Our Orwellian God King

presiding over an HHS mandate where “choice” means forcing Catholics to pay for sterilizing minors and inflicting draconian punishments if they refuse.

If you are Catholic and voting for this tyrant, may I ask “What happened to your soul?  How do square this with all that blather you emit about ‘conscience’ and ‘freedom’ every time you proclaim your brave defiance of the Old Geezer in Rome?  How do you reconcile the sheer cognitive dissonance when you chatter about your superior intellect, open-mind and so forth?  How, in short, can you sleep at night?”

  • Hezekiah Garrett

    I’m popping a bowl of corn and watching this space. I pray it gets interesting.

  • Marty Helgesen

    “If you are Catholic and voting for this tyrant, may I ask “What happened to your soul? …” Yes, and since unless something drastic, such as one of the candidates dying, happens the man who takes the oath of office next January will be Obama or Romney, not voting or voting for a third party candidate because of Romney’s serious flaws, would help Obama get elected.

    • ivan_the_mad

      “… not voting or voting for a third party candidate … would help Obama get elected.” This is stupidly false. Not voting for anyone adds to nobody’s vote count. Voting for a third-party candidate adds to that third-party candidate’s vote count. There is no scenario where either of those two actions adds to Obama’s vote count.

      • Marty Helgesen

        No, not voting or voting for a third party candidate would not add to Obama’s vote count. However, doing either of those things instead of voting for Romney would reduce Romney’s votecount. That would help Obama get elected.

        • ivan_the_mad

          “doing either of those things instead of voting for Romney would reduce Romney’s votecount” This is stupidly false too. An abstention does not decrement Romney’s vote count by one. A vote for a third-party candidate does not simultaneously increment that third-party candidate’s vote count by one and decrement Romney’s vote count by one.

          • Marty Helgesen

            For Obama to win a state’s electoral votes all he has to do is get more votes cast for him in that state than the number of votes cast for Romney. That means that Romney needs as many votes as possible to defeat Obama. Every person who abstains or who votes for a third party candidate because of Romney’s faults is depriving Romney of a vote, which makes it easier for the vote total that Obama gets to be larger than the vote total Romney gets.

            • ivan_the_mad

              “Every person who abstains or who votes for a third party candidate because of Romney’s faults is depriving Romney of a vote” This is also stupidly false. Romney cannot be deprived of a vote that wasn’t his to begin with.

              • Marty Helgesen

                From the online Oxford English Dictionary 2d ed., from which I quote because the library in which I work has it online:
                deprive, v.
                3.
                a. To keep (a person) out of (†from) what he would otherwise have; to debar from.

                1771 ‘Junius’ Stat Nominis Umbra (1772) II. lxiv. 299 The mode of trial..deprive[s] the subject of all the benefits of a trial by jury.
                1884 Lowell in Daily News 7 Oct. 2/7 Is it prudent to deprive whole classes of it [the ballot] any longer?

                The most recent quotation is particularly apt because it speaks of depriving people of the ballot which they never had.

                • ivan_the_mad

                  LOL thanks, I know what deprive means. Your contention is still stupidly false. Abstentions or votes for a third-party candidate are categorically not votes that Romney would otherwise have. They are, quite simply, quite tautologically, abstentions and votes for third-party candidates.

                  • Blog Goliard

                    “Stupid”…”false”…

                    You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      Nah, I do know what they mean, thanks. I’m tired of people making the untrue statement that a vote for a third-party or an abstention is a vote for Obama. It’s simply not true on its face, and belies a poorly reasoned argument that conflates the actual result of an abstention or third-party vote with an untrue view of the election as a zero-sum game between Romney and Obama.

                      Arguing that someone ought to vote for Romney is fine and dandy. Asserting that any action other than to vote for Romney is a “essentially” a vote for Obama is stupidly false for reasons that have been detailed ad nauseam in numerous posts on this blog alone.

                    • Blog Goliard

                      Sadly, it is in fact a zero-sum game. In each state, there will be a finite number of votes cast. Either Romney or Obama will win a plurality of those votes. Those are the parameters of the game. If you refuse to vote for Obama, that hurts him and helps Romney. If you refuse to vote for Romney, that hurts him and helps Obama.

                      If the logic isn’t obvious enough, let’s draw an example with simplified numbers. Imagine an electorate with 100 voters. 47 of them vote for Obama. 46 of them vote for Romney. The other 7 either vote for other candidates or decline to vote for President at all.

                      It’s probably safe to presume that at least 2 of those 7 would really prefer that Obama be fired. By not voting Obama, they did help keep him from reaching 50%. But they did not keep Obama from winning…while if they had voted for Romney, they would have.

                      There are plenty of defensible reasons for not voting Romney. I’m not denying that. If those two voters hold those reasons more important than their desire to see Obama defeated, that’s their right, and it makes their voting decision entirely logical.

                      But that doesn’t change the fact that, if you live in a swing state, and you do not vote for Romney, you are in fact making it more likely that Obama will win. You can either acknowledge and accept that risk…or you can keep fuming about how people pointing out the risk are using stupid and false arguments.

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      Ok, fine BG. You’ve convinced me. I live in a very important swing state, Virginia. I’ll vote for Obama.

            • Ted Seeber

              Maybe only then the Republicans will start listening to moral conservatives, instead of just proposing fiscal conservatives like Romney who couldn’t care a rat’s ass about moral issues.

          • Arnold

            When did “decrement” and “increment” become verbs? Just reading that attack on good grammar gave me a headache. A vote for a third party candidate instead of the candidate with the best chance to beat Obama is effectively, assistance to Obama. This presumes that the third party voter opposes Obama rather than happens to like the third party candidate best. If the latter, then you are correct that Romney is not deprived of a vote. However, we all know that stopping Obama is the issue here. Stop playing with words.

            • Jay

              You, sir, are clearly not a computer scientist, to whom decrement and increment have always been verbs.

            • Andy, Bad Person

              However, we all know that stopping Obama is the issue here.

              No, no it’s not. You have completely missed the point. The point is to not hitch your vote to anyone who supports intrinsic evil, as both Obama and Romney do.

              My vote belongs to whomever I want it to. Romney isn’t entitled to it just because I dislike Obama. My vote is my vote, and it adds to the tally of whomever I vote for. It doesn’t subtract from anyone else.

              • Marty Helgesen

                “The point is to not hitch your vote to anyone who supports intrinsic evil, as both Obama and Romney do.” The point is to accomplish the greatest amount of good that it is possible to accomplish under the circumstances. Obama is, among other things, trying to force Catholic hospitals and other instittutions to pay for abortions for their employees. Romney is not trying to do that. That’s only one particularly evil action by Obama that Romney has not endorsed.

                “Romney isn’t entitled to it just because I dislike Obama.” No one has said the Romny is entitled to your vote. I believe that given the two major party candidates that are under consideration, a Romney victory would be much better for the country and for the Church than a Obama victory would be. That is why I will vote for Romney.

                ” My vote is my vote, and it adds to the tally of whomever I vote for. It doesn’t subtract from anyone else.” Given that Obama is worse than Romney and, as I’ve said earlier, barring a death or other major, unexpected event, one of those two men will be taking the oath of office as President next January I believe that Romney is the one to vote for. Abstaining or voting for a minor party candidate would take a vote away from him and make it more likely that Obama would be re-elected.

                • Andy, Bad Person

                  Abstaining or voting for a minor party candidate would take a vote away from him and make it more likely that Obama would be re-elected.

                  But why does my neglect take a vote from Romney? Why doesn’t it take a vote from Obama?

                  I demand that my vote for someone completely different damages that other guy that I don’t want to win.

                  That, or it’s clear you don’t understand how votes work.

                  • Marty Helgesen

                    But why does my neglect take a vote from Romney? Why doesn’t it take a vote from Obama?
                    Because if you had to vote for one of the two major candidates you probably would vote for Romney as being less objectionable. As I’ve said, Obama is trying to force Catholic institutions to pay for abortions. I don’t think there is any reason to think Romney would do that. Voting for a third party candidate might make you feel good, but it won’t have any practical effect. The practical reality is that one of the two major party candidates will be elected and Romney would be better than (or less bad than) Obama.

                    If I don’t understand how votes work please explain

                    You say, “I demand that my vote for someone completely different damages that other guy that I don’t want to win.” I don’t understand that and wonder if “demand” is the verb you wanted. If it is, of whom are you making that demand and how can he fulfll it? Given the fact that, excluding something drastic happening, Obama or Romney will take to the oath of office next January, Romney would be much better, or much less bad if you prefer, than Obama.

                • Andy

                  I don’t know how a Romney victory is bette for the church – he is disinterested in issues that do not have an impact on his ability to make money or the ability of folks like him to make money. To expect him to rescind the HHS mandate or do much about abortion is at best silly. He changed his views on abortion, same-sex marriage, the HHS mandate when during the primaries he had to to “secure” the conservative base. Looking at his record as governor. of Mass. should tell us that.
                  My vote is my vote and who I vote for has an impact on my sense of self.
                  I cannot vote for Obama for many reasons, beyond abortion and the HHS, nor can I vote for Romney for many reasons. Both have sold themselves like high priced (or cheap) hookers to win a vote. (You now see my basic view of most politicians)
                  To create change we have to vote for those who actually stand for what we believe in – I am voting for a third party candidate. I have yet to find a person who presents him or herself as a someone I can vote for. If more folks would vote for third party to candidates to show support for a needed change instead of dancing with the same to hookers we might actually see difference. Until then every four years it comes down to who is least evil, which is hardly a way to make a decision.

                  • Marty Helgesen

                    “If more folks would vote for third party to candidates to show support for a needed change instead of dancing with the same to hookers we might actually see difference.” But they won’t, at least not in a presidential election.

                    “Until then every four years it comes down to who is least evil, which is hardly a way to make a decision.” But as a practical matter it’s the only way we have.

                  • Blog Goliard

                    It makes no more sense to presume that a third party, and a third-party nominee, must necessarily be vastly better than the Republican Party and Mitt Romney–by virtue of not being them and being opposed to them–than to presume that the Republican Party and Mitt Romney must necessarily be vastly better than the Democratic Party and Barack Obama–by virtue of not being them and being opposed to them.

                    The number one reason people are so fond of the third-party dream is that it is just that: a dream, unsullied by the sorts of real-world flaws and compromises and outrages that are in our face all the time when they involve the major parties. You and I and everyone else can pine for a third party…and it doesn’t even have to be the same party, because so long as it remains a theoretical exercise, we don’t have to actually come to agreement on any of the thorny issues.

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      Speak for yourself. Some of us are so simple that we’ll just vote third-party simply because they align most closely with our morals and principles. As it turns out, voting is not horse-racing, and the goal is not to back a winning horse – it’s to exercise your civic duty as you see fit.

                    • Blog Goliard

                      Which third party would that be?

                      There are only two minor parties that have a nominee on 270 electoral votes’ worth of state ballots: the Libertarian Party, and the Green Party.

                      Neither of these parties’ platforms and nominees adhere more closely to my morals and principles than the Republicans’.

                    • Blog Goliard

                      And no, I wouldn’t consider writing in Virgil Goode to be exercising my civic duty any more than writing in Gandalf. Politics is the art of the possible in a fallen world, not the self-righteously quixotic pursuit of the spotless good.

  • Joannie

    I agree with what you are saying Mark, but what I take exception to as calling our Holy Father an “old Geezer in Rome” I know you were just trying to point out the President’s lies but that line reminds me of what King Frederick of Prussia said about Pope Pius IV “that old man in Rome whose stupid ceremonies will soon die out” Father Paul Marx gave us that quote. Obama did lie to the Pope to his face 3 years ago when he met him and “promised” him he would not only stop abortions but also read the new encyclical “Charity In Truth” and the document on human dignity both which he promised he would read on his way back home. No Catholic should re-elect him he is too evil.

    • Mark Shea

      Joanie: I think the world of B16. I’m simply meeting the Progressive Dissenter on his turf and saying, “If you are going to boast about Conscience Uber Alles (including the Word of God and the Teaching of the Church), then why are you such an unthinking conformist cow when the God King smashes the consciences of people who don’t want to be forced to pay for sterilizing and aborting other human beings?” The hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

  • Edward A. Hara

    Watching politics in this country is very much like watching a train wreck. You want to turn away in horror and disgust, but you find yourself mesmerized by the sheer insanity of it all.

  • Jordan Henderson

    Mark,

    You know, being bitterly critical of both Democrats and Republicans doesn’t *guarantee* that you are on the right side… But, it doesn’t hurt either.

    • Ted Seeber

      I don’t know what the Right side is, but I can sure recognize the wrong sides when I see them.

  • Will

    Polls are not the election, but I find it surprising that Romney/Ryan do not have a comfortable lead. Despite the economy and other issues, voters seem hesitant to support Romney/Ryan.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      I’m not surprised there at all. Polls that use a balance of metrics from 2004 AND 2008 have Romney in a healthy lead. It’s polls that only use the 2008 metrics (which are skewed in favor of college aged voters who will not vote this time around) are the only ones that show them tied.

      • Confederate Papist

        That is true…and notice they’ve not used 2010 metrics…..only Rasmussen, who was ranked most accurate, BTW (he called 08 and 10), uses metrics that would seem a bit more logical, as my sidebar in parentheses noted..

  • Ray Rechtin

    I have read this debate with a lot of consternation. Romney is not leading far out in the polls because most people, me included, do not completely trust him. That’s nothing new. It speaks to why he has had to run for President for 12 years. That said, his opponent, Obama, holds ideals that are such an anathema to mine that I can not in good conscience not vote for someone who has at least some chance of defeating him. Do I like my choices. No. But so what is new? I haven’t liked my choices for some time. Voting for a third party candidate only hopes the least desirable candidate as recent history has shown.
    To me it rather simple. I must oppose evil with all of my might, even if it means choosing someone who is less evil. Actions have consequences and when we throw or vote away we will answer for it both in this world and the next. We can not play the Priest or Levite and walk by on the opposite side of the road lest we make ourselves “unclean”. I, for one will sully myself and vote for the candidate who not only has a chance to win, but will probably do far less damage than the current occupier of the White House.
    Yes, as long as this is still the United States of America and not the United Socialist States of America, to vote for your favorite 3rd party candidate who has no chance to win and no chance to affect change in a positive manner. And yes, you still, for now anyway, still have the right to drive around town with a “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for _______” bumper sticker. And I will still, for at least another year or two, have the right to call you hypocritical. Don’t blame me when none of have these rights any more.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X