…Mitt Romney holds a fund-raiser with the manufacturer of the Morning After Pill.
Okay, Mark. Let’s be honest. You didn’t really draw that with your etch-a-sketch, did you?
Look at our choices: Obama (About as culture of death/ radically secular as is possible), Romney (Complicit), Paul (No hope of winning and could contribute to re-election of Obama). Romney certainly wasn’t my first choice, but I’ll hold my nose. What would you have us do?
The option is evil or less evil…it’s not like we have a “good” option. What is a moral person to do?
There’s a funny picture online with Gene Wilder in Willy Wonka, asking “So you vote for the lesser of two evils? Tell me how voting for evil is working for you.”
Geek Catholic Answer- It’s the Kobayashi Maru scenario. So do what Kirk did. Reprogram the system.
I’m with Sherry and Dana: what can we do? I don’t like Romney, either, but if Obama gets another term, he almost definitely will get to make at least one Supreme Court appointment, replacing one of the current justices who would likely vote to overturn Roe, would likely not find a federal constitutional right to same-sex “marriage,” etc. I’d much rather have Romney making that decision than Obama.
I don’t trust either one to make that decision- both have already claimed the right to kill American Citizens who don’t fit their view of what a good citizen is, and while NDAA2012 has now been limited by the courts, I have no doubt they’ll try again.
Our only hope left is massive rebellion against the false choice.
People are taking to the streets this week to rebel against the false choice. Too bad the media is ignoring them, and that conservatives are making fun of them.
Mostly Romney is about the election of Romney and also the interests of the financial sector.
Still it is a sticky wicket in that Obama is pretty much becoming about the idea that Catholic ideas on contraception and abortion have to be subject to a bit of “Kulturkampf” because they are against the “common good” as he sees it. So if you’re in a swing-state, or potential swing-state, I’d say vote for Romney. (My state hasn’t went for a Democrat since LBJ in 1964 so I think I’m safe to do whatever)
Also I think it’s a bit unfair to say Republicans universally don’t care about abortion. Mike Fitzpatrick, Walter Jones, and Chris Smith at least seem pretty solid.
“sticky wicket” … love it!
I’m not in a swing state at all. I guarantee that Oregon will go for Obama no matter what I do.
You’re not responsible for what the state of Oregon does. You’re only responsible for what you do with your vote. Cast your vote for a righteous man.
I think that the folks who vote for Romney based on supreme court appointments will be disappointed. He will appoint a person who is friendly to capitalism as he understands and not really give a thought to social issues of any sort, unless they impact making money. His evolution of social issues seemed to follow his desire to be nominated and did not seem to come from any deep-seated change in values. I think of the psalm, and I forget which one that reminds us to not trust or have faith in princes. Romney and Obama – in fact anyone in recent memory who has run for president is a prince – not to be trusted. I have no solutions, but, we as the citizens must demand more of our leaders and not merely require them to pass the “‘ll hold my nose and vote for him/her” test.
“He will appoint a person who is friendly to capitalism as he understands and not really give a thought to social issues of any sort, unless they impact making money.”
I think that’s a great point, Andy. Romney’s Court appointees will be pro-financial sector first with social issues not being a consideration.
What bugs me isn’t so much the fundraiser – I don’t expect the GOP not to raise money from the wealthy – but that Romney won’t “go to the mat” over *any* issue. He can have all the right stances on social issues, but at the end of the day, you know he won’t lift a finger to fight for them. He just doesn’t do that type of thing.
And I’d point out that pro-financial sector- means continuing avoiding the expense of letting inconvenient people be born. Abortion and contraception are what allow people to be rich.
His evolution of social issues seemed to follow his desire to be nominated and did not seem to come from any deep-seated change in values.
Yes, yes, yes. As a former citizen of the Soviet State of Massachusetts, I find it difficult to believe that anyone can believe this guy on social issues.
Last time, I was on the other side of this issue. I certainly respect anyone who votes for Rmoney, and think it’s a valid option. However, I have voted for the “least evil” candidate too many times now, and have been disappointed. I think Mark has a point that when we settle for the “least evil”, we still get evil….and lately the choices are getting worse and worse. Last time we had a choice this bad (Clinton vs. Dole) I believe I voted for Jesus Christ.
That said, I may vote for Rmoney when push comes to shove. I’m disgusted with the choices, though, and think there’s really not much difference between Rmoney and Obama. I still can’t believe America rejected Ron Paul, who’s completely obviously a better choice than the two losers we will now have to choose between. If we don’t demand our Presidential candidates be good men, they won’t be.
Voters did not reject Ron Paul. Most voter know very little about him.
Our betters in the media rejected him. They decided he couldn’t win and was unacceptable. The media gave Ron Paul the scantest of coverage and most of tha was framed inside the fringe/can’t win narrative.
I’m sad about Paul too. For all his errors, he’s a good man who’s trying to do what he thinks right. At least he would cut back on the unjust warfare embraced universally by the leadership of the two parties which are ooohhhh so different.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. “What can you do?” Stop voting for evil. Vote for someone else. Will a third-party candidate win? Likely not. But if more people do it every year, it will likely encourage even more to do it. It will take time, but is not impossible. Research the third-party candidates at all levels on your ballot. In all cases, pick the one that most aligns with your convictions. Vote for them. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still cooperation in evil. Reject evil in its entirety. Your efforts do not stop on election day. Leave the booth with a clear conscience and immediately get back to work.
I utterly reject the standard argument of JUDGES! JUDGES! JUDGES! If you want to bet the farm on unelected, unaccountable appointees-for-life, go for it. But it seems rather antithetical to the whole democratic republic thing.
I am completely convinced whether you vote D, R or QTPC (Quixotic Third Party Candidate), your vote does not matter. It’s all up to someone else who is completely not responsible for the actions they take. Presidential elections have been bunk since 1860. The only way to ensure your political survival is to send the correct person to Congress and make sure your state and local governments have the fortitude to stand up against the federal leviathan.
Mark: Just curious: do you see any irony in the fact that immediately after posting on this issue you also post a critique of the need that some have for a litmus test or ‘chemical purity’ in our interaction with others? At any rate it is a great ironic juxtaposition Matthew
Yeah. Pretty ironic and weird that I prefer to be chemically pure of complicity in murder, but don’t care about non-essentials like family size. Who can fathom my contradictory mind? You really got me!
There is no “lesser evil” any more. At least not in National elections. There is only “different flavored evil.”
What should we do? Well, we could stop being willing stooges for one thing. If every Catholic in the U.S. REALLY voted their faith next election — or didn’t vote because of their faith — you can be sure candidates would stop dangling the carrot in front of our noses.
But what is their faith?. Many Catholics see themselves as Republicans who happen to be Catholic or Dems who happen to be Catholic. These folks often go with their political tradition over their Faith Tradition when the two come into conflict. Worse many don’t seem aware of the difference.
This is a huge problem. Catholics have been co-opted by their political allegiances.
Yep. And that’s precisely our problem.
Try the following dilemma:
A. Vote for R.Paul and lose trying. B. Vote for Rom and win somethings conservative with losing some conservative principles. C. Vote to the best of your ability and let God handle the rest.
I chose A for the primaries, will likely go with C for the general, likely a third party that is worth voting for.
Three choices … are you sure this isn’t a … trilemma??? Eh? EH? Wakka wakka!
Since I live i a decidedly blue state, I’m writing in for Ron. If I was in a swing state it would be a tough call. Obama is basically sticking his thumb in our collective Catholic eye. (Although plenty of Catholics seem to be cheering him on.
New York Times July 26, 2005 BOSTON, July 25 – Confronting one of the most controversial issues to cross his desk, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts vetoed a bill on Monday that would expand access to the morning-after pill. The governor said he believed that the pill sometimes functioned as “an abortion pill,” not just contraception.
The waffle has many sides indeed.