Romney Will Save us!!!!

What’s great is that a) the Romney campaign doesn’t argue with this and b) I’m still seeing Catholics saying we *have* to vote for him because, well, because!

  • Ted Seeber

    The latest “because” on my facebook page- but Obama will nominate 3 more SC justices if he is allowed another 4 years!

  • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com JoAnna
  • Observer

    Paul’s statement in the article – http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/mitt-romney-writes-op-ed-against-hhs-mandate/#ixzz1xhw1WC34:

    In an October statement on his website, Texas Congressman Ron Paul said the mandate “violates the conscience of millions of pro-life Americans.” He said he views the “regulatory overstep” as “payback to Planned Parenthood and big pharmaceutical companies for their support of Obamacare.”

    The differene between Paul and Mitch is Paul wouldn’t hesitate to limit Exec-Orders as well as overturning the mandates. Whereas, Mitch will continue to use the power of abuse to fix it’s abuses. Hence, he does not even exhibit the need to approve laws in legistlature to prevent any future mandated abuses used under Exec-Orders.

  • Art

    Before I vote in November who is the best “Catholic” candidate? D-Obama, R-Romney, or ______? Who else is on the ballot?

    • Michael in ArchDen

      That depends on the state you are in, Art. Most 3rd party candidates have to “qualify” for the ballot on a state-by-state ballot. Check out your Secretary of State’s website…you might be surprised who else is on the ballot where you live!

      Alternatively, most (if not all) states allow you to write in any candidate that you feel with best mirror your values; even yourself.

      • Art

        Cool, I will waste my vote and vote for myself! :) I doubt I will get elected however.

        • Michael in ArchDen

          You are a braver man than me…I’d be afraid I might accidentally win!

          I do want to say that I don’t see 3rd party voting as “wasted” though. My vote for any candidate is going to be in the neighborhood of .00000002% of the impact of the total vote; but it’s also going to be in the neighborhood of 100% of that votes impact on my soul and eternal life. I don’t think maximizing the influence of the latter consideration over the former is a waste.

          • Art

            Yeah… not sure. I don’t know if I would go as far as saying voting for Obama or Romney will cast your soul in hell for eternity. I don’t care for politics, but I do think voting for a person who will give Catholics more of a fighting chance is necessary to protect our religious freedoms. I don’t know, that is my take. Does a vote equate to supporting every idea that that person promotes or has a history of… or is it a means to vote for somebody that has a higher probability of making good/moral changes. Conundrum… yes. Is the path to hell paved with good intentions? Sure…

  • Marcus

    To use an analogy I heard on the daily show, voting for Romney will technically do more to stop abortion in the same way that jumping will technically get you closer to the sun :)

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      Which is why pro-lifers should stop thinking that the “right” politicians are going to magically “stop abortion.” At best, some politicians will do less harm to the pro-life cause than others. If you wish to vote for them for that reason, you can, but don’t expect them to get rid of Roe v Wade.

      • Peggy R

        My view is that the only–or at least the primary–means of overturning RvW is to pay attention to your state governor and legislature. Pursue a strong pro-life law limiting or outlawing abortion in the state. It will percolate up to the SCOTUS, which can then overturn RvW. That is where Congress and the President we choose come into play. I don’t see that a federal law banning abortion nationally would pass constitutional muster, except insofar as crossing state boundaries occurs. (Many attempts to federalize primarily local/intrastate crimes over the past couple of decades have been overturned.) Congress and president can’t promise to overturn RvW. But your state office holders should promise to pass legislation to overturn RvW. We are focusing too much on our federal government and expecting them to do things that are not within their charter. Both the left and right do this.

        • http://creativefidelity.wordpress.com Dan F.

          I think it needs to start even closer to home. Start with changing your neighbors, friends, families views on the issue. Help them to see that any definition about when life begins after the moment of conception is arbitrary and un-scientific. Formulate your arguments apart from any religious references and ground them in undisputable scientific facts about embryology. Then, once they have admitted to the humanity of the baby, you can argue about a lexical ordering of rights – that some rights trump other rights, and that the primary human right is Life because without life you can’t exercise any other rights. Once you have succeeded in those two steps eventually the fanatical pro-abortion Moloch-worshiping fringe will be just that (fringe) and we can hopefully end this holocaust.

          While you’re making those arguments you also need to be putting your money/time where your mouth is and providing alternate options for women who are pregnant with a child they don’t want. Society (and this probably means governments) will need to have support structures in place to accept those children.

          Challenge your fellow pro-lifers to each adopt, whether or not they already have children. Find out about ‘waiting children’ – kids in the foster system that desperately need someone with a love motivation – not a money motivation – to be their family and help them deal with their issues.

          Pursuing legislation is worthwhile but needs to only be a small part of our strategy. And voting for Romney over Obama will have a negligible impact on our success.

          • Peggy R

            I won’t argue with persuading our neighbors and all that. Will Romney over O have only a “negligible impact” on our success. Maybe Romney won’t do all we want–again, there’s really only so much a president can do; state law is operative here. (Mich is working on a restrictive abortion law, BTW. ANd PS. State adoption laws need to provide more protection and certainty to adoptive parents. This is why people go abroad.) You can be sure that things will definitely be much worse under Obama than under Romney.

        • Ted Seeber

          The judges in Roe V. Wade gave you the key to overturning Roe V. Wade on a federal level- and it also happens to be the key to destroying a lot of bad law over the last century and a half:

          A constitutional amendment to define a person as a member of the species homo sapiens with individual DNA and a body- excluding all others.

          This would effectively overturn RoeV.Wade and grant 14th Amendment protections to all people between conception and natural death. It would also overturn the “corporate personhood” laws, effectively resetting our democracy back to 1830.

  • Observer

    Mitch and Obama remind me of a superhero DC comic series. Where in many of the stories you have the hero defeating his opponent while damaging the buildings, property, and injuring surrounding by-standers.

    Take a look at so many movies produced, as well, where people’s everday living are being trampled on underfoot and under chaos between the superhero and super villian (a dualism no doubt.) Both cause damage and harm to anybody who happens to be at the wrong place and at the wrong time (according to the theme.)

    Likewise, today’s election is where people’s liberties are trampled upon by either one of these super grotesque hero’s of so-called humanity in our own time. And though movie productions play on fiction – as a DC comic series – and are truth-telling, only the truth will tell and triumph in the end.

    • Mark Hartman

      BTW, Romney’s not “Mitch,” but “Mitt.” That’s actually his middle name, but I wouldn’t want to be called “Willard” either.

    • Ted Seeber

      The first episode of the new Avatar cartoon series on Nickolodeon, _Legend of Korra_ dealt with this directly- upon hitting the city and doing quite a bit of damage in vigilante justice, the hero was arrested by the police.

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    I’m still at a loss as to what part of the overwhelming number of readers of this blog this is aimed at. The reasoning for the constant ‘the Gop sucks, The GOP Sucks, THE GOP SUCKS!’ is that the readers need to hear it more than, say, the Democrats because most of them would likely follow the GOP. Yet, whenever these posts come up, few if any now defend the GOP, or come by to support its non-Paul candidates. So it seems that, unless there is a stat I’m missing, the mission has been accomplished, and it’s time to move on. Or at least time to stop insisting that the hammering of the GOP beyond any other single topic is needed because of the overwhelming support it has among the readers.

    • Mark Shea

      As I’ve said repeatedly, I also criticize the Left. But your filters seem to be set to not perceiving that, so that the only thing that gets noticed is when I criticize the Right. Blah blah blah GOP blah blah blah. ;)

      • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

        :) I think they’re working OK.

    • John C

      Agree with Dave G. Shea and his homeboys have essentially turned this into a “Hate-On-Romney” blog. They must be very disappointed that the “99.44% pure Catholic candidate” never emerged from the race. By the way, Romney may save us from one thing: Obama.

      • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m not exactly president of the Romney fan club. He is hades and gone from what I hoped for. With that said, I’ve not made a decision, and am willing to listen to the various sides debate it. My problem is, beyond just Romney, it’s not hard to see an overwhelming focus on the sins of the GOP/American Conservative on the blog. That’s fine, it’s a blog. The focus can be on anything. But I’ve seen it explained that this continuing hammering of the GOP/American Conservatives is due to the fact that more readers would tend to support that side of the aisle than the Democrat/American Liberal side. But for quite some time now, whenever these posts happen, the majority of the comments are clearly in line with the hashing and trashing of the Right that suggests that commenters, at least, are no longer in need of convincing.

      • Mark Shea

        Umpteenth reminder: Don’t want purity. Just want a candidate who does not back grave intrinsic evil. I love how “backing crap that Obama backs” goes from being Another Reason Obama Must Be Defeated or We’re all Doomed to “minor imperfection” when Romney backs it.

        • John C

          OK dude. Peace.

        • Jordan Henderson

          So, the worst thing about Romney is that he is the same as Obama on some evils?

          The teaching of the Magisterium here is clear; When two candidates both back an grave intrinsic evil, it is permitted to vote for one for proportionate reasons:

          http://jimmyakin.com/2004/09/what_ratzinger_.html

          I would agree that Catholics are not required to vote for one or the other in this situation, but you act as if Catholics have no reason to vote for Romney when you say above:

          “Catholics saying we *have* to vote for him because, well, because…”

          I can finish that sentence. because if you don’t vote for Romney, Obama is more likely to get elected and Obama is notably worse than Romney on the important issue of Abortion and (I think) Religious Liberty. One can argue that they are about the same in many other areas.

          It does seem like you are demanding purity rather than weighing the reasons. Romney is no worse than Obama, but he might be better, yet you are straining to find a reason to not vote for Romney.

          • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

            That’s supposed to be a post IN FAVOR of voting for Romney? It’s very telling and sad when the brief for voting for the GOP candidate includes the phrase, ” is no worse than but he might be better.”

            • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

              whoops, tried to add some fancy stuff but failed. should say, “GOP candidate is no worse than Dem candidate, but he might be better.”

          • Mark Shea

            It’s not a strain at all. He advocates grave moral evil. I therefore will not vote for him because I cannot find a proportional reason to do so, the only rationale the good Cardinal gives us for voting for such a candidate. What amuses me is is how stuff Obama advocates is a grave evil, but when Romney does it, it’s a minor problem and people who object to it are “perfectionists”.

      • Ted Seeber

        I for one am disappointed that even the 75% pure Catholic Candidate dropped out before the Oregon Primary, after I switched parties in order to specifically vote for him. I voted for him anyway, and am pleased that had he stayed in the race, at least one of Oregon’s electoral votes would have gone to him. It’s the closest I’ve ever come to my vote actually counting for anything at all.

  • Mark Hartman

    I’ll simply say this:

    1) The government doesn’t create jobs. Businesses do.
    2) Businesses don’t invest unless they’ve got what at least looks like a stable business environment, with future costs (and regulation is a cost) that can be forecast to some degree.
    3) Obama has never run a business, and self-evidently doesn’t get the above facts.
    4) Romney has, and in the unlikely event that he doesn’t get the above facts, he’s wealthy enough to buy a clue.
    5) Romney’s wealth is a good thing. If you want to be in a situation where things are growing and making money, put someone in charge that knows how to make money, and tell him that his job is to facilitate everyone else making money.

    All political parties, and all politicians, suck to some degree or other. So what? You have two options: vote for a politician, or don’t participate in the process. If you select the latter option, then don’t complain when things don’t go your way; you had your chance.

    • ivan_the_mad

      “The government doesn’t create jobs. Businesses do.”

      No, people do … or don’t, as the case may be. Business in this case is an abstraction that obscures the people making decisions.

      “If you want to be in a situation where things are growing and making money”

      Making money isn’t the same as making wealth. Soros is a great example of this, he basically made some bets and won a few billion dollars. By this logic, Soros would be a great president (although I’m sure the OP wouldn’t agree). There’s more money today than there was four years ago, but people are less wealthy than they were four years ago.

    • Ted Seeber

      Mammon isn’t my God, and I’m very sorry if Mammon is your God. I’d rather live with the poverty of the third world and intrinsic evils being illegal, than have all the money in the world but lose my soul.

  • Ivan K

    Romney has pledged to overturn the HHS mandate. Is Mark Shea saying that Romney is lying?

    • Mark Shea

      Mark Shea is saying that the Etch-a-Sketch candidate has given me absolutely no reason to trust a word he says. Mark Shea also, by the way, says that one of the funniest things in the world is seeing Republicans suddenly suggesting that failure to trust the Weathervane is an offense against common decency and not common sense. So: Am I saying Romney is lying? No. Am I saying that Romney is a liar? Of course! What person of common sense wouldn’t given his record of pandering and flipflopping?

      • Mario Mirarchi

        It true that Romney is the Etch-A-Sketch candidate. Don’t forget that there are also House and Senate elections, and we need to vote for pro-life candidates in order to control who is turning the knobs.

        • Ted Seeber

          I am unconvinced that any politician running on a pro-life platform is going to do anything to reverse RoeV.Wade- because once abortion goes away, he’s basically signed his resignation from government.

          • Peggy R

            You don’t think there are other areas where a pro-life candidate might have good policy prescriptions and plans, ie, fiscal management, national security, tax policy, monetary policy, agricultural policy, reasonable (effective, but not constricting) regulation of businesses? Protection of (traditional) marriage? Others…?

            • Ted Seeber

              “You don’t think there are other areas where a pro-life candidate might have good policy prescriptions and plans, ie, fiscal management, national security, tax policy, monetary policy, agricultural policy, reasonable (effective, but not constricting) regulation of businesses? ”

              They might, but this candidate doesn’t at all. And there hasn’t been a pro-life candidate ever presented to me that did.

              “Protection of (traditional) marriage?”

              Right now, yes, but this is quickly becoming the same problem as abortion. “Look at me, I’m heterosexual- never mind that I go out clubbing at gay bars on weekends”.

  • http://chapinracional.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

    You know that Romney supports drilling Alaska for oil and agrees on using torture on enemies right? He also doesn’t even support immigrants. He doesn’t support the DRAM act for example. If you are going to vote just because of same sex marriage and contraception, well, that’s a very superficial and dull reason.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      If you are going to vote just because of same sex marriage and contraception, well, that’s a very superficial and dull reason.

      I’m sorry if those reasons don’t interest you, but they’re hardly superficial. They’re just not the only criteria by which politicians should be judged.

      • http://chapinracional.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

        “They’re just not the only criteria by which politicians should be judged.”
        You’re right. Then stop seeing those two things (along with abortion) and start contemplating other potential evils.

        • http://chapinracional.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

          Besides, same sex marriage is nothing comparable to the harm that drilling the ANWR will bring or the fact that there will be xenophobic laws that neglect help for people in need of it.

          • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

            So, wait, you are seriously saying that drilling in the ANWR is a more important issue than same-sex marriage? Why exactly?

          • Ted Seeber

            I’m not at all convinced that drilling in ANWR will create the environmental devastation that people predict. In fact, removing the oil from that region might just enable it to last longer.

        • ivan_the_mad

          “Then stop seeing those two things (along with abortion)”. Really? What’s more evil than a million babies murdered every year?

          • Ted Seeber

            Murdering US Citizens at random because you think they are terrorists comes a close second for me. Ooops, both candidates are for that one.

  • Elaine S.

    Of course Romney isn’t going to “save” us from abortion, gay marriage, economic recession, or any other evil. We’re electing a president, not a savior. Even the real Savior refused to be a political savior, to the great disappointment of many of his followers. So why expect politicians to be cultural and religious saviors (who also, inevitably, disappoint their followers)?

    If the only reason to vote for Romney is because he probably won’t make things any worse on the abortion and gay marriage fronts, whereas Obama is almost certain to make things MUCH worse on both fronts if reelected, that’s good enough for me. (As for torture and unjust war, I see no reason to believe that Romney will be any worse than Obama, though he may not be much better, so that issue is a wash.)

    Like it or not, committed pro-lifers and conscientious Catholic voters with a fine tuned knowledge of Catholic social teaching are still very much in the minority and aren’t numerous enough to turn the tide of elections. Therefore, we have to take what we can get and if that means voting for the lesser of two evils, so be it.

    • http://chapinracional.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

      I would see Obama as the lesser of two evils. Again, he supports immigration laws that can help people who otherwise have it really bad, is against drilling the ANWR, against torturing enemies, at least in principle, is in favor of regulated gun control and the contraception stuff can’t be a good enough excuse for any of this, you can still defend “religious freedom” even when Obama is in power. You talk about catholic social teaching, yes, and that includes all the aformentioned stuff Obama supports and Romney doesn’t. HACS (homosexuality, abortion, contraception and stem-cell research) can’t be the only thing that matters and the only criteria to choose a president.

      • Bill

        They aren’t the only things, but they are the essential things.

        Immigration reform, drilling et. al are important, but do not carry the moral gravitas of the non-negotiables. They simply do not. I’m not advocating Romney in any way at all. Not a fan of him for many reasons,, and as resident of a deep blue state I can feel free to vote third party as my vote is irrelevant here anyway.

        But this “seamless garment” approach to all issues doesn’t wash. The Right does it, and the Left does it as much. It’s a way to have safe cover so one can feel he or she votes the way he or she wants without pings against his or her conscience.

        Really, truthfully, neither candidate should get the Catholic vote. I’d say Romney is moderately less offensive, but that’s hardly a recommendation.

      • ivan_the_mad

        “HACS (homosexuality, abortion, contraception and stem-cell research) can’t be the only thing that matters and the only criteria to choose a president.” LOL yes, yes it can be. Welcome to democracy. Thanks for the opinion piece. Since it’s just a bunch of assertions, *ahem*, “quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur”.

        “You talk about catholic social teaching, yes, and that includes all the aformentioned stuff Obama supports and Romney doesn’t.” – Really, you shouldn’t invoke Catholic social teaching when you don’t have a good understanding of it.

        • Bill

          This is why we vote, right? Ultimately voting for us people of faith is that voting is the public action of our private beliefs. Our faith drives our politics. It’s not the other way around. That’s why we find so much wrong in both political parties. Both the Right and the Left are equally wrong when they attempt to tell the Church to get in line.

          • ivan_the_mad

            “Our faith drives our politics. It’s not the other way around.” Well said.

      • Peggy R

        If you don’t have life and freedom, not much else matters. I favor ANWR drilling and oppose the DREAM act. Hierarchy of issues is how we Catholics think. Life and religious freedom (and HACS as you say) are not negotiable. Most other items such as economics, environmental, and immigration are matters for prudential judgment.

  • Observer

    A hierarchy of importance drives the issues. You cannot talk about protecting a coast-line at the expense of people who are unique and have certain talents not being able to be born (or even a possibility of existence) when you support (or do nothing with regard) to same-gend-marrige and terming a bab’ys life. When you to away with such a hierarchy (putting the last thing before the first) you’ve got nothing in the end (because you’ve done away with people for supposedly saving a coastline with no one to exist to do it.)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X