jump to navigation

An ender for Ted Cruz? Mocks banning contraception, large families December 1, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, contraception, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, rank stupidity, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, Tradition, Virtue.
trackback

Ted Cruz is, by his rhetoric and voting record, probably one of the more pro-life candidates running for office in the 2016 election.  But even he seems to fail to comprehend the moral environment that leads to massive demand for abortion, and more specifically, the inextricable link between mass contraceptive use and a million-plus abortions a year.

In a recent stump speech in Iowa, Cruz – who had heretofore been my preferred candidate in a very weak field – mocked both the idea of “banning” contraceptives and, to some, the idea of having a large family.  I have some in-laws who might take a bit of exception to the tittering Cruz elicited with his comment on being glad not to have 17 kids:

This underscores one of the conundrums of trying to vote as a Catholic.  There are virtually no national level politicians who do not hold morally unacceptable positions.  Cruz is about as conservative a candidate as there is the Repubnik field but we see here even he holds some seriously problematic positions.  This is a gaping hole in his pro-life credentials, since contraception creates the moral and intellectual environment in which abortion thrives.  Failed contraception is the primary reason for seeking out abortion (aside from the innate selfishness of the act).  To claim to be against abortion while ridiculing the idea of limiting contraception is a fool’s errand and a completely untenable position.

As a political strategy I understand where Cruz is coming from.  The “war on women” has always been made up, just like the current “rape epidemic” on college campuses is utterly made up, too.  Both have been deliberate demonrat strategies to achieve electoral success.  But I find Cruz’s logic and response flawed.  He probably knows all too well, even were he inclined to work towards some kinds of limits on contraceptive availability, that to advocate for such would mean electoral death worse than threatening to do away with Social Security.  Which is a dang sad commentary on our nation, Sandra Day O’Connor was not incorrect when she stated that the entire post-60’s revolution American lifestyle is built around contraception.  So I get there is a strong political angle to this.

But at some point we’re going to have to have some pols who will be willing to recognize that this nation will never extricate itself from its current rapid slide into destruction unless some of these sacred shibboleths of the left and leftist inspired “conventional wisdom” are challenged.  There are some fringe parties that are a bit more moral choice, but in the near term they are unlikely to have much success.  There are radical options like secession but Texans are as addicted to contraception and any number of other moral evils as anyone else.  I don’t see a lot of hope on the horizon for the conversion of this nation – because that’s absolutely what’s needed – short of some calamity that finally shakes people from their comfortably amoral lethargy and gets them to recognize the cancers eating away at this nations’ fabric.

Until then, I’ll remain politically active but excuse my cynicism if it all seems like window dressing and bread and circuses for the more intelligent.

 

Comments

1. glmcreations - December 1, 2015

No conundrum about this: it is a mortal sin for a person with a wellformed conscience to vote for any Democrat at any level of government. This is also true for other individual candidates, but it is true for all Democrats since their party is now the PARTY OF DEATH, and the PARTY OF SIN. Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas

Tim - December 1, 2015

In today’s culture and Church crisis, how many “well-formed” consciences are out there even among Catholics, heck, even among priests?

Tantumblogo - December 1, 2015

Good point. I certainly did not imply that one should vote for democrats, the point was, the R’s have their own severe failings.

Tim - December 1, 2015

I do like the snow flakes!!

2. dymphna - December 1, 2015

May I point out that Cruz is the son of a man who left the Faith? The whole point of being Protestant is to change the Faith to suit yourself.

3. camper - December 1, 2015

This presidential cycle for Republicans is crucial, because our nation hangs in the balance. Since Trump dominates the polls, one has to consider his candidacy. He is plainly a deeply immoral man with a debilitating ego and the manners of an eighth grader. He is very popular because he is the only candidate who proposes to enforce the rule of law. IF he were easily electable, he would be the best candidate because he would save this country from many of its immediate, nation-threatening troubles. However, he clearly has the inability to act like a reasonable politician or even a 12th grader. He is far too insulting to too many critical groups. Even though he is drawing 1/4 of the black vote, a huge accomplishment for a Republican, the last poll I saw had him tied with Clinton at 44%. That is far too close for comfort. Ted Cruz is definitely unelectable because he makes Barry Goldwater look left-wing. Cruz has worse poll numbers against Clinton than Trump. That is why I expect to support either Rubio or Fiorina.

4. Saint Rose of Viterbo - December 1, 2015

The wife of Ted Cruz is a Goldman Sachs executive. No matter how he may appeal on the surface, underneath it is all rather suspect. I will not vote again this year, because even in my most politically involved days, I quickly realized how much a sham it all is. Forget abortion and same sex unions – I’m waiting for a candidate who will eradicate no-fault divorce. There hasn’t been a candidate in years (ever?) that I could make a serious, moral argument for supporting. People who think some Republican candidate is going to save us at this point is seriously delusional about what is really going on in this world, especially in the financial markets. We would all be better served by doing spiritual reading and going to Confession than following this political season.

Lynne - December 2, 2015

Amen.

5. MFG - December 1, 2015

After Reagan and the Cold War passed on conservatism seemed to detach itself from the Catholic intellectual influences it picked up in the Cold War (Buckley, Kirk, etc.). Perhaps that’s as much of the fault of the Church which contributed little enrichment of America after the Vatican II council. So today’s conservatives seem to lack the Catholic intellectual understanding of western civilization and instead focus on a narrow Protestant view of America and solutions. Cruz does seem to be the best but he’s said this same statement 2 years ago.

Regarding a Catholic response to politics; what we lack is a true Catholic political party which would act as a counterweight to all this Protestant conservatism. To do so is difficult as long as our 2 party system remains and it would be tough to find a handful of voting districts filled with devout Catholics to win such an endeavor. That’s why it’s critical (next to saving our souls) to restore traditional parish life so Catholics are organically attracted to move into their parish neighborhood and begin the first baby steps toward restoring Christian order –one street at a time.

Lynne - December 2, 2015

“That’s why it’s critical (next to saving our souls) to restore traditional parish life so Catholics are organically attracted to move into their parish neighborhood” In the Archdiocese of Boston?! I would have to move, far from here. I’m thinking Russia, Poland or Hungary.

6. camper - December 1, 2015

Tantum, I entered a comment and it no lookee here.

Tantumblogo - December 1, 2015

IT’s freed. I’d like to apologize to Richard Malcom, too, who leaves generally excellent comments but tries to force them through when they don’t appear by leaving the same comment multiple times. That only makes the spam filter think the commenter is even more suspicious, and gets more comments flagged.

So thank you for your patience. Letting me know is really the best way to deal with the problem.

7. c matt - December 1, 2015

My campaign slogan, should I ever run for office would simply be “If you’re stupid enough to vote for someone else, you get what you deserve.”

Wouldn’t win, but it would be fun.

8. David - December 2, 2015

Many of us have to find the lesser of two evils. Low voter turnout has helped win some elections, and had “value voters” gone to the polls in Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, the current sitting President might have driven away from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in a Chevrolet Volt on January 21. 2013.

In 1996, I voted for Dole but I was not enthusiastic- I did want to turn out and vote for the lesser of two evils. I campaigned for Santorum in 2012, and right now Santorum and Huckabee are my first two choices.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: