A perfectly respectable argument for Romney

A perfectly respectable argument for Romney October 15, 2012

…and one I am considering, from my good friend Dale Price:

He wasn’t even my fifth choice in this cycle, and his record is in many respects indistinguishable from that of the President.

Including on the central issue of religious freedom. Yeah, Mitt’s a bit of a giant liar on his record in Massachusetts.
But/However/Nonetheless Alert: He has promised in no uncertain terms to shred the HHS Mandate. Ditto his Catholic wingman, who made a big deal of it during the Veep debate.

Why do I believe Romney? Because it takes no political courage to shred it–it costs him nothing with any other constituency that’s supporting him to do so. But it will needlessly alienate social conservatives if he doesn’t. Being that Mitt’s not remotely stupid, he’ll do what he says on this one.

In other words, Bonchamps is right, and after much grim wrangling with the issue, that’s enough for me. I want someone who will take the boot off the Church’s throat, and hand it back to the Left. With the foot still in it.

“Here you go. Don’t do that again, champ.”

If the only guy who will do it is Romney, then that’s the sway-backed, spavined rhino I have to back.

I totally hear that and can completely respect it.  On the question of life issues, I do not, in my heart, believe Romney will achieve anything other than what he and the GOP have already consistently labored to do: namely, to persuade prolifers to move from being prolife to being willing to kill those innocents inconvenient to the GOP’s shot at power.  That is, at present Romney’s single solitary contribution to our national conversation on abortion: he has persuaded a formerly prolife candidate for Veep to prostitute himself and approve of the murder of victims conceived in rape and incest.  Most Americans approve of such murders, so Ryan has chosen to abandon these innocents to the will of his boss: a man who paid with his own money to make sure that any of his own grandchildren who gave signs of being defective in utero would be killed.  That, and that alone, is all Romney has concretely achieved.  And it is all I think he will achieve.

This long-term corruption of the prolife movement into a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP, cheering for enthusiastic supporters of Roe, just so long as they are Republican, is a process now well under way.  Just yesterday, I was being informed by a devotee of Romney that he endorses no grave intrinsic evil at all (she apparently has forgotten that whole thing about how innocent human life can never be deliberately destroyed under any circumstance).  When I pointed out that killing people who are conceive in rape is still murder, she responded with the intelligent argument of blocking me on Facebook.

Effective.  And that is the net effect that a man like Mitt Romney is having on the prolife movement:  teaching that movement not to recognize a cynical duplicitous liar, but to pretend that, because he is slightly less awful than Obama, he is God’s Man and those who warn  he is a cynical duplicitous liar are opposing God’s Anointed.  However, the fault of that lies not with Romney but with  a prolife movement so consumed with the hunger for earthly power that it is willing to sell its soul, not merely to cut a deal or to (as Dale realistically does) sigh and admit that Romney is the Sucks Less candidate, but to lie to itself that Mitt Romney is a good man and even “God’s servant” as I have seen some suckers for Romney call him.

No.  He is not a good man.  He is a man who would abort his own grandchild–just like Obama.  He is a man who has lied repeatedly on multiple issues, including his own pro-abort record.  He is a man who has sent multiple signals that he has not the slightest intention of doing anything about abortion at all beyond a couple of minor bones to the prolife movement (Mexico city and semidefunding PP) in order to buy the silence and cooperation of dutiful prolifers who will prostitute themselves for war and torture for him as they did for Bush.  The embarrassing spectacle of watching the prolife movement try to get itself into the headspace of trying to say he is not merely the Barely Sucks Less candidate (Dale’s honest and clear-eyed assessment) but is actually a prolife candidate is the single greatest impediment to my voting for him.  Far more than any actual benefits to be derived from this odious man is the profoundly corrupting effect people like he and Scott Brown have had on the prolife movement.  If the salt loses its savor, wherewith shall it be salted?  It is good for nothing but to be trampled underfoot.  That is why I have been so adamant that the main thing to look at in this election has not been the essentially non-existent impact your vote will have on the election, but the immensely important impact it will have on you.

That said, I appreciate Dale’s clear-eyed assessment.  The one and only reason I can see that might constitute a proportional justification for voting for Romney is that, as Dale says, this man with a moral core of tofu has something to gain and nothing to lose by overturning the HHS mandate.  There’s no guarantee he will, but he might.  He is, after all, the same despicable man who ordered Catholic hospitals to dispense the morning after pill and the guy who just a couple months ago was holding fundraisers at the home of its manufacturer.  So it’s not a slam dunk that he will overturn the mandate, but he might.  Depends on how much his crony capitalist buddies care about it, not how much Catholics care about it.  I have no sense of that particular situation and would be interested in hearing from readers who do.

Romney is, never forget, seeking the presidency to serve the crony capitalist class.  That’s it.  That’s all.  That’s what the 47% video made clear.  If there is no objection from those who stand to profit from the HHS Mandate, then he might overturn it to secure some of his base for next time.  But if it appears to him that a) his rich friends won’t like it if he opposes the Mandate and b) most Catholics are comfy with free contraceptive candy and don’t much care about this little fetish of the bishops, he is just as likely to blow it off since he is, you know, a documented multiple liar with absolutely no principles beyond his own will to power.  So it’s a tradeoff and a gamble.  Do you, like Dale, hope that he might accidently do the right thing as he panders?  Or do you think, as I do on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturday/Sundays, that the main issue is not “How will my vote affect the election?” but “How is the prolife movement’s embarrassing attempt to persuade itself the Romney is a good man forcing prolifers to prostitute and lie to themselves?”  Dale doesn’t lie to himself, which is why I respect his argument.  As the election approaches, more and more prolifers, trying to gin themselves up to vote for Romney out of fear of Obama, do lie to themselves and try to pretend that Romney’s “commitments” on abortion and the Mandate mean anything other than cynical duplicitous pandering and, worst of all, spend all their energy, not pressuring Romney to keep his empty promises, but pressuring other prolifers to shut up and get in line and deny the obvious about Romney’s lies and duplicity.

I still haven’t made up my mind on Dale’s argument.  But it’s the issue that bothers me.  I totally respect Dale’s argument and may yet buy it because Dale doesn’t lie to himself about what sort of man Romney is.  But the strongest arguments I’ve seen against voting Romney have come, not from Obama supporters, but from Romney supporters who say utterly delusional things about his supposed “conversion”, or who demand that I ignore my stupid conscience since winning is everything, or who pretend that approval of just a few murder of innocents is not gravely and intrinsically evil, or who speak with contempt about refusal of grave intrinsic evil worthy of the fires of hell as “perfectionism”.  Nobody has done a better job of filling me with grave foreboding about the profoundly corrupting effect the GOP has had on the prolife movement than its own “prolife” supporters.  We are supposed to leaven the world, not the world leaven us.

"Sure, Christians need to be prepared for persecution, just count me suspicious of anyone not ..."

The illusion of the conservative white ..."
"It seems we've reached an impasse. Good day!"

The illusion of the conservative white ..."
"The golds I listed above were from America; the pastors I cited were American. There ..."

The illusion of the conservative white ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • IC

    “Moral core of tofu” made me spit out my lunch, FYI.

  • brandon

    Thank you Mark, I am so digusted by poeples willingness to overlook every fault about this man because he’s “pro-life”. If it weren’t for abortion and the hhs I would vote for Mr Obama, as it is I’m really thinking about voting third party. I don’t know if this is the right way to think but in a way I kinda want to tell the people who are trying to push the Church out of the public sphere “Have a crack at it, see how you like it when we aren’t able to care for the sick and dying the orphans the poor. see how you like it when taxes have to go up to educate all those who are no longer in Catholic schools, see how you like it.” certainly it’s not ideal and I’d much rather have the Churches social branches be able to operate like they did 50 years ago but hey if this country doesn’t appreciate the Church maybe it’s time to let them see how they really do like it without our services. Just my though but I gotta say you hit the nail right on the head. I do not trust Willard Mitt Romney for one minute and the republican party is not the great bastion of hope that certain people make it out to be.
    God bless 🙂

  • FdS

    Mark, is there any chance — and maybe I’m trying too hard to cut Mitt the benefit of the doubt here — that he was trying to save the life of, not abort, his grandchild? After all, all the agreement does is take the abortion question our of the hands of the “surrogate” and put it in the hands of the “intended” parents. (Forget, for a moment, how utterly creepy all this surrogate business is in the first place.) Assuming that the “intended parents” (read: customers arranging for the purchase of a human being) are committed pro-lifers, this would effectively ensure the baby would survive should it prove “abnormal,” regardless of the surrogate’s (read: mother’s) opinion on the matter.

    Not that I know this to be the case, but I wonder if the possibility should deter us from jumping to the worst possible interpretation of Mitt and his son’s motives. (FYI, I’m not inclined to vote for the guy, either.)

  • Frank Weathers

    I’m with Dale on this one. The reason he posits <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2012/07/mitt-romney-says-we-are-all-catholics-now.html&quot;.is about the only one that holds water. In my book, it’s a start.

    Mr. Obama has got to go. His Administration’s boot on our necks is starting to make us light-headed (as we fade to black…).

  • Mark, I really appreciate the effort and thought you’ve put into this work and especially the documenting links. I’ve been warring in a similar vein with various Facebook commenters about the supposed necessity for voting for Romney. It has been very helpful to share your posts as conversation fodder.

  • Confederate Papist

    Romney is the GOP Establishment candidate – and he’s not a republican, he’s a Republican.
    He’s not a conservative.
    But…he will, as you say, take the boot off of the neck of the Church. He will not give away contraceptive candies nor force the Church or Church-related organisations to do so.
    I was going to write in “Jefferson Davis”, but as I live in Florida, I am going to vote for Romney because of the above indicated possible cancelling of the War on the Catholic Church Tyrant Obama has been waging and because Florida is a swing State and I believe it needs to go into the Romney column. If I was in a “safe” State like my home State of Georgia, Davis would be getting my vote.
    I am extremely ticked about the “exception” line of bravo sierra. I am really voting against Obama more than I am for Romney as either way we’ll still end up with a Tyrant.

    • Chris M

      I’m in the same Floridian boat. However, if I can get two of my formerly Obama supporting friends to pledge to vote third party, I will as well.

      • Mike Petrik

        Don’t trust ’em.

        • Mr. Petrik,
          Do you know Chris M and his two friends? If not, why one Earth should he take the counsel of a stranger to distrust his friends? On any matter.

          He may have a very loose definition of friend, but don’t you think he would be a better judge of the trustworthiness of these two individuals than you or I?

  • Michel

    I’m with you, Mark. A thoughtful argument is emerging that can justify voting and hoping for “the extra hideous candidate to lose, and the slightly less hideous candidate to win with such a slight margin that he gets a hernia from watching the TV so hard on election night” to quote Simcha Fisher. But boy, does this require eking out the slimmest and limpest of reasons! I can’t understand the likes of John Zmirak who feels he is standing on solid enough ground to get on his high horse and proclaim that “it’s almost criminal not to vote for the strongest candidate against Obama” (in today’s Register comboxes for his snarky post). That kind of faith about what the right answer is in this mess totally blows my mind…

    • rakowskidp

      I’ve just finished reading Zmirak’s blog post and the comments that followed. I think that was the most mean-spirited and intellectually dishonest defenses of voting for Romney I’ve read so far, and that’s saying a lot. According to him, people with reservations about Romney are either scrupulous, rage-filled nihilists or secret opponents of the Church attempting to peel off pro-life voters for the Democrats. And his attack on Erin Manning was simply breathtaking.

      And this is what the GOP’s purportedly pro-life stance has wrought. Lord, help us.

      • Andy, Bad Person

        Yikes. I just searched for said entry, and my estimation of Mr. Zmirak, which had previously been quite high, has gone very far down.

        Really? You want to accuse Erin Manning of having ulterior motives for avoiding Romney?

        • rakowskidp

          Yeah, no kidding. Erin Manning is one of the most thoughtful members of the Catholic blogosphere.

          • I’m not quite sure who this Erin Manning is (google has several results) – can anyone point me in that direction? email is creativefidelity(dot)wordpress(at)gmail(dot)com.

        • Well, we all know who traditionally has associated with the color red.

          And isn’t the cardigan the official lounge wear of that closet commie Fred Rogers?

        • Andy, Bad Person

          My mind is still blown about that post. I finally had to comment thusly:

          Whenever I read of Catholics who urge us not to vote for the most electable pro-life candidate, I mutter: “Andrew.”

          This might be the slimiest, most intellectually dishonest strawman arguments I’ve read in a long time. Between that and your outright slander of Erin Manning, you’ve lost a reader here.

          But probably because I secretly support abortion, or something.

          Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/john-zmirak/he-spilled-his-vote-upon-the-ground/#ixzz29PbBuNXK

          • rakowskidp

            Andy, I also responded. I am still stunned by the intellectual dishonesty of his argument. I’ve seen some mean-spirited stuff this election season, but what he said in response to Erin Manning takes the cake.

        • orthros

          Zmirak has just redefined neo-conservatism. He is the first neo-neocon.

          • orthros

            Oh, and if were Erin Manning’s husband, I’d kick his ass.

  • R. Howell

    I’m fine with Romney. Here’s why.
    I do not expect to find politicians with deep passionate personal convictions that match mine. I hope to see some elected who have committed themselves to advancing issues the way I would like and are likely to do so.

    On abortion, there is only a little a president can actually do. He can nibble away at fringe issues like funding for abortion overseas and at military hospitals, and take the right side on things like protests at abortion clinics. And he can nominate justices for the Supreme Court whose records suggest they just might vote someday to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    That’s it. That’s all the next president can do. I believe Romney will do those things. I’m 100% certain Obama won’t. So on abortion, Romney’s the clear winner.

    • Mike Petrik

      Exactly right. On all counts.

      • Peggy R

        Me too.
        One need not find Romney to be a saint or savior to vote for him. We’re talking about running our government, as a primary duty of the president. I do think the way to undo Roe is via state law.I am fully aware he’s not quite pro-life. Pro-life legislation is more likely with him than with Barry.

        • Peggy R

          P.S. Mark and others completely lose me on criticizing Mitt’s economics. Barry is practicing “crony capitalism” in an unprecedented open way. Yes, there’s always been some of that, but Mitt doesn’t need to do that. He has made his millions. He might do some favor-granting, but it won’t be fiscally stupid as the GM bailout and Solyndra stuff were.
          He’s concerned about markets and economic liberty. I support that emphatically.

        • Simcha Fisher:
          “Well, after life with Obama, I think differently. I would be immensely grateful to have a president who only does a little bit of harm, instead of striding around the globe with a meat cleaver, the way Obama has done. All right?

          “So that’s why I’m voting for Romney. I don’t really think he’s terribly pro-life . . . but he’s not avidly pro-abortion, like Obama. I don’t really think he gets what’s so bad about Romneycare . . . but he’s not going to use heathcare as a Catholic-persecuting machine, like Obama did. I’ll be voting against Obama, and I think I have a serious responsibility to do that. I’m not thinking about four years down the road, or what “message” I’m sending to the GOP by appearing to support a joke like Romney. I’m just trying to stop the bleeding.”

    • Hear, hear. No one can say that one’s candidate will implement the exact piece of legislation upon which a voter hankers, since there are contingent, geopolitical, congressional complexities beyond all reckoning–but a voter can CAST his vote in the right DIRECTION for the good of the commonwealth based on firm moral principles. Casting an optimal vote does not mean holding out for a perfect vote, a temptation contrary both to reason and akin to heretical millenarianism. Our votes must always move the polity towards the truth by faith and hope, but must never be sacrificed as empty acts based on despair or millenarian rigorism. And now I’ll cite a post by Steven Schloeder:

      Dr. Peter J. Colosi points out that Ryan’s position on abortion is acceptable under the teaching of Evangelium Vitae #73 by Pope John Paul II — it is a question of gradualism. Those who continue to oppose Ryan on rigorist “Catholic” grounds (and I am thinking particularly of Mark Shea) need to answer to this:

      “It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to
      introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”

      The Church accepts gradualism — voting (or policy implementation) to lessen evils as one is able to is a good that needs no further justification. To brandish it as “the lesser of two evils” as the rigorists do is an injustice to the obviously good intentions of Mr. Ryan.

  • Paul H

    Mark, I often disagree with you on political issues, but I am with you here. It is hard to justify a vote for Romney, except with an argument that he will do less harm than Obama (which is essentially how I see Dale Price’s argument). Nevertheless, I am leaning toward voting for him based on that argument.

    I am tempted to vote for a third-party or write-in candidate. However, one way to look at it is that I already had the chance to vote for a better candidate, which I did in the Republican primary. (I voted for Ron Paul.) But Ron Paul lost to Romney, and as a result, Romney is who we are stuck with. So in a way, I have already had my chance to make my true preference known with my vote in the Republican primary, and therefore I feel less bad about voting for Romney in the general election.

    But having said all that, I still haven’t made up my mind 100%, except for the fact that you couldn’t pay me enough money to vote for Obama.

    • Kristen inDallas

      I believe you can still register your primary vote somewhere on the Paul site… they were doing a whole thing to prove vote rigging in the primaries and I believe have been successful in a couple jurisdictions (More Paul supporters certifying their vote the long way than had been reported at the precint leel.) To be honest, that’s the only reason I even vote anymore. Statistically my one vote is pretty useless in a national election… but a vote at the precinct level, especially a low-count 3rd party vote, is pretty statistically significant when it comes to outing a cheater. 🙂

  • Joseph

    I have been Independent since I saw the true GOP light long ago. They’re a joke. Look what the GOP did in California last primary telling us Independents we had no right to vote, esentially telling us that McCain WILL be the nominee for the Republican party…period!

    But Mark, if I may…as contraception is an abortifacient, the HHS mandate IS a “pro life issue”. You’d be in their camp regarding the mandate anyway, though maybe under the banner of religious liberty. Sure, the pro life camp can be susceptible to a little self- administered Kool-Aid infusion and they are sometimes hypocritical (you’re right – no unborn child, *regardless of the circumstances*, should ever be killed – EVER). But I believe some other readers have already tried to take the religious liberty angle with you, yet to no avail (until possibly now).

    Just curious.

  • Has Ryan actually said he is in favor of abortion in the case of rape/incest/life of the mother? The impression I got was that he laid out Romney’s platform, not necessarily claiming it as his own. I wouln’t be shocked to see a politician betray the pro-life movement, but I’m not convinced that has happened to Ryan.

    I don’t trust Romney. I think he lacks conviction and a moral compass. I do think that he is the better choice in this election, which is a very close one. My argument in favor of Romney is this: What will the United States look like 1 year from election day if Obama is elected vs Romney. In my opinion, Obama will wage an all-out war on morality and religion. Romney propably will not. Given that, could I live with myself if I didn’t vote against Obama?

    My vote will be for Romney, not because he is a good choice, but because he is the only alternative to a candidate with utterly evil implications.

    • Mark Shea

      What matters is what he endorses as policy, not how he feels about it. Stop making excuses for “personally opposed” BS when it’s a Republican doing it. Ryan is a whore for some forms of murder of innocents, when they get in the way of his shot at power and prolifers need to face that squarely and stop making excuses for it. Every time they do make excuses they only serve to illustrate my point about the corrupting effect conservative politics has had on the prolife movement.

      • Remember too that Joe Biden says he is “personally opposed to abortion”, so that phrase means nothing. I’d use the term “blind accomplice to murder”, not “whore”, to describe Ryan (less sexual).

        • Mark Shea

          He’s not blind. He, more than most, knows exactly what he is selling out to.

          • Mike Petrik

            Yes, and every pro-life organization in the nation is a sell-out when they support legislation that would significantly limit abortion if the legislation falls short of prohibiting it. Endorsing imperfect platforms and imperfect legislation does not necessarily equal endorsing the imperfections.

            • I am glad someone finally offered a stirring defense of Joe Biden. It is about damn time!!!

              • Mike Petrik

                The string refers to Ryan not Romney. Read.

              • Mike Petrik

                Biden is on record as believing that the law should allow abortion — not so Ryan.

                • Actually, not so anymore. Learn to listen.

                  • Mike Petrik

                    I listen better than guys with fake names.

                    • Then you missed the veep debate, Mr. Petrik. He is now on record as believing the law should allow abortion. He just isn’t as, shall we say, broadminded as Biden. But he has already started the compromise, like Jesse Jackson did.

                    • Mike Petrik

                      HG, you are wrong. I did listen to the debate and just read the transcript.

            • Andy, Bad Person

              Yes, and every pro-life organization in the nation is a sell-out when they support legislation that would significantly limit abortion if the legislation falls short of prohibiting it.

              That’s a big leap of faith. It assumes that Romney would be against all abortion, everywhere, if only he could afford to in his platform. I don’t buy it. He is on record as specifically being for it in cases of rape or incest. Pro-life organizations aren’t.

              • He is on record as being pro-choice.

              • Mike Petrik

                No. The string refers to Ryan, not Romney.

      • Jesse Jackson was once adamantly pro-life, recognising it as Black Genocide.

        Then he got a half decent shot at the One Ring in 1983-1984, and look at what has happened to his soul…

        Ryan is playing with fire.

        • Pathfinder

          Good catch.
          For myself, I find that most “pro-lifers” sold themselves out a long time ago — back when they came to the conclusion that somehow being anti-abortion was the same as being pro-life…and then patted themselves on the back for their sanctity and goodness….and didn’t care in the least for any other form of killing, could become very vocal in supporting it with not even one question asked.

          • Both sides want to sew us all up in a seamless shroud.

            Not sure who coined that term, but much love to that man.

        • Jenny

          I wonder how many Christian conservatives supported Jesse Jackson when he was pro-life. Probably very few. Why not?

          Obvious answer being that he was on the wrong ‘team.’ Abortion always takes a second place to being on the right ‘team’ when it comes to conservative politics.

          • the question to pose is this: If we could have a nation, or even a world, where life was honestly valued from conception to natural death for all human beings and that all human beings would be free in the sense that they can follow the path God lays out for them, but in return the wealthiest half of society would have to accept paying all the taxes, how ever they choose to split the bill among themselves, and all people would have to surrender all their weapons, and all but one person would have to surrender all political power, is that worth it?

            Short form, which is more important, guns, lower taxes and democracy, or the Church’s vision of the truly human?

            • Pathfinder

              The Church’s vision of the world would be the nicer one to live in — but it is also utopia. Utopias don’t happen, but many try to foist a vision of utopia off on people…and that usually leads to carnage and tears.
              My opinion is that it’s probably a bridge too far to ask for that sort of thing on the macro level, because it’s hard enough to pull off on the individual level — then the only thing left for us is to try to be good…and not be hypocrites.

            • David Davies

              You may NOT have my rocks……………..

  • “Nobody has done a better job of filling me with grave forboding about the profoundly corrupting effect the GOP has had on the prolife movement than its own “prolife” supporters. We are supposed to leaven the world, not the world leaven us.”

    Absolutely perfect, Mark–except for the spelling of “foreboding”. :-p Bravissimo!

  • Jamie R

    It would take no political courage for Obama to shut down Guantanamo bay prison. It would cost him nothing with any other constituency that’s supporting him to do so. But it will needlessly alienate liberals and progressives if he didn’t.

    • Jenny

      Actually it would have taken tremendous political courage for Obama to have shut down Guantanamo Bay prison. If he had done the things he promised about ending torture and our endless wars he’d probably be up against a stronger candidate than Romney and would be far behind in the polls. Democratic presidents know if they want to pursue a liberal agenda at home they have to play into our need to push people around in other countries.

      I can just imagine the Rush Limbaugh show after Obama closed Gitmo. The hysteria about making America less safe, etc. etc. etc.

      I’m sure I’m not alone in believing that only a Republican president can end our addiction to war and that only a Democratic president can end our addiction to entitlements.

  • Frank Weathers

    Mark’s right that we absolutely have to keep these political blokes feet to the fire. Canonizing politicians because they are “on our side,” is disingenuous at best, and foolhardy at least. Be a gadfly. We need to be like this fellow,

    Shimei, the son of Gera of the same clan as Saul’s family, …coming out of the place, cursing as he came.

  • Mark, I couldn’t spout better more more accurate vitriol if had mainlined espresso while freebasing the New York Times. Keep preaching it.

  • I have a buttress for Dales argument…

    A Romney presidency would have a lot of its evils, evils indistinguishable from the current administration, shouted from the rooftops by the providers of most of the news, rather than those evils being hidden under a bushel basket. Of course, the corrilary is Fox would go silent, but the majority of Americans ignore that particular organ, even if it holds a plurality.

    So he probably will reverse the HHS mandate, but the Old Gray Hag will suddenly find her ‘conscience’ again.

  • CP,

    I won’t write in Davis, but if you’ll vote Romney (blech,ptui!) in Florida, I’ll write in Stand Waite here in GA.

    Neither of us get precisely what we want, but its a compromise.

    • Confederate Papist

      Gotcha Hez! 😉

      The thing is it’s not just a “vote and go home” thing, more like “vote and kick them in the ass so they keep their promise or you’re gonna vote them out” thing now. It used to be that way with our ancestors but today’s electorate doesn’t do that anymore….they vote and watch ET, DWTS or TMZ…or all of the above.

      • I saw ET at the picture show as a small child, and I know what TMZ is. But, for the life of me, I have no idea what DWTS means. I doubt I want to though, considering TMZ.

        But I liked ET. The picture show was in the mall in Rome. It was my birthday, I was 6. We ate in a restaurant and they gave me a slice of cake gratis, and sang Happy Birthday. Daddy bought me a 4ft long Styrofoam glider too. I enjoyed the the ‘waggle wing’ for years. I didn’t enter another mall until I was a sailor. Didn’t eat in a restaurant again until I was 16, and it was an Awffle House.

        • I had steak and eggs, with a large, scattered smothered, covered, and peppered.

          And extra toast. Come home, man!!!

      • Dancing With the Stars? That’s one weird-@$$ concept for a show. People watch that?

  • Jose

    I don’t think he will reverse the HHS mandate. The majority in this country don’t desire or care about that issue. It will be a non-issue for him and will not be something he will need to worry about to gain votes. Probably only 50,000 people are upset about it. Not enough to pander to, compared to the screams of Planned Parenthood. Remember the Komen foundation funding switcheroo.

    • Confederate Papist

      Jose, I think you’re wrong.

      If you’re right, there’s bigger problems…

    • Ted Seeber

      This is why I’m having problems voting for Romney- and why my wife bounces between Obama and Mickey Mouse. I just can’t see Mr.Etch-a-Sketch not double crossing us on this issue, if he perceives that it is in his best interests to do so.

      And there aren’t enough committed Catholics even sitting in the pews (or in my parish, even serving as Extraordinary Ministers) to make a difference.

  • Mark – I’ve never lied to myself about what any GOP candidate may or may not do for the pro-life movement, including Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. As we saw with Bart Stupak, politics can cause a politician with good intentions to deceive himself into thinking something cockamamie can actually work.

    I’m going to vote for Mitt not because I believe fully that he will do all that he says for the pro-life movement, but to stop the hemorrhage caused by Obama’s butchery in the White House. Obama has stacked most every office with people advancing abortion, euthanasia, and assaults on marriage and religious liberty. I don’t believe Mitt will continue on that path at all.

    On Supreme Court, I know all too well how Republican presidents have burned pro-lifers. After what happened with Obamacare in the Supreme Court last year, I think Mitt is going to pay special attention to the selection of justices. I”m also realistic enough to know that no president can get into the head of a justice who is thought to be a strict constitutionalist. After all, how many true expert court-watchers expected that outcome?

    The path I am choosing is to go ahead and vote for Mitt to stop the hemorrhage and to get on my knees and pray for Romney and Ryan to be showered with graces and hope they act on them. I prayed before that first debate, offering my Mass intention up for Mitt to not only do well in the debate, but to have the integrity and character to follow through on the right things.

    I don’t like the “exceptions clause” Romney has taken on for the campaign. That said, when the house is on fire, you don’t worry about how clean the bathroom is.

    • Pathfinder

      Mitt will likely burn people on the marriage definition thing too. His record in MA is troubling in more than one area.
      His foreign policy alone, or at least what he says about it, should give people pause — talk about “pro-life”…is cheering on a man who would use our troops in even more theaters of conflict, after 11 years of war and with little end-game and no apparent planning for the consequences, pro-life?
      Tell that to the families of our troops.
      Ah, I suppose it is different: the troops volunteer, and thus they can be used in any way we see fit — we’ll give them a pretty funeral with patriotic music and weep for them in newspaper write-ups commending them for their valor…

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUCWFfe2qRo

        Gently they trade her a flag for her son. A harder exchange never took place in Harlan…

        I may talk smack about Americans. But I respect those white folks that took our mountains from us face to face…

        • Pathfinder

          If we respected our troops, we would use them effectively. In this Obama has been a disaster (although he has done some things not quite incorrect) , but Romney could be, by every bit of evidence shown, be an even bigger one. Strategically his foreign policy has some huge holes, and militarily…well, the man has even less awareness of that than Obama, although how that can be possible I do not know.
          I refuse to vote for either of them — I’m a veteran, my family on both sides is heavily populated with veterans and actives/reservists, my children are active — I am tired of seeing “my people” used and pandered to.

          • I don’t mean the troops in my comment, I mean “hillbillies”.

            • Pathfinder

              Ah…but then again, hillbillies and the like (and they are far more close to one another than even they can imagine) make up a significant proportion of our armed services, so there’s that.
              So I guess “my people” can go double in my post 😉

  • Nate

    I’m voting for the “We won’t bomb wedding parties with drones” party.
    Which one is that?

    I like Dale Price’s argument. I might add to it this: when it comes to drones, Guantanamo Bay, and the Kill List, Obama is indistinguishable from Romney. But as long as the progressives have their Golden Child in the White House, none one is going to say peep. The only folks who are currently protesting this nonsense are fringe groups like Code Pink, and only fringe liberal media outlets are talking about this stuff. But if Romney wins, while nothing will change policy wise, it will get more notice and press…and perhaps a bunch of bad press from the liberal MSM will trigger more lay-led activism, and this will get us to stop these atrocities.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    I’m still voting Third Party, but I give a wholehearted sincere salute to Mr. Price for the word “spavine.” He’s the first blogger in a long while that sent me to the dictionary to look up a word.

    • I find your magniloquent ostentation most invidious.

      • But as a former vet’s assistant, bone spavins are not unfamiliar. In people they are often called spurs.

  • Jose,

    I am pretty doubtful as well, but…

    Even though only 50k care about this, there is still far more who will support a man who makes Planned Barrenhood howl. Their supporters don’t even enter his calculus.

  • Charles

    I have to say, there an awful lot of assumptions being made about the surrogacy contract. Seems like general provisioning allowing the surrogate to decide the issue if her life is in danger according to her physician.
    That may be standard poop in a contract for surrogacy – which by the way I don’t agree with as a method for bearing children. It is not God’s desire or method. (we can see this in the story of Abraham and Hagar and the eternal enmity of her offspring and Israel.)
    As to the other part of the paragraph 13, simply funding the surrogacy does not make one guilty of the contractual language. If he was paying for his son, and his son insisted on the clause, it does not mean Mitt necessarily agreed to it, only that he funded the method.
    There are many cases of our funding groups and organizations and government wherein there is an intrinsic evil in part of the outcome of our funding that we allow to slide.
    As to the issue of conscience, that is all well and good as far as it can go. But what about the good stewardship/citizenship God requires of us while we are in the world, but not of the world? You cannot say that your vote cast for an individual that has no possibility of winning due to the nature of the system is good citizenship/stewardship. For you KNOW that by casting that vote, you are joining all others who do so in removing votes form a potential candidate that while not perfect, can move the country toward a more viable future wherein we can still work to bring our candidate to the forefront. In other words, allowing time to germinate in the populace.
    By casting that “vote of conscience” for a non-viable candidate you are participating in returning or placing to power the worst of the two intrinsic evils.
    How do you think that sits with God as to your stewardship/citizenship? AND also in doing so, you then force everyone to partake in that evil by paying the taxes imposed on us following that win to enact the laws that usher in that evil on a grander scale and forcing everyone into a martyr situation (to pay the tax or not to pay the tax that supports the evil)?
    Face it, we are ALL already guilty of participating int he intrinsic evil of abortion because we ALL pay our taxes, and the government funds abortion, either knowingly or unknowingly. Following an Obama win though, it will be a definite funding of Abortions.
    Seems we are all playing intellectual and linguistic olympics in order to avoid DOING what must be done. Namely voting for the better of two evils.
    Just saying…

    • Andy, Bad Person

      By casting that “vote of conscience” for a non-viable candidate you are participating in returning or placing to power the worst of the two intrinsic evils.
      How do you think that sits with God as to your stewardship/citizenship?

      Well, hell is hell, whether it’s one intrinsic evil or the other that gets me there.

  • I’m voting for Romney, not because I think he’s perfect. I’m voting for him because he is NOT Obama. Unfortunately, that’s where we are right now politically, and that’s the best I can do with my vote.

    I have to say that I continue to be disappointed with Mark’s tone and lack of charity. This is probably the last time I’ll visit here. I’ve learned so much from Mark’s blog in the past but I just can’t accept the angry rhetoric anymore. Mark’s comment at 11:18 is all too commonplace and it’s depressing to read a gifted, Christian reader succumb to such vitriol.

    • Edit to my 12:40 comment: “reader” should be “writer”

    • “I just can’t accept the angry rhetoric anymore, now that it is directed at the GOP.”

      I fixed it for you, Nerina, gratis.

  • Will

    If he cared about the environment. If he planned to reasonably reduce the military budget. If he …

  • Andy

    I have no confidence that Romney will overturn HHS, look at who conducted a fund-raiser with, look at his behaviors as the Governor of Mass. If a decision doesn’t involve money, he won’t be interested. I can appreciate Mr. Price’s argument, but I can’t not even begin to accept it. Romney was a moderate until the primaries when he became a “severe conservative”. He was falling behind in the polls and during the first debate became a moderate again, only to have his handlers walk it back. To be honest, other than making money, I cannot determine what the man stands for. At least with Obama I know what is there – not an endorsement of Obama – merely an observation.
    As long as we let the republicans talk the talk about abortion but do nothing about it, nothing will happen. The sooner folks realize that abortion is nothing more, for political types, than a straw to stir the drink we will never see any any movement.

  • On the other hand, Romney is more gung-ho about killing Iranians than Obama. If someone like Romney had been in office for these last four years then I would expect us to be at war with Iran by now; Obama, though no stranger to unjust war and killing innocent foreigners, has at least kept us out of Iran and it is the one thing that I think that he has done at least half right.

    If Romney’s really serious about repealing the HHS Mandate then essentially I get to choose between religious persecution or unjust war. Still doesn’t seem like a choice to me.

    Something else that I think requires consideration is that Obama was the reactionary result of the terrible Bush presidency. I would hate to see what kind of tyrant the American people would elect in reaction to four years under Romney. Sometimes I almost feel that it would be better to endure four more years of Obama and have an American people react in disgust to what he stands for than to revolt against what Romney pretends to represent (the pro-life cause, traditional marriage, the free market etc.) and elect another cool progressive like Obama promising change we can believe in.

    If the Republican Party can’t give us decent candidates then I say lets starve them of our votes.

    • Your post reminds me of this John Adams quote:

      “Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies.”

    • Andy

      Very well said and a much better statement than I posted. Thank you!

    • Ted Seeber

      As opposed to Libya? And I have no doubt Iran is on Obama’s hit list for a 2nd term

      • Ted might not agree, but I want to say it…

        I trust nuclear weapons in the hands of a millenia-old, fairly stable nation of people than in the hands of a bunch of functionally literate revolutionaries with a God-complex.

      • Pathfinder

        Doubtful, unless he goes full idiot.
        Iran is militarily and strategically not Iraq, or even Afghanistan (and those have worked out so well, especially Afghanistan). It also isn’t culturally, socially, or politically those places. And we are not the same nation that we were in ’01 — politically, socially, or militarily.
        As for Syria — that also is not Libya (socially, militarily, and strategically — plus that has so far worked out so well as well), and although it is tempting (for many reasons) the time isn’t ripe (and may never be). We don’t know who is behind many of these revolutionary groups; plus, there is the continuing situation between Turkey (a NATO ally) and Syria. Probably it’s best to just keep some observers over there and show some restraint, even though restraint is difficult.

    • Susan

      Romney is more “gung ho” about killing Iranians than Obama? What is your evidence? Links, please (I’m actually certain you have none…other than links to liberal opinion pieces). Just because Romney is going to do everything in his power to protect this country and our allies from a nuclear weapon-wielding Iran (providing for the national defense is the President’s #1 Constitutional duty)…that makes him “gung ho” about killing him some Muslims? Which candidate sends out drones and slaughters countless Muslims civilians without blinking? Which candidate has attacked the Catholic Church and will continue to do so? Which candidate supports infanticide? You’re supposition that Romney will indiscriminately kill Iranians is just that – a supposition based on political stereotypes. The FACTS are that Obama has indiscriminately killed Muslim civilians in countries with which we’re not at war. And Obama supports abortion on demand and infanticide.

      • Historically, in this century, Republican presidents and Democrat presidents have held the same foreign policies, building, in a bipartisan fashion, on one another’s disregard for human life.

        But the beauty of an etch a sketch is their is no evidence of what it was int he past, or will be in the future. It is a blank slate on which to project our personal beliefs.

      • Andy

        Susan – as far as Iran goes Romney and Obama are saying the same thing. I think that Romney has surrounded himself with advisors – you know the ones that gave us Iraq, with the use of Drones – Romney and Obama are once again the same. Romney very carefully when governor of Mass. required Catholic hospitals to distribute the morning-after pill. He, Romney was very much pro-abortion until the primaries when he became a severe conservative, and then two weeks ago changed his mind again. As far as Obama and infanticide goes the only places where I have seen this reported also report that he is Kenyan, or from folks who will say anything to defeat Obama. There is plenty to dislike about Obama, but spreading falsehoods is not needed, and to decide that Romney and Obama are really all that different belies belief. They merely put things in a different order.

        • Pathfinder

          Obama is on record with BAIPA — so there’s that.
          Romney is on record with his own actions against the Church in MA — so there’s that.
          As for the drones and/or invading Iran — it comes down to how a war is waged. Getting worked up about dead civilians is a rather moot point — wars are not clean, happy fun times sort of things; you wage them pragmatically, not with an eye to keeping things nice and fighting fair. If you want to take the high road, then the only road to take is to try and keep from engaging in them altogether (we seem to mourn poor, dead civilians, but a dead person is a dead person — like The Joker in that Batman movie alluded to: we’re quite ok with some people dying horribly because it’s “normal” and “expected”…but from my own experience: limbs, guts, and brains fly out in much the same matter, blood runs the same, and accounting for language differences the screams sound pretty much similar too…and the maggots don’t discriminate).
          So on that score, Obama is bad, but Romney may be worse (who seems to really like rattling the saber just to rattle it — witness his speech at VMI and how he came out at during the primaries and at the beginning of the general; it wasn’t until his focus groups realized he was scaring the horses that he pulled back from some of his more extreme comments about Iran).

          No thank you, not either of them.

      • “Just because Romney is going to do everything in his power to protect this country and our allies from a nuclear weapon-wielding Iran.”

        Not true. Its all rhetoric.

        1: The “crisis” over Iran ‘s nuclear programme lacks the urgency claimed by Washington. Weapons grade uranium must be enriched at least to 85%. A 2005 CIA report determined that it could take Iran 10 years to achieve this level of enrichment. Many independent nuclear experts have stated that Iran would face formidable technical obstacles if it tried to enrich uranium beyond the 3.5% purity required for electricity generation. According to Dr Frank Barnaby of the Oxford Research Group, because of contamination of Iranian uranium with heavy metals, Iran cannot possibly enrich beyond even 20% without support from Russia or China.

        2: Iran ‘s need for nuclear power generation is real. Even when Iran ‘s population was one-third of what it is today, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, negotiating on behalf of President Gerald Ford, persuaded the former Shah that Iran needed over twenty nuclear reactors. With Iran ‘s population of 70 million, and growing, and its oil resources fast depleting, Iran may be a net importer of oil in just over a decade from now. Nuclear energy is thus a realistic and viable solution for electricity generation in the country.

        3: Iran is not actually the aggressor here. Iran actually used to be a democracy until 1953 when we overthrew it in Operation Ajax and installed an American-friendly dictator. The dream of an Iranian democracy has never recovered and the Iranians blame us just as much as they blame their own ruling class. Yes, Iran is our enemy but its not because they are irrational or because they “hate our freedom.” They hate us because of what we did to them and are still doing to them. Our foreign policy needs to reflect that fact or we only guarantee war for ourselves and we are morally culpable.

        4: Iran has not threatened Israel or attacked another country. The track records of the US , Israel , the UK and France are very different. These so called “democracies” have a bloody history of invading other countries. Iran ‘s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has declared repeatedly that Iran will not attack or threaten any country. He has also issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons and banned nuclear weapons as sacrilegious. Iran has been a consistent supporter of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and called for a nuclear weapons free Middle East.

        5: The comments of Iran ‘s President Ahmadinejad against Israel have been repeated by some of Iran ‘s leaders since 1979 and constitute no practical threat. The statement attributed to him that “ Israel should be wiped off the map” is a distortion of the truth and has been determined by a number of Farsi linguists, amongst them, Professor Juan Cole, to be a mistranslation. What he actually said was that “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”. Ahmadinejad has made clear that he envisions regime change in Israel through internal decay, similar to the demise of the Soviet Union. Iranian leaders have said consistently for two decades that they will accept a two-state solution in Palestine if a majority of Palestinians favour that option.

      • Here’s Romney in his own words using fear tactics, saying that Iran is going to use a nuclear against the US despite all evidence to the contrary and stating that he’ll have no option but to stop Iran. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5nptkXZ7UQ

        On his own page Romney calls a military option “very real and very credible.” http://www.mittromney.com/issues/iran

        Romney wants to tighten and increase sanctions – a move that has historically been an indicator that war is next and is even considered by many as an act of war. His foreign policy speeches are saturated with rhetoric about “preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons” and leaving “all options on the table.” This is pure rhetoric; there is no evidence that Iran is even capable of developing nuclear weapons or that they are trying to – as 16 of our own intelligence agencies have publicly admitted. It seems quite obvious that Romney has no interest in pursuing a peaceful solution with Iran when he’s willing to blatantly deceive Americans about the threat level that Iran poses and the nuclear “crisis.”

      • “Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies.”


        I have yet to see Romney acknowledge actual intelligence findings. He already assumes that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon and the facts can go to hell.

  • John

    “Lesser or greater, evil is evil.”

  • Ann

    From what I understand, it doesn’t matter how you vote, as you live in a state that is going blue. (So do I). We have the freedom to do whatever we want with our votes really. We can flush them down the toilet in disgust should be choose.
    The reality of the winner-takes-all presidential system is that you get two choices. That’s it. As lukewarm as Romney is, you can’t deny he is better than Obama on life issues. Is he great? No. Not at all. But at least I heard Ryan say that he is against most abortions, which is better than Obama who is for all abortions.
    Anyway, if we lived in a parliamentary system, things would be different, but we don’t. For those who live in the swing states, where their vote really counts, they need to carefully discern on this one. I think it’s easy for you to make these statements, but think about what a voter in Ohio has to think through right now as a thought experiment.

    • Ohio is not in ANY realistic danger of coming down to a 5 vote margin, much less one. Euclid’s “Arithmetic” is available in English translations these days.

      • I’ll bet you a day’s wages Ohio won’t come down to 5 votes. I’ll bet you a week’s wages it won’t come down to one.

        I trust Mark to hold our funds. Let me know which you want to take.

        • Elaine S.

          “Ohio won’t come down to 5 votes”
          Probably not, but it could come down to 5 votes or less PER PRECINCT. This is what happened in Florida in 2000 — the final margin was, I believe, only in the three digits which on a statewide basis meant that if just one vote in every precinct had gone the other way, Gore would have won.

      • Ann

        My point was, to MR SHEA, that I think there are realities of our political system that we need to consider as well (the winner-takes-all system of the electoral college and the fact that some votes in some states are more important than others).

  • Nonymous

    Valid argument. But i don’t buy it. After all, since it’s a useful pose to get him elected, it’s just as useful in getting him re-elected four years later — no hurry, after all, he’s *promised* to do it. Just like the GOP’s opposition to abortion in the first place. “Moral core of tofu” is right. Calculations on that kind of person’s self interest require prophetic powers for reliability that I don’t have.

  • Scott

    Well, we can always vote for Romney in order to preserve the country from the current America hating occupant of the White House… OUR WHITE HOUSE! Life, liberty and family are always the most important but Obama has designs on us being a third world country and I for one will do what I can to stop him.

    • Obama has no designs on the United States refusing to align with the interests and policies of the United States government. Aligning the United States with the interests and policies of the USSR has not been possible since I was an adolescent.

      Third World means something and it isn’t “poor, brown and icky”. France was a third world nation for much of the time such terms mattered.

  • Susan

    Paul Ryan is a “whore” now? That is utter, evil BS. Can you see into his heart? Really? Did it ever occur to you that for the sake of promoting the pro-life movement, Ryan knows Romney must win? And when they win, Ryan will work tirelessly on Romney (through prayer and reason) to ensure his administration is 100% pro-life. If your and others are truly pro-life, there is no way in hell (or on earth) that you can vote for Obama. If you can’t bring yourself to vote for Romney, then stay home.

  • Linda C.

    “It would take no political courage for Obama to shut down Guantanamo bay prison. It would cost him nothing with any other constituency that’s supporting him to do so. But it will needlessly alienate liberals and progressives if he didn’t.”

    I grant your first two sentences, but when push comes to shove they will vote for him and many will do so enthusiastically.

    • Yes, they are Obama’s corollary to the pro-life movement. Isn’t it good when brothers dwell together in peace?

  • I’m still working on whether to vote Romney, or write someone else in and wash my hands of it. Being in Ohio, it’s not a sure thing, and I can’t rest on ‘my state always goes this or that way anyway.’ Though I’m not sure the HHS mandate is the only reason I will vote a certain way.

  • Recovering Feminist

    I refuse to betray the Catholic Church by selling by vote for 30 pieces of silver. I will either vote third party or write in God. It’s obvious the Republican Party has been infiltrated by Democrats in Republican Sheep’s Clothing. Isn’t that strategy called Divide and Conquer? It isn’t much, but at least one vote will be on record as showing the GOP it’s a vote they should have had. Democrats never compromise–Republicans always do. Viva Christo Rey!

  • Rich

    yes, the exception thing is stupid and inconsistent, but hasn’t every republican since 1980 had it? Does Mark give all of them the same treatment? Yes better to be consistently right. But wouldn’t we rather one who is inconsistent than one who is consistently wrong like Obama? Obama is perfectly consistent, voting against partial birth abortion ban. Biden, that inconistent bastard, voted for the ban.
    I do recommend pro-lifers get consistent. I was standing out their at Life Chain and a teenager walking buy asked if I’m against abortion in cases of rape. I said yes, because two wrongs don’t make a right. He shook my hand, impressed.

  • What business is it of yours? These are all domestic issues. You are Guatemalan.

    I hate this place, but I have the blue passport, and suffrage.

  • I would but “Why don’t you guys just quit” has never been on the ballot in GA.

  • I have commented before that I’m so grateful for your waking me up to my own conscience, but I too have come to this conclusion. Romney isn’t a friend, but Obama is an enemy of the Church and I’m in a swing state. I continue to pray the Hoky Spirit will guide me, but I think Romney has my reluctant vote here.

    • Mark’s right when he states that your vote doesn’t really affect the outcome of an election but what it does affect is you.

      From the Mises Institute:
      “Not only does a single vote not make a difference, in presidential elections, it seems that all of the votes in the state of Michigan do not matter. If a single individual could control all of the voters in Michigan and if all of the Michigan voters voted for John McCain, Barack Obama would still have won the 2008 election. If all Michigan voters had voted for John Kerry in 2004 and for Al Gore in 2000, George Bush would still have won both of those elections. In fact, if all Michigan voters had voted for the losing presidential candidate in every election since 1900, this would not have changed anything. The same candidates would have won every election. It apparently doesn’t matter whether Michigan voters support the Democrat, the Republican, or Shaq. Of course, Michigan’s voters as a group could affect a presidential election, it just hasn’t happened in the last century.

      Looking at the 28 presidential elections from 1900 to 2008 reveals that only rarely does a single state’s vote affect the election. In 23 of those 28 elections (82 percent of the time) no single state’s total vote count mattered. In those 23 elections, if a person could control every single vote in any one state, even one of the large states, that person could not change the election’s outcome. There have been only five elections during that time in which one state’s votes affected the election. In 1916, ten states made a difference (by “made a difference,” I mean that if a majority of the state’s voters supported the losing candidate, the election outcome would have been different).” http://mises.org/daily/5058

      If your conscience demands a vote for Romney for proportional reasons then vote for Romney but, most importantly, vote your conscience.

  • Blake Helgoth

    Not to mention that all the Christian that we, the West, chased out of Iraq are now being slaughtered in Syria by men whom we are giving guns and other weapons. Neither canidate seems to care a lick about that. Should we? Oh, and nevermind the fact that many of these men are members of the evil taliban, but that we now refere to them as the rebels fighting the evil government.

  • Theresa

    I don’t vote on the abortion issue. What’s the point? It isn’t going to change through any executive, legislative or judicial action until it is essentially a non-issue in the US because the country has had a massive shift in social conscience. (JMT anyway.) My Romney vote is for significantly less glamorous reasons that even the one Dale suggests. (BTW- I agree with Dale about the HHS thing. Romney is almost worth the gamble that he might overturn it simply on the grounds of ‘no harm- no foul’ and there is no way Obama will repeal it. ) Now, categorically, I’m kinda opposed to voting 3rd party, but I only say that to assert why it is either R or O for me. Romney really likes money. He’s been really, really, really good at making it. Mostly through really shrewd business tactics. And Obama, while rich, is not as shrewd fiscally (to wit our current financial situation). I can honestly see Romney cashing in big time with being able to make good on some of his “promises”/goals concerning job and small business growth. I think he sees it as a way to build up bigger business and really help put more money into his hands. If he’s successful, the second term becomes feasible, the book deals come in even more, there are more opportunities for high yielding ventures, etc. Not that he needs anymore money. But people don’t get to where he is without a deep dislike for failure. And Obama has a lot of quit in him and is not that kind of tenacious. He’s probably be ok if he didn’t start making lots and lots more money because he’s ok with paying even more in taxes anyway. The greed factor just isn’t the same. So, yeah, I’m kinda selling out my vote in a way for someone whose corruption seems more useful to me.

  • Jordan

    Still haven’t decided what I’m going to do on election day (vote Romney or draw a big face with its tongue sticking out, if they still do the paper forms that is), but that was really the same argument I had for voting for Mitty. Although in OK, even the dirt is red, so I pretty much already know how my state’ll turn out (which probably doesn’t matter anyhow!).

  • yan

    What Romney made Ryan say at the debate in regard to abortion exceptions for rape and incest disturbed me also. However, I don’t believe you are correct in the conclusions you draw about Romney and his view of abortion. I admit I could be wrong, but Romney is a Republican, and the platform of the party is pro-life.

    Thus, when I hear that Romney will support the right of abortion in the case of rape or incest, I think this is a concession to the political impossibility at this time of preventing abortion in such cases–not to mention the legal impossibility. So it is really a very politically astute statement. It seems to position Romney as moderate on abortion [which he may in actuality be] while not granting that he will attempt to change the law in any way in which it actually can be changed.

    It is certain that under the Constitution as presently interpreted by the Court, neither the federal government nor any state can prevent abortions in case of rape or incest. Thus, Romney’s statement that he will not sign a piece of legislation aiming to prevent such abortions is simply an admission that he understands the present state of abortion law and will not partake in acts of legislative folly for the sole purpose of whipping up his base.

    State personhood amendments are an excellent example of this species of pro-life, unconstitutional legislation that pro life people put on state ballots from time to time in order to get Republicans excited to vote–and then later, disillusioned with politics and the Republican party, when the law either doesn’t pass, or is struck down as being unconstitutional.

    The real test of whether President Romney is pro life is an examination of which judges he will appoint, and what actions he will take which are within his power as the chief executive in order to promote life both here and abroad. Saying he won’t sign pro-life unconsitutional bills is politically saavy. He can change abortion law in small ways through his judicial appointments and as chief executive.

    If any pro life person is not satisfied with that then he needs to work harder to convince the american people to pass a constitutional amendment preventing abortion. Of course, no one can do that right now. About 1/3 of Americans might support such an amendment. It takes 2/3 of the Senate to pass such an amendment before it is offered to the states, 3/4 of which must ratify it before it becomes law.

    Under those circumstances, to blame the executive for failure to completely stop abortion, as some do, is just ignorance of constitutional law and constitutional government.