not support Mr. Romney in the primaries in part because Romneycare (as already implemented in Massachusetts) pays for abortions. Romney cited that his plan merely adhered to a previous Mass. administration’s court ruling that requires abortion coverage for public health plans. As Ramesh Ponnuru observes, the Mass. law places Romney in a bind: it might not have been expedient for Mitt to cancel reforms simply because abortion might be required by law. Does anyone really think that Romney’s going to go all-out for Catholic conscience protections when he clearly did not challenge the Mass. abortion law?

        I don’t like Flavor-Aid (boiled coffee and Coke Zero are my favorite tipples), but anyone who wishes to drink deep of GOP propaganda better note that the Romney who played to the base during the primaries and campaign certainly wasn’t the Romney who stood before Jim Lehrer on October 3. I have this suspicion that those who hope that Romney will be the next Armored Dinner Jacket will keep the dinner jacket all right, but eat dinner with anyone he darn well pleases.

        1. Jordan says:

          Jordan: I have this suspicion that those who hope that Romney will be the next
          Armored Dinner Jacket will keep the dinner jacket all right, but eat
          dinner with anyone he darn well pleases.

          Take two: “I suspect that those who hope that Romney will be the next Armored Dinner Jacket will find that Romney keeps the dinner jacket all right. He’ll eat dinner with anyone he darn well pleases.”

          Time to put that kettle on the boil.

        2. Joe M says:

          Jordan.

          You seem to suggest that Romney both supported and fired Grenell. He stepped down despite Romney’s willingness to support him. Romney did not fire him due to some guys complaint. He didn’t fire him at all.

          Romney changed his position on abortion. He has given a clear and thorough explanation why. So, it doesn’t really make sense to assume that he will do what he did in Massachussetts regarding abortion when he has since pledged to do differently. Romney strikes me as a man of his word. I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest otherwise. So, yes, I do expect that he will fight for Catholic conscience-protection issues as he has advocated. If he gets elected with that as part of his successful platform, what reason would he have not to?

          The Romney in the debate was the same Romney since the beginning of the campaign. He defended the same positions and made the same appeals. If what you claim were true, the people who supported him in the primaries would feel betrayed. Instead, they are energized and proud.

      3. Rich says:

        And has said he will not limit a woman’s right to choose.
        Pretty small sun in your universe.

        1. Joe M says:

          I’d say that I’ve always looked at Romney in the light of a sun. While the liberal surprise over his debate performance revealed that they’ve been looking at shadows on a cave wall.

          You writing as if Romney has not clearly pledged multiple pro-life actions as part of his platform means that you are either looking at the shadows or making shadow puppets to try and mislead people here.

        2. Joe M says:

          I’d say that I’ve always looked at Romney in the light of a sun. While the liberal surprise over his debate performance revealed that they’ve been looking at shadows on a cave wall.

          You writing as if Romney has not clearly pledged multiple pro-life actions as part of his platform means that you are either looking at the shadows or making shadow puppets to try and mislead people here.

      4. Katherine says:

        Sodomy is an intrinsic evil. That is why the Catholic Church has opposed laws legalizing sodomy or giving homosexuals job protections. Instrinsic evils can like abortion, sodomy, euthanasia can never be legally permitted.

    3. Tom Crowe says:

      Jordan— Why the thread jack? This post is about Sherrod Brown. If you want to write about Romney in nonsensical terms you can start your own blog or respond to a post about Romney.

      1. Jordan says:

        Tom, my preceding post refers to Joe M.’s defense of Mitt Romney’s putative social conservative credentials. I have attempted to demonstrate with conservative and liberal periodicals that Mr. Romney’s policies are often little different than Barack Obama’s policies. Does this mean that Mr. Romney is a “socialist” as well? Certainly not. Why tar Mr. Obama with this term?

        Neither Sherrod Brown or Elizabeth Warren are maniacal hammer and sickle wielding commies. Indeed, their social policies in particular overlap with the now almost extinct socially moderate wing of the GOP. Also, Mr. Romney’s platform is not all that far removed from not a few policies of the Democratic Party. It is baldly false to paint such a broad ideological divide between the two political parties and the two presidential candidates. And yet, such false ideological divides are CV editorial staple tropes.

        I will cease posting on CV. I do hope, however, that Catholic conservative political discourse becomes more critical and less propagandistic. The lack of probity displayed in CV editorials and in the sermons of a number of social conservative priests and bishops has driven not a few educated Catholics to the church vestibule doors, perhaps never to return.

      2. Rich says:

        Jordon – Tom is getting upset when people use truth. He is committed only to hating Obama and his unnatural love for Romney. He has placed his faith in the Mitt-ster, and thinks that even the Church can be manipulated into a GOP camp. He really hates it when the stupidity of his arguments are exposed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.