By the way, don’t worry. Be happy. Romney will win.

I am now certain Romney will win. So relax. Obama’s sputtering and his base is not motivated (why should they be?). All the momentum is with Romney. So chill, Romney fans. He’s got it sewn up. Celebrate! I’ll even join you insofar as I am delighted to see the Tyrant swept from office.

I just won’t join in the illusion that much will change or that this ticket has any serious interest in Catholic teaching. Still, better somebody who doesn’t care about you than somebody who hates you. But not much better.

  • Peter

    When was the last time somebody who “cared about you” was elected to any office, Mark? Best come down off the mountain. This is about staunching the blood flow not about somebody liking Catholicism.

    • Mark Shea

      We don’t disagree.

  • http://levitersalsalis70.blogspot.com.au/ Peter

    @ the first Peter, can you imagine using that line about a Roman emporer in the first century?
    Imagine one Christian bemoaning Decius rising to power and another Christian berating him with a similar “When was the last Emperor who didn’t hunt down Christians and torture and kill them? Why can’t you be happy that this one seems slightly nicer than the others?”

    This view seems to be based on the assumption that because things are so bad ANY change will make things better, even *a different kind of evil*!

  • Kirt Higdon

    The election is still Obama’s to lose and he is still ahead in most polls, although the Ryan selection will no doubt give Romney a temporary Palin-style bounce. And there are some real unpredictables between now and November, including the possibility of war with Syria or Iran, depending on what Israel does. How that would play out with the electorate is anybody’s guess, but in the short term, war usually helps the incumbent. But the Dems are running scared which is psychologically sound for them and certainly justified by Obama’s terrible record. I still say this one’s too close to call.

    • Scott W.

      Nope. Romney landslide in spite of the polls. Not that I am going to vote for him, but the moderaes that voted for him have been utterly alienated and would fight saber-toothed tigers to get to the polls and vote for a trained monkey instead.

      • Scott W.

        I meant I’m not going to vote for Romney and then meant the voters that voted for Obama.

  • rebecca

    I don’t vote to have someone like me.

  • B.E. Ward

    It seems to me that some folks are missing the point. He can correct me if I’m wrong, but Mark is simply taking a dig at where our democracy has gone. “They like me! They really like me! So I’m going to vote for them!” Sort of like watching Paul Ryan jog down the gangplank in Norfolk the other day and hug his family like he hadn’t seen them since 1942. “Awww.. he loves his family, and they look like us! I’m going to vote for him!” Blech.

    So while candidates pander to us (well, not *us* in Washington state.. they’ll only pander to people in ‘swing states’), you can:

    Expect more pre-emptive war of dubious necessity,
    Expect no change to abortion laws (or any real effort to change them), and
    Expect a tougher line on matters that should make Catholics squirm a little (or a lot) – like a tougher stance on people who have immigrated to the southwest (legally or illegally) and who, you know, actually keep the Church afloat and even thriving round those parts.

    • Ted Seeber

      I’m not so sure on that last one. The Wyden/Ryan health care bill made a lot of sense, and Ryan is a well known moderate on the subject of immigration.

      Having said that, every administration in my lifetime has been measurably worse than the one before, and I don’t expect a Romney/Ryan ticket to buck that trend one bit. I am however now more tempted to vote for that brand of evil.

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      >>>Expect no change to abortion laws (or any real effort to change them)

      I decided a while ago that voting for one side because you think it will change abortion laws is useless. The ultimate remedy for legalized abortion will not be found in politics, but from Christians running crisis pregnancy centers, suing dangerous and unethical abortion clinics out of business, and generally trying to change hearts and minds over the long run.

      At best, one could vote for the party that will do the least damage, maybe even passing a few executive orders curtailing abortion. As opposed to the party that will aggressively seek to broaden access to it and persecute pro-lifers, of course. If the government basically gets out of the way, then pro-lifers can do God’s work on the ground. Just don’t expect any political party to ever completely ban abortion, because they won’t. Politics is not the ultimate answer to this problem.

      • Andy

        I agree – I gave up a long time ago on expecting the political process to do anything about abortion – I am not sure it can for starters, and I am pretty sure it doesn’t want to for political reasons only – Dems to keep their base happy, Reps so they can use it as an issue. I agree about the need for criss pregnancy programs, for better support for families, for better education about pregnancy among many things. To stop abortion we must change hearts and minds.

  • James

    I’m writing in Santorum on my ballot.

  • Observer

    Try this – speaking all things Roman and Christian – O is a lot like Herrod (attacking the conscience of God’s people and their kin.) Rom is liken to Pontius Pilate (washing his hands and not interferring with the Pharisee’s and those who put Christ to death.) The point is O may attack conscience as Herrod did. But, Rom will not defend someone being accused before the state as Pilate took no responsibility. Think of the similarities. Rom supports protecting state’s rights (not wanting to interfere) just as Pontius (under Roman law) would not interfere with state’s (provinces or whatever the territories were called in those days) process of laws. That is, if the attack on conscience won’t work at the Fed level (i.e. Roman law), then there will be pushes at the state level and Rom will do nothing about it. You don’t get freedom an evil. Rather, you get the same evil done at a different level. Better an attack from a series of legislative bounds and balance of powers (going the highest point of hierarchy to down below than from the groun up. If you really want to know what is lesser of two evils, O would be a less evil because the harm done will be greatly limited by the states. Whereas if Rom overturns such a abuse of power from the highest point of hierarchy, then the states will seize the opportunity to do the same thing and Rom will not stop them.

  • Salvatore

    To all of you who say things like, they are both evil, or use phrases like “where our democracy has gone…,” I don’t think you would have ever voted for any of the presidents in U.S. history, or any of their non-winning opponents for that matter. At least, not if you are consistent. American politics has be the way it is since 1796. There are distinctions that must be acknowledged between the candidates. To equate them is to be dishonest. If you refuse to acknowledge those differences, you may as well not participate.

  • Salvatore

    To all of you who say things like, nothing will change, or use phrases like “where our democracy has gone…”– I don’t think there was a time you could have lived where you would have ever voted for any of the presidents in U.S. history, or any of their non-winning opponents for that matter. At least, not if you are consistent. American politics has be the way it is since 1796. There are distinctions that must be acknowledged between the candidates. To equate them is to be dishonest. If you refuse to acknowledge those differences, you may as well not participate.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X