Why I’m voting for Romney

So, I figured I would annoy a few people when I wrote about the GOP candidates the other day.  For some reason I forgot how mad people get about politics, especially this late in the game.  I was a little taken aback!

I’m not a political blogger, and I haven’t had the stomach to follow the race in detail this time around (and I may be the only American who hasn’t seen one single political ad this election), so don’t expect my thoughts to be especially consistent or admirable, or even very edited.   I’m not trying to convert anyone, or even argue.  But several people did ask (with varying degrees of outrage) why I feel the way I do about the candidates, so I’m ‘splaining myself.  You can take this little rant as a sample of what your typical semi-informed conservative Catholic voter thinks, and why I’m so mad about our choices this election.

HUNTSMAN:  He’s one of the only Republicans who is anti-torture.  Opposition to torture is a fundamentally pro-life issue — so am I morally required to vote for Huntsman?  No.  I believe that there are many ways a Catholic can interpret their obligation not to cooperate with evil.  People need to work out on their own how practical or canny or idealistic they need to be with their vote.  I really don’t see the point of voting for Huntsman.

PERRY:  What is there to say?  He’s just a useful idiot for the kind of conservative who puts the death penalty right after apple pie.  The only good thing about him is that, when people stopped liking him, it made me like people a little bit more.

GINGRICH:  Was his religious conversion genuine?  Probably.  Who knows?  Who cares?  I have a personal problem with Gingrich the man, but that wouldn’t keep me from voting for Gingrich for president, if I had a good reason.  But I don’t.  His very long political record is abysmal.  What has he done for us, as pro-lifers, and as social conservatives?  He is what’s wrong with the Republican party, so why would I count on him to bring it back to life?  I blame Newt Gingrich and everyone who admires him for creating the America that wanted Barack Obama for president.  Conservatives beclown themselves by putting any kind of faith in this man.  He is a pig, personally and politically.

PAUL:  I don’t blame people who find him appealing.  Some of his ideas make perfect sense, and he says things that nobody else is saying.  Very refreshing, when the United States has gone so bonkers so fast in the last few years (or, if you’re feeling cynical, in the last fifty years).

But there is so much wrong with him, I just can’t even deal with the thought of voting for him.  Every good idea he has brings a brain damaged twin along with it.  For instance, he thinks the Iraq War was a horrible idea — okay, good (and good for him for saying so when no one else was).  But he also thinks we had no business getting into World War II.  If you adhere to a Just War Doctrine, there is a lot to like about Paul’s distaste and mistrust of war — but he’s not basing his ideas on a Catholic understanding of the responsibilities of power.  He’s basing them on an unwillingness to get involved, period. He’s consistent,  yes, but in a Cain (as in Cain and Abel, not Herman!) way.  This is no good.  This is terrifying.  Scratch a libertarian and you get  a cold hearted SOB.

Not only are his foreign policy ideas anti-Christian, they’re incredibly naive.  All politics is global politics now — that genie’s out of the bottle.  You can’t just opt out anymore.  Many of us hate how the US pokes its nose into every other country’s business — it stretches us too thin, fiscally and with the lives of soldiers; and most of the time we’re not being altruistic at all, we’re just trying to put the squeeze on other nations.  BUT.  Can you even imagine  how President Ron Paul would comport himself in diplomatic meetings with other countries?  Whatever shred of dignity we have left as a nation after four years of Obama, that would be g-o-n-e after Ron Paul does his Rumplestiltskin “it’s not fair, leave me alone, mine mine mine” routine.

As someone who has needed help many and many a time, I do not trust a man who apparently prides himself on not wanting to help — whether it’s through foreign policy, or domestically, in the form of welfare or even taxes used for the public good.  I remember when he spoke out in favor of a couple of local tax evaders who stockpiled weapons in their home, expecting a gun battle with police (over no issue other than non-payment of taxes).  He called them heroes, and said it was civil disobedience.  That was when I first started to mistrust him.

Plus, YES, I think he should give back the money the neo-Nazis gave him.  Even non-Catholics should be able to understand that giving scandal is bad news.  And yes, I think he should ask himself why it is he appeals to neo-Nazis in the first place.

Moreover, he has absolutely no facility for getting things done, as far as I can see.  Blame his fellow congressmen if you like, but his record shows that he has lots and lots of bad ideas, and is such an a-hole in general that nobody wants to work with his good ideas.  After a certain point, it’s all his fault.  How would he be different as president?

These are just a few things off the top of my head that give me serious pause when I consider giving Ron Paul any sort of real power.  He’s said enough things that jar and disturb me to make me realize that he’s not just a quirky, honest-to-a-fault, down home guy — there’s something really wrong with him.

SANTORUM:  I don’t hold it against him that he had to do business with Arlen Specter.  Santorum is enough of a political adult to realize that you have to return political favors.  The other 99% of the time, the guy is decent and dependable (and I guess that’s why people got so extremely upset when I made fun of him in what I thought was a mostly harmless way).  But I just don’t see him beating Obama, at all, at all.  He is prissy and querelous and always speaks like a man with a grievance, which is tiresome and uninspiring.  Gotta bring in the guy who has a chance of beating Obama.

Which brings us to ROMNEY.  Yes, I resent the political machine which drags up these ridiculous stooges and waits for us to take responsibility for voting for them.  The guy is an empty suit.  I see this.  I used to be so angry at the Republicans, and say that they were just as bad as the Democrats — that there was no real difference, just a different flavor of corruption.

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.

The beginning of this election season was like moving into a new house.  Oh boy, a chance for a fresh start!  You look around and make all these wonderful plans:  going to paint all of this part, take this wall out, maybe put in a little Japanese garden outside the kitchen window.  The possibilities!  So you start to make inquiries, and realize that everything costs more than you expected, and the only workmen in the area are druggies and ex-cons.  Okay, so you lower your sights.  Maybe just a few, really simple changes — even that could make a big difference.

Then the furnace blows up.  At first you think, “Okay, we’ll use the renovation money to upgrade the furnace instead.”  But then you discover that the previous owners, apparently just out of sheer awfulness, had jerry rigged the furnace in such a way that the vibrations it caused were steadily wearing away the foundations of the house.  So never mind getting even a very basic new furnace:  what you need to do is put up some emergency beams to keep the house from collapsing, and

— oh, you’re still cold?  Pick up a $30 space heater at Walmart on the way home, just to get you through until the spring.

Mitt Romney is that space heater.  Nobody’s pretending he’s a long-term solution.  He’s certainly not what you wanted, or even what you need, and when you think about your original dreams for your country, just less than a year ago, you laugh bitterly, and curse the former owners.  But you have to do something, just to get by.  At least it’s better than leaving things the way they are.  Meanwhile, you have some major repairs to do.


  1. Simcha, You say: “I’m not a political blogger, and I haven’t had the stomach to follow the race in detail this time around (and I may be the only American who hasn’t seen one single political ad this election), so don’t expect my thoughts to be especially consistent or admirable, or even very edited. ”

    Then why write this post? You’re just adding to the noise. There’s no rule that says you have to post about politics is there?

    • It should be called “Why I am content to make the same ignorant mistakes that got us here.” Voting for the lesser of the evils is still voting for evil.

    • How about, this is Simcha’s blog and she can write whatever the heck she wants on it and you have no obligation to read it if you don’t like her opinions?

  2. Oops, must have taken out the part where I said “several people asked” — which they did. I didn’t feel like getting into a political tussle in the comment box at the Register, but I wanted to explain why I was making fun of all the candidates. Take it or leave it, my friend.

  3. I rarely have time to read the comments people post, or to post myself, so I don’t know what people were saying in response to your very funny, accurate, its-so-depressing-I have-to-laugh-or-I’ll-cry post on the republican candidates, but I wanted you to know that I’m SO on your page with all this. Just sending you some love and support today.

  4. actually, the space-heater analogy is helpful. i told my husband a while back that i didn’t think i’d like myself no matter who ended up voting for. i can live with the idea of stop-gap measures, though.

  5. The reason Santorum isn’t taken more seriously is that he doesn’t have the personal wealth that Romney has to get his message out, paint a nice face on his abysmal record, and destroy his political opponents with distortions and half-truths. Not many people outside of Iowa have heard Santorum speak extensively on his very specific, coherent plans. Most people are only hearing what the media (and Romney) is feeding them, leading to this belief that Romney is oh-so-electable when the others aren’t. If Santorum had been born into wealth it would be a different story.

  6. Simcha,
    Well written. Although I would have loved to vote for Huntsman, and cannot understand why he did not have more traction, I can speak with some knowledge of Romney. A college friend of my husband worked for him while he was in Mass in a legal counsel role, and this guy (who is super intense and not easily impressed) was very impressed with his integrity and intelligence.

    I will forever resent his right-wing-wacko speech at the Rep. National Convention last round, but I am just hoping against hope that he was drummed into saying those things to stump for a desperate electorate. I am currently voting for Romney as well.

    Also on a note for MassHealth. I live in MA, and I currently have a friend who’s husband suffered a massive aneurism which has left him in a limbo state for possibly years. It is tragic in ways I cannot even describe. He is the ultimate “pre-existing condition”. When his one year of health coverage runs out from his former employer, she is going to be penniless, as the nursing home will take everything. Thanks to MassHealth, she can at least have some coverage for herself and her child while she gets some retraining and tries to find a job with benefits.

    It might not be the answer for the nation, but it has helped her. No charity would ever be able to take on his health fees (which could total in the millions if he lives five years or more) or her healthcare costs.

    Our national healthcare situation must change in some way.

    • Mary, I agree on the healthcare situation. It is deplorable the way the Republicans want to take money from Medicare and other public benefits for the elderly and poor. BUT, I do vote Republican on moral issues. Sadly, neither side is right. The Republicans are usually (try to be) pro-life, Dems are entirely up-front, in-your-face pro-kill-unborn-babies (sick, yes, really sick) and many Republicans are trying to uphold the traditional family (which is a very serious and major issue for all practicing Christians since many are already losing their job if they don’t cater to gay/lesbian demands). Many town office clerks have already lost their jobs due to the gay marriage issue because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. So much for religious freedom.
      BUT Mary has a point about healthcare. The country needs mandatory healthcare coverage for all and it’s evil that the LEFT does not wish to budge on the abortion issue. They would have Catholic support if they only threw out the money to cover abortion. But they don’t. They continually try to push that through. That really shows their character, if you ask me. They could easily say, “Yup, we’ll not cover abortion but allow healthcare coverage for all people: poor, elderly, children, etc.” But they don’t. For them, it’s more important to kill unborn babies than give medical care to children and the rest of the poor.

  7. SANTORUM is Catholic I believe and he is also 100% pro-life. He even has his own family as a pro-life witness, if you’ve seen the interviews. Very moving.
    Of course, I seriously doubt he can beat Obama BUT he would be the ideal candidate if he can get that far in the race. Romney is the WORST type of Republican to vote for in my opinion. His uncertainty on moral issues is very scary and right now America needs a strong, moral candidate. One who can uphold the traditional family (and stop playing favors for the gay/lesbian side) and start respecting the unborn, the elderly and disabled (aka pro-life issues). Right now we have Obama who bends over backwards for the gay orgs (really, check out his list of activities) and who also caters to Planned Parenthood (they are chums). So we really need someone who will bring back morality to our country and take the FAMILY (which is the foundation of the Church) seriously. The only way I’d vote for Romney is if he was the only one left against Obama. Only because he has said he was pro-life at one time. That hope alone, would give him the edge.

    • Please don’t trust the government for all your healthcare needs. Do you really want to make them decide your health issues for you? What happens when you have a pro-abort President and Congress (who also doesn’t care for the elderly as well)? The people can take care of themselves together with their neighbors/friends. Not the government.

  8. I did like your idea of the new election season like a new house. That was a very nice picture. Wow, do we really need to take down that old wallpaper!!!

  9. I am an ABO voter – Anybody But Obama, and will heartily cast my vote for the Republican candidate chosen. Simcha, no one is perfect, but at least we must commend all the leading Republican candidates for their honesty and candor about abortion. Ron Paul is pro-life because we witnessed the incredible barbarity of abortion first hand as a physician, and is brave enough to tell the truth. I love Santorum, and saw him at the College of Mary Magdalen in Warner, NH in November. He is for real – a brave family man who will ‘admonish the sinners’ in our debauched society. I saw him on the day of the national debate at Dartmouth. After his town hall style meeting, he attended the 3PM Mass with his teenage son. I would have been in my hotel room napping or prepping for the debate…

  10. I forgot to say that I am sorely tempted to vote for Santorum for a host of reasons, but not the least for his terrible treatment at the hands of the Dan Savage Neologism Machine. In fact, so many I know were galvanized by Savage’s hideous prank, that the joke is on him. It actually makes people stand up and think…is this the kind of people we want directing our nation (and I don’t mean “gays”, but instead foul-mouthed, ultra-liberal folks who want no limits on deviant sexual activity whatsoever.

    • Mary! I was thinking the same thing! When
      It’s the underdog-lover in me, and also the highandmighty teacher in me, that wants to punish the bully and reward the victim. With a vote.

      I also believe that Santorum can’t win so I guess my personal desire to do this is facilitated by the terrible jaded part that feels there is little point to voting if I hate my choices and I would rather make my vote a gesture rather than trying to help someone win. I am not proud of that part.

      • How do you know Sanctorum can’t win? Vote who you think is the best. Why do so many people buy into this mentality? Mind boggling. Vote for the best and then pray. Anyone but Obama! And please VOTE…don’t stay home. It is THAT important.

  11. Because running a moderate against Obama worked so well last time?

    I’ll vote for Romney if he gets the nomination. But I hope he doesn’t.

  12. I agree in large part.
    But…I have to disagree in regards to Newt.  I think I am still leaning in his camp.  I understand why people don’t like him, and yes, he is a philanderer, yes, he did make some political speeches/commercials/etc that are less than conservative.
    Being president is being a leader.  Not writing policy.  Not drafting legislation.  Not writing tax code.  He does none of these things.  He is a front man.  We don’t need an empty suit at this point.  We need someone to lead, who isn’t afraid of speaking his mind, who doesn’t wait on every political calculation before making a statement.  Romney has done nothing this election cycle than lurk in the bushes letting his PACs do the dirty work while staying squeaky clean and systematically taking every other contender out.  I remember back 4 years and the reason why I voted for Huckabee.  He had ideas and spoke his mind.  Romney was smarmy…and still is.  He IS cut from the same cloth as Obama.  Newt is polarizing.  Is that a sign of a good leader?  I think so.  You either really like him or hate him.  That sounds like a leader to me.  He has lots of ideas.  He knows world history and the place America holds.  He is in favor of tax cuts (as we can tell by his record as Speaker).  And he knows government has to shrink.  Perhaps the biggest thing that has got me back on board has been his reaction after Iowa.  He got angry at Romney and Paul for having negative ads.  HE SHOULD.  So long as he channels his anger and doesn’t blow up, I am fine.  I am tired of this negative crap, and really upset at Romney and Paul for their lack of effort in stopping and their “it’s not my fault” attitude.
    I guess I am looking for someone who is responsible…
    Newt:  Made mistakes.  Has owned his mistakes and says he has learned from them and grown.  All I can ask.  (As opposed to Clinton the philanderer who denied everything, pointed the finger at everyone else, and lied)
    Paul:  International policy is dangerous and has a long history of selling his values in Congress.
    Romney:  Smarmy.  Fake.  A Hollywood politician.  What we have now.
    Santorum:  OK, but has sold his values in Congress too.  He says ‘earmarks are how you get money back into your state from the taxes his constituents pay’.  How about standing up for not growing government?  How about standing up for not taking unnecessary money?  How about saying ‘I will not vote for unnecessary spending’?  How about saying NO to political favors?  I know this is how Congress works these days…but isn’t that the exact problem?
    Perry:  Again OK.  I understand the catholic views, but capital punishment is something I am more willing to bend on than abortion.   My problem is that I don’t think he will do good against Obama.
    Huntsman:  Not in the race.
    I think there are only 3 people who could win…Newt, Romney, and Perry.  Newt is the best of the 3 in my opinion.

  13. Or you could vote for someone who represents you and your views. It’s a revolutionary idea, I know, but if we all voted for the candidate who most represented us, we might actually make a dent in this unholy two-party system.

    Your analogy is ok. Forgive me if I misunderstand, but shouldn’t you yank the furnace out asap and replace it with that new, basic model you’re talking about? You can get those support beams up and then get a new furnace right away. Why bother with the space heater? Are there not very basic furnace models available? Maybe the models you can find are a slightly skeevy brand, maybe a brand that you’ve heard of but never used…but it would keep your whole house warm (unlike a space heater, that you have to stay in the same room with, and Romney seems like a kerosene heater to me–who wants to be in the same room with that?), and then you could get started on repairing the foundation. After 4 years with that very basic furnace, you’d be settled enough to keep it and keep going for another 4 years, or ditch it and find a better model, one that takes care of the poor and is good at global politics. If you just buy a space heater to limp along until spring, what makes you think that you’ll be able to find a furnace then? Maybe Lowe’s will discontinue them because they think EVERYONE wants a space heater, or they’re out of season and the only ones available are made in China and will blow up and once again destroy your foundation.

    By the by, I notice that you dislike Paul’s political record, but have nothing to say about Romney’s. You compare Santorum and Romney on equal footing, i.e. their ability to defeat Obama. When it comes to Paul, though, you just say you don’t like him and that everyone thinks he’s an a-hole. What if he could beat Obama? Would he then be a contender? You don’t say anything about how you disagree with Romney, except in that you think he’s an empty-suit. Likewise with Santorum and his whiny voice. What’s up with that? I’m asking because I only read bits here and there about the candidates and may be grossly ignorant. Perhaps Romney has some saving graces I haven’t heard about, but all I recall is that he lied about a bunch of stuff, and I really, really don’t like liars. I’d rather have a guy in office who we know is honest, even if he’s honest about being weird and cold-hearted. If the pendulum has to swing, let’s get it over with so we can get back to ye ole golden mean, I always say. Cheerio!

  14. I like that Ron Paul is out there bringin’ the crazy while also saying some amazingly sound and obvious (yet politically heretical) things. It clarifies things, and forces the others away from their “with all due respect to the distinguished gentleman from Sheboygan” default responses. Watching opponents smirk while he rants against costly foreign adventures and reigning in the Fed is illuminating.

    Would I give him the nuclear launch codes and let him turn all the social services over to the Ayn Rand Orphanarium and Workhouse? Ehh, no. He’s kind of a cranky old man who wouldn’t get a damn thing done in the current system. But I do like him. I tend to like irritating people, especially when they have an extremely consistent ethic in the face of prevailing wisdom. They keep things interesting.

    Maybe the Ron Paul software upgrade, version 2.0 (Rand), will turn out better. Just like Microsoft Windows 95!

    But, seriously: thanks for this. I’ll start stealing your best lines and pretending they’re mine, and really, isn’t that the highest compliment another writer can pay?

  15. I don’t really understand this. You insult Perry with the death penalty-apple pie comment, but then admit that Romney isn’t very pro-life. I would much rather have someone who is ok with the death penalty but strongly anti-abortion than vice versa. Perry may be dumb, I don’t know, but at least he appears to have some governing skills. It seems like lots of people don’t like Perry for…reasons that they don’t feel the need to articulate. What is so wrong with him? If all we want is a stopgap, why not him? Why is he worse than Romney? Romney won all of one election and didn’t run again bc he knew he would lose. I’ve never read anything that said he did a great job in his one term either. Who knows what the man thinks? He’s flipflopped on basically every issue. (The Obama campaign would exploit the hell out of this.) Also, Romneycare + no one likes him, so he may be a stopgap, but what about the next election? I know you don’t care, but I’m assuming you realize the problem here. I agree some of Paul’s ideas are far out and he’s an isolationist, but Congress declares war (or is supposed to at least). This is why our govt has checks and balances. As a dictator, I would not vote for Paul. But as a President? I would certainly consider it. I don’t love the idea of him meeting with foreign leaders, but he’s dead on when it comes to spending and our military presence and some of our foreign aid issues. If there is one thing I just can’t take any more of, it’s more of the same from the GOP. Which is Romney. Yet another rich guy who’s going to punt on all the hard issues and has no real plans or opinions or backbone. How exciting! Ugh. No way would I vote for him.

    • I guess you commented while I was writing mine. I like your point about Paul as dictator vs Paul as president. He would shake things up, but obviously couldn’t change everything.

  16. Thanks for that clarification. I support Paul, but I appreciate hearing more of your thoughts on him. It is easy to be skeptical about how his radical ideas would work in practice. I am not totally opposed to Romney, if only because I am friends with several Mormons and admire them for their faith and decency. It sounds weird, but believing in the crazy things they do takes a lot of faith, and I give them credit for that.

  17. Romney less harmful than Obama? Why not say Santorum not harmful than Obama? You said “Santorum is 99% descent & dependable, why not vote for him instead of Romney? It shows your true color. Pray for guidance.

    • Akoni – What a useful, reasoned, fair-minded criticism! We will certainly pray for guidance.

      I especially like how you refrained from using broad personal attacks and arrogant pseudo-advice to cover for a lack of actual thought process. Don’t you hate when people do that?

  18. Simcha, there is a difference between the US and the federal govt. While the failures of both fit your analogy, the solution differs dramatically. If the whole country is broken, then there’s nothing to do but salvage what you can, and rebuild later. But, if the federal government is not the whole house, more like the only bathroom. It is a room that needs drastic repair, but it has to keep operating. The question is whether the problem is the toilet -obama, or the pipes.

    We need more than a patch, this we acknowledge. But how many patches are enough to say screw it, im rippin out these pipes?

    I just dont see the benefit of voting for santorum…who is the clone of the first Pres Bush or Romney. Heck, if we want obama lite who can win, why bother with romney? Lets nominate hillary clinton. After all, if the sole argument is not obama, we have our gal.

  19. Romney seems like a very moderate Republican, much like John McCain. McCain could not beat Obama. I have no reason to believe that Romney would fare much better. Also, I don’t want him. Let’s throw up a real candidate, like Santorum. Can he be whiney? Sometimes. Is he real and worth electing? Yes, emphatically yes. It would be so novel to have a truly pro-life candidate. Let’s give life a chance. He’s doing well, out of the middle of nowhere. Prayer is powerful.

  20. Simcha
    I will also vote for the space heater(thanks for the analogy. It works for so many of life’s problems.) Although, Huntsman is NOT the only candidate against torture. Paul is also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGuGGnEGs3k

    I agree with you about Paul being a naive, polarizing, and undiplomatic curmudgeon. But he is the most authentic and consistent on life issues. And is more in line with the Catholic views of protecting life than any other candidate. He is pro-life, against the death penalty, against torture, and holds a strict interpretation of just war theory. The guy is kinda wacky but is not an a-hole(or a neo-nazi sympathizer.)

  21. If we are going to use analogies to describe the political situation, I prefer a different one for different reasons. I would describe Obama as a cancer that is killing our nation. Romney would be like surigcally removing the cancer. But that isn’t good enough because if you don’t get chemo and radiation as well that cancer will metastasize throughout the whole body and kill it in four years when re-election time rolls around. We need something to totally eliminate the cancer now. A stop-gap measure will prolong our country’s death but it will still die. We shouldn’t be aiming for just prolonging decadence, but aiming to cure. Romney would be a terrible mistake.

  22. At this point, I just want to vote for whoever will do the least serious damage.

    Yes, Romney is the emergency tourniquet in the triage situation we’ve found ourselves in. We may still lose a leg but we’ll come out alive. Voting for Romney isn’t “giving up,” it’s realism in a crisis. We can revisit those big dreams once we’re in stable condition, hopefully after November.

  23. Kaylancor, Santorum is weak on abortion. Like the pro-lifers in PA remember all too well, in 2004, Pro-abort Arlen Specter was facing a tough primary challenge from fiscally conservative strongly pro-life Republican Pat Toomey, and he called on Santorum help him out. Santorum campaigned for Specter, leading to Specter squeaking out a 51-49 victory over pro-life Toomey. Want to hear more? Ask the pro-life community in PA about this. They’ve never forgiven him and it played a huge part in his losing his senate seat. As for most in keeping with Catholic morality, Ron Paul is the man.

  24. The “let’s vote for the electable guy” is why the Republican establishment keeps feeding us losers like Dole, McCain and Romney. If people quit falling for Lucy and the football they would have to change. Instead, they keep pushing candidates who are going to burn the house down without pouring on the gasoline first like their Democrat opponents. That’s a great way to save the country.

  25. Santorum is the man. He lives his faith. He is as good as it gets. Yet, you say he can’t win. Talk about playing politics. Who in the heck decided this? If we make decisions based upon opinions like this, then we will never get a real leader. We got the same line in 76 when people went for the very weak Ford, over Reagan. And we got Carter. Great! With attitudes like this, we will get 4 more years.

  26. Oh, please, Santorum weak on abortion! What the heck! He lives his pro-life beliefs! Look at his family, his daughter who died! How in world can someone say he is not pro-life or weak. You gotta be a Romney head, infiltrating the blogs to push weak and sissy Romney. Santorum has guts, unlike the prissy Romney puppet.

  27. This election has a lot of funny names in it: Newt, Mitt, Rick (2 of them), Ron.

    Is that Thaddeus McCotter guy still in the running? If so I’ll vote for him because I prefer my funny names to have more than one syllable.

  28. No Catholic in good conscience can vote for Paul. He thinks marriage is not anyone’s business, so a person can marry his dog, and Ron Paul thinks thats okay. He is crazy on his lack of understanding in Global Politics. What will he do when Chaves places nukes right next door to us? No defense is telling people to attack us.Ron Paul is okay about legalizing drugs. He way over the top on no government. We have to have laws. We have to restrict things for the general welfare as the Constitution says. Pornography, drugs, will become even more rampant under Paul.

  29. I just don’t get it, why do people keep going for the candidates who toe the party line? Republicans and Democrats are the same just with a different view on abortion and welfare. Why not take the chance with the oddball and see what he can do, can’t hurt.

    And for the record, Ms. Fisher, I find this blogpost to be deplorable. You really undermine your whole argument when you use vulgarity to prove your point.

    • I’m wondering what vulgarity you’re referring to. The only thing I could see that even remotely approaches vulgarity is the use of the word “a-hole”.
      I’ve found nothing “deplorable” in this post. Beth F must be a serious Ron Paul supporter.

      • The use of the word “a-hole” is exactly what I am talking about. A dignified woman would never use a term like that, from a dignified Catholic woman, such as Ms. Fisher, it is deplorable.

        • Dignified? How dare you use that insult.

          If you’re looking for decorum, go read a blog with the word “musings” in the title.

  30. This is a great and honest post. I like Ron Paul the way I like Joe Biden, I don’t agree with him and I don’t think he’s respected enough to lead well, but it is glorious to know that what is on his mind will come out of his mouth. I’ve spent soooo much time around politicians growing up that I have a visceral reaction to them where I just KNOW whatever they are saying is a lie.

    In the end everyone has to vote her conscience. I don’t agree with you, and I won’t vote for Mitt unless he wins the primary, but I understand where you are coming from. What I’m stunned by is your effort to explain yourself. I’m just not that brave!

    • Barbara, can you clarify as to whether of not you are calling Ron Paul a liar and if he is, on what issues. Thank you.

  31. Well, Romney. Where to start? Romney:
    –committed himself not to change laws on abortion as Gov.
    –supported the legalization of RU-486
    –opposed gay marriage but upheld the MA law legalizing it (unlike the present presidential administration’s refusal to defend laws it dislikes on the subject) and was criticized for not being a strong leader against it
    –supports the death penalty, mandatory sentencing, and lifetime GPS tracking of sex offenders (which is one of those ideas that sounds great until you start thinking about it…)
    –has stated his support for bombing Iran to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons (more preemptive war) and says that reelecting Obama means letting Iran get the bomb
    –has cost (via Romneycare) the state of MA about $8 billion in new health care costs, according to the conservative Beacon Hill Institute
    –thinks that enhanced interrogation techniques should be available, not described, and won’t say whether he thinks waterboarding is torture
    –thinks Guantanamo should be doubled in size, not closed, so that terrorists wouldn’t have access to lawyers; also is quoted as saying suicide bombers (!) shouldn’t have Miranda rights (one can only assume he means unsuccessful ones)
    –takes a hard line against illegal immigrants but opposes mandatory prison for employers who hire illegals
    –thinks the business community should direct immigration via employee visas

    Bottom line: that space heater might end up catching your house on fire, especially if you don’t keep a really, really close eye on it.

    • Yes, this is how I feel about Romney, too.

      What a terrible election season this is turning out to be. And I thought the last one was bad.

  32. Romney’s a space-heater? Naw. At best he’s one half of a pair of mittens. The one with the hole in the thumb.

    Paul’s more of a space-heater. The value-priced steam-punky looking one with some revolutionary gadget inside that doesn’t quite work right and when you plug it in it smells funny and makes a weird noise.

    Gingrich is the loud neigbor who tells you what you’re doing wrong and how he got the better of some furnace guy who tried to cheat him.

    Perry is the rich guy across the street who comes over and you think he’s going to offer to help but he just wants to borrow your stereo for his daughter’s after-prom party.

    Santorum is the pleasant-voiced recording from the gas company calling “because we’ve noticed a drop in service at this location” and leaving a 1-800 number for help in paying your gas bill.

    And Huntsman? He seems to be the set of blueprints for the dream-house tightly rolled up and sitting in the back of a drawer.

  33. I guess I don’t really understand the issue with Ron Paul. He’s not unpleasant. He’s just asking you to make an argument about where the thing you happen to want the government to do is in the Constitution. Go ahead … make your argument.

    • When it comes down to it, no one really has an argument based in reality against Ron Paul. Ask someone why he opposed Paul and the response is usually, “der, well, der, unelectable, crazy, nut job, whores and heroin, uh uh uh, der,…” and a list of ad hominem arguments but never anything against his record or against what he really stands for.

      • Ron Paul stand for taking political donations from Neo-Nazis, profiting from his racist newsletters, and peddling conspiracy theories that put Lyndon LaRouche to shame. Oh, I mean, dur I am a moron.

        • If you think that Ron Paul is a neo-Nazi and a racist, then add a few more “durs” in there. And maybe go back to selling homeopathic medicine or whatever you do for a living, and in your spare time look up the definition of “calumny”.

            • Hi J,

              I know you’re just a bomb thrower but I’ll put something out here to see if i can learn something.

              I agree that Paul should probably send the money back – all $12 or whatever tiny amount it was.

              I would though like to hear the most egregious racist comment that Ron Paul himself has ever made.

              On the newsletter thing – I read Frum’s hit piece the other day and I know I’m tone deaf to some of his stuff but talking about people rioting who happened to be black . . . when . . . ya know . . . they did, in the early 90’s in LA when the newsletters came out doesn’t seem on it’s face to be racist. It may not have been sensitive, but I honestly don’t know how to have a conversation about race in this country without being perceived as a racist myself. How does one talk about race without talking about race?

              But on a the NCR post there was a bit of discussion about how it’s even possible for libertarians to be racist. I guess they could be but I’ve met a number and none of them care what color, religion or nationality you are. Their big focus is liberty. (I happen to think as a Catholic they miss the point of freedom, but that’s another issue.) So libertarians want liberty – the freedom to do as they wish without committing violence – for any and everyone. I think Ron Paul subscribes to this understanding.

              • I’m so sick of you Ron Paul boogereaters. The guy has made a career out of trading in dime-store racism and conspiracies. But, because he read Ayn Rand and speaks the same masturbatory geekese as you nincompoops, he’s some sort of genius born without original sin. In reality, he’s the second coming of Lyndon LaRouce,without the charm or good looks. Oh, sorry, guess that makes me a bad Catholic.

    • Ron Paul wants to defend the Constitution, and in some ways, he does, by speaking out against judicial tyranny, the fictitious “right to privacy,” the abuse of the commerce clause, etc. But he gets some parts of it spectacularly wrong. For instance, he wants to end birthright citizenship (psst–check out the Fourteenth Amendment!) He thinks that repealing the Sixteenth Amendment means the federal government would have no power to levy an income tax (ahem . . . take a peek in Article 1.) He misuses the Constitution for his own ends, just as other politicians do.

      • Also, it bothers me that he refers to undocumented immigrants as “lawbreakers” and says they shouldn’t be rewarded for breaking the law. I mean, yeah, technically they’re lawbreakers, in the same way that that dude from Les Miserables who stole a loaf of bread was a lawbreaker. They come here to save their families’ lives from drug violence and extreme poverty, and because they’re shut out from the legal immigration system by quotas, not because hopping fences gives them some kind of thrill. I wish anti-immigration folks could make their arguments with a little bit of respect and empathy.

        • My dad came as an illegal/undocumented lawbreaker back in the day, working the sugarbeet fields. He is a citizen now, & I am a 1st generation American on that side. (so there’s my ‘street cred’ 😉 But i take issue with the idea that calling ‘fence hoppers’ lawbreakers is being disrespectful or un-empathetic. There is no ‘technically’; It’s just calling a spade a spade. That has no bearing on how i empathize with people going through very hard times. To go along with your Les Mis analogy, if my dad or llegals was/are Jean Valjean and we are Javert, and we TRULY want to help, then perhaps we should consider changing our paradigm and changing the system itself. Why not end the war on drugs by legalizing them? We already sell drugs, glaxosmithkline, pfizer, anyone? Or what about caffeine, alcohol & cigarrettes? The selling of these drugs is arbitrary. Why not let Mexican and American people profit from them? Why do we have to throw grandpas in jail for life for buying pot? http://www.lifeforpot.com/ when we could help small farmers in Mexico grow, produce & sell legally?

          I know it’s a little non sequitur from your comment, but i feel like i’ve seen this poverty and desire to be successful in a foreign country first hand (and continue to see it, unfortunately) sometimes it’s good to think out of the Bipartisan box, =)

  34. Wait, forget the politics, do you live in my house? I thought I heard footsteps at night… Mitt Romney–space heater!! Classic!!!

  35. I thought that was a really outstanding post from a really outstanding blogger. I have been wrestling between Romney, Huntsman, and Santorum (and have been somewhat skeptically interested in Mark Shea’s comments about Paul). This post does a great job of focusing on the heart of the matter.

  36. The amusing thing is that excepting the fact he may do a few things to curb abortion like ban certain types of funding, forbid them in military hospitals, whatever (call that a “space heater” if you like) he will do nothing to overturn Roe. The Republican establishment whose candidate he is, is just as firmly pro-choice as Obama is. They only make hypocritical political theater (like phoning in speeches to the Match for Life from Crawford, like Bush did both times I was at the march when he was president- he made sure he was out of town, so he had an “good excuse” not to be there) to convince the ever gullible boobocracy (that’s us) that they intend to give us the judges. Har har. Good running joke.

    As for the international meat cleaver that Bo-bama is using that you assume Romney will put in the drawer, all I can say is where were you from 2000 to 2008? Obama is merely continuing Bush’s policies. Nothing more, and probably less. Romney has repeatedly said that he wants to keep the Iranians from getting the bomb and threatening Israel. I think of the two, Obama is probably the less belligerent. He’s pursuing a measured course against Iran and China, and the Likudniks (the Israeli right wing who are ethnic cleansing the West Bank with their settlements project) hate him, which is to me a recommendation. If Bibby Netanyahu hates you, and you aren’t Muslim, that’s an endorsement in my book.

    Not to mention that Romney is LDS. Anyone who can maintain a testimony for the Book of Mormon these days is either daft or a hypocrite. Or more likely both. That alone disqualifies him.

    Which is why I’m not going to vote. Walking away in disgust is not apathy. If they throw an election, and no one comes, they’ll be crap out of luck, and what’s more to the point, legitimacy.

    • Voted YES on banning human cloning.
      This cloture motion was in order to end debate and move to consideration of legislation banning human cloning. [A YES vote opposes human cloning].
      Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)42; N)54; NV)4
      Reference: Motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to S. 1601; Bill S. 1601 ; vote number 1998-10 on Feb 11, 1998

  37. I can get mine down to one word each…

    Gingrich: No.
    Paul: Useless.
    Santorum: Dork.
    Huntsman: Who?
    Perry: What??
    Romney: Fine.

  38. Charles,
    Obama overturned all the good, pro-life policies which Bush protected and promoted as president.

    Have you looked at Obama’s pro-abortion, pro-embryonic-stem-cell research, pro-radical-gay record? How can you ignore the reality of the harm he has militantly promoted during his political career?

    How can you ignore the fact that Obama does not even desire to protect babies who survive a botched abortion? This is all on the record.

    To state that there is no difference between Obama and Bush or between the Democrats and the Republicans is either ignorant or irresponsible. Please take a good look at their records on these crucial matters.

    Someone said that evil succeeds when good men do nothing. Please, do not ignore your responsibility to the good of our nation as a fellow voter!

  39. And the best part of all of this, it was RAND Paul who had the to-do with the money for Neo-Nazi’s. Srsly, people.

    • You really should do some, I dunno, research. Both Rand AND Ron Paul have financial ties with Neo-Nazis. Both are unapologetic about this. That makes them both creeps.

      • I don’t know, I would like to see Shea in a kilt. Maybe he could win.

        But long-skirt-children-clinging and a “never again!” look on the face? Simcha. Every. Time.

  40. Simcha, I admire your writing IMMENSELY, but often I feel like something really important is missing or lost. It seems like there is a huge emphasis on being a really good Catholic (which is awesome!) but anyone trying to be a really good PERSON is a standard joke. Holiness (and most holiness out there is by necessity the very imperfect variety!) is often mocked openly or ignored for the sake of a punch line. I’m starting to get the impression that this is a “very Catholic” blog – about mediocrity. A large family and NFP are not the whole of Catholicism, but I feel like they are the credentials being used here to gain the trust & respect of mainstream Catholics – and then poke fun at those Catholics who are trying (and failing) to go against mediocrity. I understand that it’s a lighthearted blog meant to entertain and provoke thought – which it does. But this election writing is a perfect example of moral mediocrity – sometimes you write as though your main priority in life is to support Christ and His Church, and then posts like this [and the comments and responses] deteriorate into something no better (though no worse) than what we could read on any secular website. Simcha, I think you are talented and funny enough to write entertaining posts that would also please Jesus. Mean-spirited barbs from you and “the Jerk” are a huge disappointment, even if they get hearty laughs from your adoring fans – who are YOU adoring and trying to please? You have so much talent – I’m still a fan but I encourage you to realize the influence you have over so many people and use that power to help them grow in personal goodness, not just fidelity to the Church and her wise doctrines.

    • What a cheerfully sanctimonious response to someone’s work. Did you really say that while her family size makes the cut, her writing offends Jesus? I’m a convert, and a windbag, so please take my opinion as that of a bombastic newcomer who doesn’t know any better. Since my confirmation in 2005 I’ve begun to see the danger of letting this holy, antiquated, relevant, stupefyingly beautiful faith become a pinched, reflexive response to “the world”. We must must must be able to present a cogent and thinking person’s viewpoint, and we must not retreat from politics with saccharine conformity. I’m so thankful that Simcha is willing to be oh-so-real in her writing life, and she’s even brave enough to be publicly wrong about Rick Santorum. ; )

      • I’m sorry brawkalicious but as a newcomer you obviously have not spent enough time playing that long-treasured christian game, “who are YOU trying to please?” It is often confused with moving sermons by brilliant pastors but the home version involves everybody and their uncle looking around the living room and pointing out the obvious flaws in the family members, while shouting, “Nice dinner, ma! But who did you REALLY make it for, huh?”

        Also available in the popular internet version where you can ominously ask total strangers to examine their consciences based on a spiritual flaw you have been observing now for some time.

  41. Your thinking is what has destroyed California. Romney is so weak and he will cater to what is best for Romney. You need to rethink Gingrich. He tossed out Mills and the Romney like weakling Bob Micheals (GOP minority leader) and implemented some real changes that Pelosi et al have worked to reverse. If you are satisfied with a figurehead leader, don’t expect momentum in the direction you think things should go. Look what the Bushes have done to us. Look what Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwartzenegar has done to California.

  42. This is probably the best commentary on the GOP candidates that I’ve read!

    OK, OK, so I haven’t read any other political commentaries. I try to avoid things that make my seasonal affective disorder worse than it already is. But I have a feeling that even if I read everything else out there, this would still be the best.

    Still don’t know if I can vote for Romney. Waiting til the bitter end to see who strikes me as the best space heater….

  43. Santorum is ideal in so many ways, and his persona is much tougher than my first and (subsequent) impression. He does somehow project a weak image in soundbites and the debate logistics never served him, but it seems that he’s always been considered a staunch guy in many areas, including foreign policy. The idea of Romney of our president doesn’t bug me and doesn’t excite me. I’m being decidedly shallow here ~ because it does seem like a depressing lot.

    Especially when our current administration is just begging to be beaten, the emotional bleakness really sets in! I’d happily vote Ron Paul, since his pro-life consistency and insane candor is encouraging; if only there were a way to reconcile Libertarian platforms and Catholic social teaching. Your points about the cold-hearted SOBs under the surface of most Libertarians is quite stinkin’ adroit.

    And, Simcha, if you wrote your original Register post while *wearing pants*, it seems a certain crowd has all they were looking for to write you off for good.

  44. Oh come on. This is not a “mean spirited barb” but more of a rebuttal to those uber Catholics and conservatives who seem determined to paint Romney as just as bad or worse than Obama and a vote for Romney as equally (potentially) mortally sinful as a vote for Obama.

    If you want to “send a message” to the GOP about the importance of life and family and cultural issues, the primaries are the time to do it. If Santorum is still in the race by the time your state’s primary rolls around (or even if he isn’t, you could still write him in, I suppose), and you think he is better than Romney, by all means vote for him. You are, at that point, only picking a party nominee, not the actual POTUS, and there is not as much to lose by choosing an allegedly “unelectable” candidate. Even if the “more electable” candidate wins, he will get the clear message that a considerable chunk of his party isn’t very happy with him, and will likely move in their direction.

    However, when the general election rolls around, the stakes get much higher. This time, you are choosing who will actually be POTUS for the next 4 years. At that point, IF the only choices left are Romney and Obama, then the question becomes: is Romney really so far off the mark for me that I’d rather see Obama reelected than cast my vote for him?

    If it comes to that, my answer will be no. Does anyone here really, honestly think that Romney will be as aggressively anti-life, anti-Catholic and anti-all-things-conservative as Obama — especially with at least one and quite possibly BOTH houses of Congress in GOP control after he takes office? If he is, indeed, a weathervane who flips with the political winds, then logically he will flip to the right when the winds are blowing at gale force from that direction!

    To further complicate matters, we have the fact that 1) in some states, primary elections are purely “beauty contests” whose results are not binding on that state’s convention delegation; and 2) in the general election, the only vote that really counts is the Electoral College vote.

    If you, like me, are a conservative living in a deep blue state (IL) whose electoral votes are almost certainly going to Obama anyway, then there is less force to the argument that “throwing away” your vote on a third party or write in candidate in the general only enables the worse of the two major party candidates to win. However, if you live in a hotly contested swing state like Florida or Ohio, where just one or two votes per precinct really could decide who gets those electoral votes, you have to take that argument more seriously.

    • Elaine,

      I’ve read some version of your “lesser evil” argument (for that in fact what it is) for the past 20 years.

      I’ll do one of three things on Election Day: Vote for the only candidate with consistent morals, even if I vehemently disagree with him on some (prudential) matters – that’d be Ron Paul – stay at home, or write in Cthulhu, because I’m damn tired of voting for the lesser evil and might as well go with the greater this year.

    • I swore I was not going to comment on this thread, but Elaine Krewer, you nailed it. (And Simcha, you rock, as usual.)

  45. Thank you, Simcha, for publishing these kinds of posts every once in a while so that, through the comments sections I may never, ever forget how truly awful, sanctimonious and two-faced even our most religious brothers and sisters can be if you step on their favorite mental pet; bet it a particular politician or a sweet lie about How Every Catholic Ought to Behave.

    You also keep me inspired to never, ever start a blog or frankly, aspire to any kind of minutely public life.

    I love you for these things.

  46. As a former resident of MA you would be a dumbass to vote for Romney, he is a thief, a walk away coward, and would continue with obama/Romni care because that was his goal for MA that is now going bankrupt because of it. If only US citizens had to take an intelligence test in order to vote we would not need much paper.

  47. I agree Simcha. My dream ticket was Paul Ryan/Marco Rubio. Not gonna happen. I would be at peace voting for Romney. Four more years of Obama fills me with dread for our country and I pray people will open their eyes to his real persona and agenda.

    PS I also agree about Santorum, kind of whiney.

  48. The only one that worked up any steam and had a lot of support—won’t be on the ticket. Sara Palin would have had my vote, but once again the R-Party comes up with watered down Democrat candidates for us. It is a poor selection and we are forced to cast our vote for the “lesser of evils” and against the blood thirsty Democratic Party. Very frustrating and disappointing–politics as usual. Romney is a lousy candidate as was Dole and McCain–bummers!!!
    I hated myself for voting for the “over the hill gang”. Lord navy mercy on us!!!

  49. I have a question for the folks who think Paul doesn’t understand Global realities. Why is he getting the most dollars from Active service Military?

  50. I am betting that if the R Part follows its usual course of “its his turn to run” that they will force Newt G on us. A man who has down NOTHING at all to help the conservatives. A conservative in my mind does not flit from woman to woman and have a history of divorces due to his infidelity. But that is just old fashioned me.

  51. Wow. I somehow missed this post yesterday and wandered over here today to share a much-belated, random, non-political thought inspired by your post on the same theme at the Register (included at the end of this comment.*)

    Re: being a political blogger: maybe you’re not a political blogger per se, but you do write great Catholic political therapy!

    I tend to agree with most of your takes on the primary candidates, but can’t quite bring myself to vote for Romney, because of a tickle of “spidey sense” due to being originally from California. The California state GOP is moribund in large part because of party leadership’s habitual support for “empty suit” candidates in their desperation for gaining seats (at the national and local level) – the culmination of which was the election of Ahnold at the price of throwing one of their own and a much better candidate under the bus. There is now no viable alternative to the party of Obama in CA.

    I’m not sure who I’d vote for, but I worry that Romney or the next empty suit will be the candidate who kills any alternative to the left-wing crazy on the national scene.

    *So, what I actually came here to say was: if Godwin’s Law applies in the blogosphere, then there’s a (little-known) corollary that the first person to aptly reference Arrested Development wins. The Jerk won the Register combox.

  52. I pretty sure there will be negative responses tp this comment but what the hell. There are WAY to many one note voters in the comment section. So for them I ask the question do you have any other political beliefs? There is a lot more to this world than abortion such as real healthcare reform which includes reforming insurance companies, international politics, caring for the needy in our society, making sure we spend more on education that we do on prisons, keeping our environment clean…

    Those are but a few of the other things that our government needs to address.

    Oh and BethF get a life.

    • Cathy, you are right that there are many issues of concern in today’s world, but we need a leader who is MORAL, and for me, that means someone, (any of the Republicans we’re talking about here qualifies) who stands for traditional values, including life and marriage. Everything else you mention is important, and difficult, and complicated, but I’m looking for someone brave enough to declare his values. We are going down as a nation, and not just economically.

      What bothers me most about Obama is his prideful hold on tired liberal mores that have failed miserably in raising up our nation. He’s too smart for this. He, (and many others of us) would likely have been aborted if his flaky mother and womanizing, philandering father had conceived him after 1973. How many women have been coerced/dragged into abortions? How can you live with this reality?

  53. Ellen I can live with this reality precisely because it is reality. The entire country does not share your views of morality. They are yours and to be respected but this is a country founded on freedom of opinion. If you remember our founders were trying to escape religious prosecution. And yes before you tell me I know that the original pilgrems thought the Church to “liberal”.

    Every child deserves to be wanted at the very least. Can you imagine growing up with some one who doesn’t want you? How many women, particularly young women, are forced to carry a child that will in likelyhood ruin their lives?
    Please do not throw Nazi at be surely you can be more creative than that.

    It seems that the Christian right is no longer aware of what beginning a christan really means.

    • If you consider being born ‘one note’, we can all be thankful you have only one vote. How truly sad. You’re setting free the little children from obstacles, difficulty and rejection ~ by slaughtering them? The country was founded on the value of liberty, not “freedom of opinion”. Liberty is defined as freedom from being controlled by others. So exercise your coveted choice all you want, particularly ___before___ getting pregnant. Just to address the subject which bores you enough to do no actual thinking in regards to it and dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as being ill-informed.

    • It’s not ok to kill somebody just because he is “unwanted” or inconvenient or poor or will “ruin” somebody’s life. By all means, provide health care and education so that his mother can provide for him and still have opportunities in life. But don’t kill him! Killing an innocent person is never the Christian thing to do!

      • Also, Cathy, I haven’t read all the hundred-plus comments so I might be missing something . . . but Simcha’s original post mostly addressed opposition to torture as a pro-life issue. So I don’t see a one-note focus on abortion during this discussion. Is there something specific you’re referring to?

  54. sorry I meant likelihood.

    In addition I presume all of you realize that abortions are going to happen whether you want them or not. Do we really want to go back to the days of women dying from back alley abortions.

    Now I will leave this one note subject for today.

  55. Cathy,
    You should know that the numbers of deaths from back-alley abortions were greatly exaggerated, although they did occur. (Read Bernard Nathanson). Today women are CLAMORING for infants to adopt. Why not carry the child and then do the moral thing, which is to give it up for adoption (as difficult as that may be). Aborting the child is not in the child’s best interest. How could killing someone be in their own interest?

  56. Simcha,

    I was taking your views seriously until you said this about Gingrich, “He is a pig, personally and politically.” I don’t see how such ugly name-calling is Catholic at all, and although I will probaly not vote for Gingrich, I would not say this even about Obama and I can’t see his face on T.V. without turning it off.

      • Did I miss something about Catholic moral teaching? I thought every person has a dignity of his or her own adquired by the fact that we are all sons and daughters of God. If that is so, then how can we call someone a “pig” simply because we disagree with him politically?
        Now, no one offends me more than the present resident of the White House. I can’t even watch him on the T.V. set without my stomach turning. However, will I call him a “pig?” No, because whatever he believes politically or does, he is still a child of God with an inherent dignity from the Creator whether he acknowledges that fact or not. If I truly believe that because of my Catholicism, would I be consistent with Catholicism in calling him a pig? That was my point with the blogger and with you. Do we need to lower our standards just to be able to disagree with people of opposite political points of view? I suppose we can, but once we claim to be Catholic, if that means anything, then we should not act like pagans or at least like pagans who have no class.

  57. As a qualified person who has studied and belonged to the LDS church you are WRONG,WRONG,WRONG, Go to ‘The Mormon Curtain, Recovery From Mormonism, Ex-Mormon.Org. and study this wacky cult and then go and vote for Rick Santorum…the only true candidate that Catholics can and should vote for.

  58. I do believe you are incorrect about Ron Paul and WWII. I don’t know of any time when he said we shouldn’t have gotten involved. Instead, he recently said that, if he were president, he would not go to war without the Constitutionally-mandated approval of Congress, even if it were a situation like WWII. The thing is, he will NOT send troops abroad on his own, without following the law of the land which says he must petition Congress first. I know following the law makes him waaaaaaay far out and not mainstream and loony, but you have to respect someone who takes an oath to defend the Constitution and then actually abides by it.

    Meanwhile, his views on foreign policy strike me as much more Catholic than the others’. Constant war is NOT a Catholic thing … it’s an objectively evil thing. And I think Ron Paul’s belief in living and letting live, in being a good neighbor, and in staying out of preemptive wars is a heck of a lot closer to papal teaching than any of the others’. This link makes that much quite clear: http://www.altcatholicah.com/altcatol/a/b/spa/4383/

  59. Also, I alluded to this in my earlier post but will call attention to it again — it is very possible that the Senate could flip to GOP control this time around, so if you have a contested Senate seat in your state, please pay close attention to both the primary and general election contests for that seat. Having both houses of Congress in GOP control MAY help limit the damage caused by 4 more years of Obama if he ends up winning. Also, a GOP-controlled Senate can put the brakes on any too-far-left appointments.

  60. On May 2, 2003 Josef Ratzinger said: “Given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’

    Madeline Albright on the death of 500,000 Iraqi children: It was ** “worth it”**.

    War is a moral issue and a life issue.

    Please read Ellen Finnigan’s compelling piece on the only candidate who is truly pro-life, and who heartily supported JP2’s views on war. She blogs under the name “Altcatholicah”

  61. Trish, you stated, “As a qualified person who has studied and belonged to the LDS church you are WRONG,WRONG,WRONG, Go to ‘The Mormon Curtain, Recovery From Mormonism, Ex-Mormon.Org. and study this wacky cult and then go and vote for Rick Santorum…the only true candidate that Catholics can and should vote for.” Let me “change” some words and this is how it reads: “As a qualified person who has studied and belonged to the Roman Catholic Church you are WRONG,WRONG,WRONG, Go to Recovery from Catholicism. Ex-Catholics.Org and study their wacky cult and then go vote for Mitt Romney…the only true candidate that Catholics can vote for.”
    Now, I agree with you, I’m leaning toward Santorum but the statement you made is made by far too many ex- Catholics to justify their bigotry of Catholicism. Are you sure you want to do the same about the LDS? Now, do I agree with the LSD on many issues? No, but I will not penalize a canditate because of his religion unless his religion is outright racist or un-American.

  62. As for the neo nazis–They are criminals and hate mongers. I wish they would go found their own island nation, and keep inbreeding. I have never heard that Ron Paul was a racist–please clarify–I wouldn’t give him so much as a second thought if this were true. As for those contributions in question– I’m pretty sure Mother Teresa took money for her poor from some pretty bad characters…Once my father urged me to stop eating General Mills products, Chinese imports and etc. etc. etc. because of Planned Parenthood, communism, gay agenda etc…..in all sincerity, where does one draw the line over “dirty money”?

    • Yes, I thinking people with normal functioning consciences can comprehend taking political donations from Neo-Nazis makes you a creep. That’s a line we can all agreed to draw.

      Ron Paul is either a racist, or someone who cynically profited (try $1 million a year for the newsletters) off or racism. In short, he’s an a-hole.

      • Jerk, I’m a wife and a mother like your precious and beautiful wife. Why would you call me a creep? I’m not even sure whom I am voting for, I am not an extremist or a hater. I’m trying to listen and gather information. What newsletters? What did they say? I can’t stand haters. I’m married to an immigrant. I hate war. I hate war mongers. I hate when the innocent die. Why are you so caustic? Do you think this is the Catholic method? I’m too busy (like Simcha) do be an expert. My 24 year-old and 18-year-old (when I read them this) told me “Mom, you just got trolled” whatever that means. ( By the way, when I was a kid, we had a big libertarian fundraiser at our house) But I have my own mind, and I vote my conscience. Am I a creep? I love God and would die defending my love for Him and my neighbor. I AM *creeped out* by your response.

        • Oh Lord, now we need the fainting couch.

          Anna, I did not call you a creep. Re-read what I wrote, I was talking about Ron Paul, the creep who takes political donations from Neo-Nazis.

          Here’s a mental experiment:

          Pretend Ron Paul is pro-abortion. All hid other positions are the same as they are now, but his Libertarian ideas lead him to be for “choice.” Are the Neo-Nazi donations ambiguous?

          • O.k. Thanks I think for not calling me a creep. Not fainting, but a little thick tonight on the pro-choice logic. (Seems like everybody takes abortion money. I bet even the Advil I’m about to take was made by some abortion-pushing, creepy, entity) All I need is *one* good creepy quote from the old grouch’s newsletters, to realize that all of his constitutional *purity* was smoke and mirrors for being a neo nazi sympathizer. Then I’ll be just as outraged as you are. BTW, I think Mitty boy’s stance on abortion is creepy too.

            • Well, I didn’t call you a creep, but I am going to call you obtuse.

              The fact of the matter is Ron Paul has decades of documented behavior which demonstrate that he is either a racist, or someone who has cynically used racism for personal and professional gain.

              Yet, because he is pro-life, or antiwar, or pro-hemp, (whatever your soapbox happens to be) people who should know better make themselves look like Jesuits in a brothel on coupon night, straining to come up with bogus arguments to justify crappy behavior.

              Ron Paul is a creep. If you don’t see that, you’re a fool. Don’t keep playing dumb by asking for details. You know they are there. (Your teenagers might call this trolling because they are not used to having their ideas challenged. Or maybe they are not careful readers.)

              Ron Paul is the perfect example that being pro-life does not make you a good person.

              Who said I support Mittens? You just threw that in there to try and justify your lack of a stance of Ron Paul’s toxic behavior.

              Chew on this: Libertarian politics are antithetical to Catholic teaching.

              Shit storm in 5, 4, 3, 2 …

              • Shit storm is how easily you resort to insults. Obtuse? Maybe, but I’m busy and really hate politics after all. I would never pride myself in being a political know it all anyhow. Jesuit with coupon on whore night? Lol. Try “parenting, and eight kids, no bc for the last 25 years.” I guess you have a beef with Jesuits too. I named #7 after Francis Xavier, so I guess I’m in good company. Maybe one of my grandkids will name their kid “Simcha” cause you’re bound to make her a saint. Still deciding on who to vote for, and hoping you can get past the shit storm and quote me something I can sink my teeth into. So look, I have the most adorable two-year-old who won’t go to bed, and I’m off to pop a champagne bottle with my other kid who just turned 21, down town. Cheers to your gorgeous family. Your wife is “bomb” as my kids would say, so you can’t be all bad.

  63. catholicvote.org has endorsed Rick Santorum! Anyone who’d like more researched information about him should go there. National Review also has some very solid articles about him.

  64. Uhm, did I imagine Romney onstage talking about the beautiful thing that a homosexual relationship can be? He’s a slickster. I’m going to have to work very hard to understand why any practicing Catholic would vote against Rick Santorum.

  65. Or in other words, Rick Santorum is just a little too Catholic for you. You would prefer “Howdie Doodie” aka Mitt Romney. After all, being Catholic means giving ‘lip service’ to the 50 million babies butchered babies via abortion since 1973 . Let’s support those good pro-life “Catholics in good standing” like Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and John Kerry. Saving the earth, I mean “green taxes”, is much more important than protecting and cherishing human life. Your “electabilty” has brought us 40 years of “the culture of death”, thanks. You phony catholics sicken me.CINO->Catholics in Name Only !

    • I was going to wait like I said, but after the research, needed to say how horrible I felt about reading Paul’s view that we should not intervene for humanitarian reasons, in other countries. As this pertains to the Holocaust., I am truly disgusted. I’m sorry. He is flat out wrong. ( U,N peace keepers should be saving Christians in Somalia. They are dying as I type this) I also don’t believe that private property owners have a right to put racially discriminating signs in their windows That’s a hate crime, not a property ownership issue. Again, I believe he is very wrong, even if he is vehemently declaring he would never condone it . I had never heard these things.

  66. For those of you who don’t have teens that mangle the language, it doesn’t get better than “bomb”, though they also say “sick” for something good, which is just awful.

  67. @ Jerk, I’d like to distill this to *one*, MONUMENTAL reality. Our civil liberties are being eroded. What George Bush did to our civil liberties in the name of “war on terror” was nothing less than trampling on our constitution. This precedent *should* ALARM you.. I think Romney has proven himself to be a political *beast*, which translates to *more of the same*, and further down the *slippery slope*. Gingrich and Santorum have both proven what they are capable of by putting their political careers before their principles. But here’s where the rubber hits the road: *** You’ll be telling your own daughter some day, what it was like when a Catholic couple could joyfully bring a new child into this world without having to march down to city hall to get a pregnancy permit.****Tell me we’re not headed in that direction! I don’t think Ron Paul is electable, but I do think he *is* sending a powerful message to the Washington BEAST, that a fair amount of lazy and trusting Americans are *waking up* to an *alarming* reality. What I’m going to do now, is a little digging on the internet to see if you are right about Paul being a racist (darn! I’m lazy too. I wanted you to do it for me) And then I’ll respect that it is Sunday (what I suspect you are doing) and slam my lap top shut.

  68. Many of you are calling Ron Paul an “anti-Semite” because he says he would not have intervened in WWII, even to prevent the Holocaust. Well, neither did President Roosevelt or his VP, Harry Truman get us into that war to save the Jews. Keep in mind that it was Roosevelt and his inner circle who would not let boatloads of Jewish refugees land in New York. This liberal saint sent them back into Hitler’s arms to satisfy his and his inner circle’s anti-semitism.
    Do any of you anti-Paulbots believe Ron Paul would have returned those boats to Nazi Germany, had he been president then? There’s more: Why isn’t anyone decrying Roosevelt’s failure to intervene in Soviet Russia, where Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler did? But you’ll probably say, that was then; this is now. Okay, how come ROMNEY is not calling for intervention in Africa where the Muslims are slaughtering Christians? How come ROMNEY is not calling for intervention in China where the government there is sponsoring an ongoing abortion holocaust?

  69. Simcha,

    You simply said you were voting for Romney and I can’t believe what the reaction has been. Everything from WW II, Roosevelt, the Holocaust, Ron Paul, Africa, Hitler, phony Catholics, pigs, shit storm, torture, water-boarding, etc. One would think the Republican candidates are sooooooooooo flawed we can’t really support anyone. If Obama is reading this forum he must be saying, “Wow. those “rich” Republicans are hopelessly divided. I have a change in 2012!”

  70. As a person who has been very involved in the political process the past 10 years, who listens, debates, and tries to learn and make an informed vote…I am COMPLETELY AT A LOSS! I have no idea. I change my mind weekly! I feel like I am panning for gold, just sifting through all of the sand in hopes that one of these times a nugget is left behind that I can vote for….but nothing there’s nothing but pyrite!

    It is frustrating to me at a time when we really need a hero and a leader.

  71. Maybe paying more attention would give you a better understanding of what Ron Paul stands for. I do not know where u got the information , “But he also thinks we had no business getting into World War II.” This is totally inaccurate. He only believes in going to war if the United States is attacked or if congress approves. These wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc were started not by congress approval but by UN approval. This is against the constitution and international law because our country was not in imminent danger. He did vote to go to war with Afghanistan after September 11th to kill Osama Bin Laden. After it was approved the government abused the powers given to them by using it to invade Iraq through UN approval and lied to the American people by stating that there was “weapons of mass destruction” that they planned to use on the United States. After that happened the government lied again to stay in the wars by saying we were there to promote democracy and set up a new government that started to fail the day after we left. Now our government is doing the same thing in Iran.

  72. so the best President has to be pro-Christian in every way…

    I can’t wait until religion finally dies out. this sad devotion to an ancient method of control is sickening.

    Now don’t get me wrong, the individual teachings of gospel are not my target. Rather, it is the institution of control on a larger level that has existed for millenia that is despicable.

    • You stated, “I can’t wait until religion finally dies out.”

      Well, you are going to have to wait till hell freezes over and pigs fly before you see your dreams realized!
      Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, all the Mormons and JW in the world, are not going to disappear tomorrow simple because “Middle” the non-bigot, wants it that way!
      BTW, most people in the world, the vast majority, thanks be to God and Tebow, do not share your views!

    • Middle, your dream of ‘no control by religion’ is almost upon us, and to what end? To have our kids indoctrinated with vile and nihilist values in the schools, to shoot the ‘f-bomb’ everywhere, including our (public property) TV airwaves, to do literally everything and anything we want to anyone anywhere, except murder, in the name of ‘individual rights’????

      I’ll listen to the Magisterium any day over the miserable and relativist world you seek.

  73. I’d rather the Christian Faith be in control rather than a Socialist or Communist government. Obama has been the perfect example of a President that has not been Christian. Abortion, homosexual legislation, a Socialist agenda– have run rampant with him. You can have him Mr. Middle.

  74. I must disagree that you say Dr Paul “prides himself on not helping.” Quite the contray….he humbly helps others on a personal level, and encourages others to do the same. As doctor, he refused to take medicaid, because it was against his principals. However, he NEVER turned away a medicaid pt, instead he treated them free. Pride is a terrible sin, and Dr Paul has led a humble life serving others, you may be unaware of that, because he does not brag or tout his own home.

    He is also very pro-life, and always has been (unlike Romney whose viewpoint changes with the wind.) Twice, Dr Paul introduced a bill in congress that would define life as starting at the moment of conception, his fellow supposedly pro-life Republicans would not support it.

    Romney’s record shows that there is no reason to expect him to be any different than Obama. And if I were happy with the way Pres Obama was running the country, I would vote him, not a clone like Romney.

    • Don’t be ‘Sad’, but retain hope, and faith. Your info about Ron Paul is interesting; I didn’t know he’d eschewed Medicaid – that is admirable.

      Ron Paul is a good man, with many redeeming features, but he inhabits a place on the political spectrum that is too negative and too libertarian to prevail in the general presidential election against the apostate Mr. O. Paul has a great place in our discussion, but we will need to rally around the Republican designate, probably Mitt, to win in the end. I agree with those who understand that this election is crucial to the continuation of our republic as a place anywhere north of Gehenna.

      • Actually polls done have shown that Ron Paul is one of the few candidates who polls equal or higher to President Obama. Many people on all sides of the political spectrum are tired of the status quo, the corporate bailouts, and the increasing dictatorial powers of the president (President Obama has assassinated American citizens without any trial or judicial oversight, and he now has the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without filing any charges. I personally feel he is the only Republican candidate who can beat President Obama. R Paul is the only candidate who has attracted a significant portion of the independent vote, which is necessary to win.

        As for M Romney, based on his voting record, I see little difference between him & President Obama. I’m not going to vote for someone just because they are a Republican, when they don’t truely stand for conservative values. If M Romney wins the nomination, I will vote 3rd party or write-in…..quite confident that our country will continue on its same down-ward course regardless of Pres Obama or M Romney are elected.

  75. It looks like the GOP will keep the House and gain a majority in the Senate. Consider these two scenarios: (1) Obama wins. He sends up socialist legislation but the Congress passes none of it. (2) Romney wins. He sends up the same socialist legislation, and the Congress passes it out of party loyalty. It’s happened this way before. Think about it.

  76. You only half thought this out. Being that I m older and wiser gives me an advantage.

    Did you really ask God on this or did you invent your version of God who would assume what you think?

    They are all bad.

    I mean what is wrong with a health care system where when you go you do not have to pay? The Pope does not pay. Are we not good enough?

    30K is way too much a deductible for anyone to pay and this is not counting paying every month for maternity. Get real.

    Better think about this and not do what you think but what God really thinks. Haven’t you asked him or are you just going verbatim praying in Latin word for word because it looks good and “Catholic” and you don’t have to actually have a real relationship with a God who cares about people so you must do so also.

    Consider and pray about that when you approach this election. But you don’t want to be told that . Some of us can see right through it.

    • Jeanne, who pays for the “free” healthcare? The people’s taxes of course. That means, your neighbor across the street or the one next to your house. Nothing in life is free. When taxes go up, the expenses go up as well. That is why you have inflation.

  77. I wish I came across your blog before the primary. I would have told you to not pay attention to who is more electable or not electable. I would put all my trust in God and just choose the closest candidate that you like. For me that would be Sanctorum. Yes, he made some mistakes and supported Specter, but he also gave us Justice Roberts and Alito because of that. Also, he doesn’t support big government. He is for low taxes. He is for good government (meaning, money should be spent responsibly like supporting pro-life causes and those who are struggling). As for his foreign policy, I heartily support it because America needs to be stand strong as a nation to have more peace in the world. It may not make sense to you because you grew up here. But coming from a third world country, it is reassuring when America is standing strong in the world and not some Muslim country or communist country. When America is strong it doesn’t mean that we are invading and colonizing for a hundred years. If you do a little research, I don’t think that happened yet! Keep praying for the election! You might be surprised. Just trust God and say rosaries and Memorares as many as you can. This year is a very important election. This will determine your children’s children’s future. Hope that makes sense. God bless you and your new baby!
    Peace, Mary

    • Santorum has a record of being very big government. He supported Pres Bush huge socialized medicine plan (Medicare Part D), he also supported the federalization of education with NCLB. I understand people have different reasons for the candidates they support, but Santorum has a track-record of being very big-government (and that is one of the reasons I do not support him.)

      • First off, I don’t consider him big government like the others. As a good Catholic and a citizen we have the responsibility to channel the money to good causes/charity for the good of our country. I would trust him with my money compared to the other candidates any time. (Especially Obama). I don’t believe in no government. I believe in limited government.

        • Garvan,

          “If you want a candidate who is frothing at the mouth to start bombing Iran, Santorum is your man.” This is NOT a fair characterization of his position. You made it sound like he is a war monger who can’t wait to get us into conflict with another nation. Now, is Iran preparing nuclear weapons to threaten Israel’s existence? Is Iran prepared to even threatened the United States in the not too distant future with nuclear weapons because Obama is willing to do nothing about them? Those are the questions you should be asking of yourself before you attack Santorum whose position is that we need to get rid of the Iranian facilities that would make those weapons a reality. That is not the same thing as “let’s go and invade that nation and kill as many Iranians as we can.” Peace is one thing, appeasement is another and Santorum is NOT into appeasement. Horror of horrors, he is actually willing to defend this nation against its most powerful enemies!

          • Hi, tony-
            Santorum is an outspoken, self-admitted foreign interventionist, and yes, I do believe one of his highest priorities as president would be to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities. That would certainly lead to war with Iran. But why us? Iran’s most advanced missiles can only travel about 1000 miles. Iran’s nukes, if and when the get them, are a threat to Israel, not us. Let Israel take care of any threats they perceive. They have the best military in the region, hundreds of nukes, and multiple ways to deliver them. Their Jericho missiles can reach 4000 miles. It’s high time we stop being the world’s police force. Santorum, unfortunately, thinks we should remain in this role. -GK

            • Garvan,

              “Santorum is an outspoken, self-admitted foreign interventionist…” See, you and I see the same person and see different things on that same person. To you he is a “self-admitted foreign inteventionist,” to me he is willing to intervene in order to defend this country. You make him sound as if he is looking for a fight, when the ones looking for a fight are the Iranians, just to name a few. If he were to become the Commander-in-Chief,” what is it that you expect of a Commander-in-Chief?” If you believe one of the highest priorities of a U.S. President is to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities, then why blame Santorum for wanting to do just that? BTW, Santorum is not just the only Republican candidate to want to do just that, and even the appeasement President in the White House might have to do just that to protect this country. The alternative to Santorum, Perry, Romney, Gingrich, and others is Mr. Obama and we can see why the Iranians are now openly provoking the United States, because they know we have a wimp in the White House pretending he wants peace when what he really wants is appeasement. You are correct in thinking blowing up their nuclear facilities would lead to war, but doing nothing will lead to what? Yes, Israel can take care of those weapons, but we can’t abandon Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, and if the Iranian threat can’t touch us yet, all we have to do is to do nothing and eventually they will have the power to reach us with their missiles, and then what? The unfortunate part of being a world power is that we don’t have to look for enemies to engage them, they will try to harm us no matter what. We are the big kid on the block they want to get, even when they are not prepared to do so.

              • [quote]Yes, Israel can take care of those weapons, but we can’t abandon Israel[/quote]

                Are you aware that Israel Prime Minister Natanhuyu testified before the US congress that Israel does NOT need or want US help? Are you aware that when Iraq started building nuclear facilities, Israel–against the US telling them not to–just flew over and bombed the nuclear facilities? I believe it is the sin of pride that keeps the US involved in attempting to direct & control Israel, not a desire to help. *IF* Israel ever needs our help, that will be a different situation–but until then, we should stay OUT of the middle east, quit bombing & maiming innocent civilians, and quit presuming that we know better than Israel, what Israel needs.

                [quote]We can attack and then not vote for a single Republican candidate because none of them are perfect, and thus we can ensure to have Obama in the White House for the next four years [/quote]

                If a Republican candidate is a RINO who offers nothing different than Obama, it makes no sense to vote for them. The goal should be, not defeating Obama, the goal should be electing someone who will be a better president.

                • “Are you aware that Israel Prime Minister Natanhuyu testified before the US congress that Israel does NOT need or want US help?”

                  I’m fully aware of this fact, but I’m also aware of another fact, the disdain of Mr. Obama for Israel. That’s precisely why I wonder why any Jew voted for Obama in 08. When he said he was bringing “hope and change,” he certainly did not mean that for Israel. No President of the United States, Republican or Democrat, has been more unfriendly to Israel than Obama. Of course, I believe Carter hates Istrael with a passion, but not while he was President. No wonder Natanhuyu said he didn’t need help from us!

                  Of the U.S. you stated that we should “quit bombing & maiming innocent civilians.” Both you and I know armed conflict is ugly. Where we might disagree is on this, in an armed conflict, does this country bomb and kill innocent civilians “on purpose”, or is it happening as part of the ugliness of armed conflict? Can you say, for sure, Islamists do harm their own innocent civilians and American soldiers because they care about them or are they motivated by hatred?

                  In California we had a RINO as Governor and they are popular with so-called “Moderates,” but I have a hard time not seeing the different between Obama and the present Republican candidates trying to get the nomination. Yesterday’s debate confirmed for me clearly, how different we are in our world view.

                  As for Israel defending itself withous us, I believe you might be right, but I also believe the minute they attack those nuclear facilties in Iran, we will have to come to their aid because Israel has too many enemies in the Middle East waiting for the perfect excuse to attack them.

                  BTW, when Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, they become a threat not just to the United States but to all of Western Civilization, and when a Republican candidate warns Iran not to do that, he is excoriated by some Americans by calling him a war “monger.”

          • Yes, Tony, Iran has made it quite clear they want to wipe Israel off the map. But that’s ISRAEL’S problem, NOT OURS. If they feel threatened, I’m very confident THEY will do whatever it takes to eliminate the threat. And yes, Iran’s nutcase leader continues to vent rage again the U.S. Trouble is, he doesn’t have a way to deliver a nuclear warhead here. Santorum wants to continue Uncle Stupid being the world’s policeman. I and many Americans don’t. To those who want to go on draining our treasury on foreign adventures, I say, send in your personal check to the treasury.

    • Mary,

      We have another option. We can attack and then not vote for a single Republican candidate because none of them are perfect, and thus we can ensure to have Obama in the White House for the next four years growing big government, bankrupting the nation, imitating the European left which is failing at an incredible rate, supporting warfare as a national policy in order to divide this country, using the “race” card every time someone criticizes him, naming supreme court justices willing to advance his socialist agenda. Also, we may want to ignore the fact that he continues to apologize for this country and continues to spread contraceptives and abortion all over the world. By the time his next four years are over, most Catholic hospitals will either be offering contraceptives and performing abortions as they obey the President mandates or they would be close because they are not willing to betray Catholic moral teaching on those issues. I see little difference between the man in the White House and Michael More.

  78. It sounds like you don’t care for any of the candidates. If you aren’t willing to eschew participation in an activity that has no chance of a positive outcome then you are the worst kind of narcissist. A little hyperbole. A person is statistically more likely to die in a car accident on the way to the polling booth than to have their vote become the deciding vote. This is why statisticians don’t vote in general elections unless they heavily support their candidate. Is it symbolically worth it to risk your life voting for a space heater when the decision is concretely out of your hands?

  79. I haven’t made my mind up completely about Paul. Whenever I discuss any of his good points (solutions to the financial crisis, pro-life, pro-family, limited government, even pro-homeschooling!), the response from a fellow Catholic conservative is usually, “but his foreign policy is INSANE!”. Where did you get the idea that he is against the fact that we got into WWII? At some point it is important to hear these things straight from the horse’s mouth. Back in 2007 this issue came up in debate with McCain, he responded by explaining the major difference between isolationism and non-intervention. He sounded perfectly sane and willing to go to war to protect our national security:

    To be honest I’m fed up with all the candidates, but will of course vote against Obama, no matter who wins the nomination. I do think that these judgments about their personalities can become self-fulfilling prophecies in the voting booth.

  80. I was prepared not to like what Simcha had to say , but I began to see that it made sense. I think he’s definitely right about Ron Paul, but I also see what the appeal is. Ron Paul doesn’t talk like all the others, and in this weary situation we’re in it “sort of” makes a little sense. But that’s where we really have to listen to this article and admit to ourselves that Ron Paul is not the choice, not even the short term choice. I’m glad he brought it down to Romney or Newt because that’s what I believe too. I like Newt’s intelligence, after suffering through the last few years with such a lightweight in the intelligence department. I have to remember that Obama is only a puppet for the socialist agenda that has grown exponentially in the last few years. I believe that Obama’s buddy, George Soros is funding this “fudamental change” to our country. I think Simcha is right when he says that Romney is a short term solution. My only concern is that I want to vote for whomever can beat Obama in November!! If Romney is the nominee, then I would urge all voters to support him, and if Gingrich is the nominee, the same thing goes. I know in my heart that Obama is the most dangerous man to ever be in the White House. I don’t call him president because I know for an absolute fact that he is not eligible to hold that office. You can find this out for yourself by looking up Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Along with that, look up the Supreme Court Case, Minor v Happersett of 1875. Stop listening to the derogatory remarks by Obama and the liberal media when it comes to those who know that he is not eligible. Find out for yourself. I had suspected it because when I was younger and in school, we actually studied the Constitution. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that Obama is not eligible to hold the office of president. You can also look up the legislation that the democrats tried to get passed in 2003 because they had already picked Obama as their candidate for the 2008 election. They tried to get this legislation passed, so it would clear the way for Obama to run. What they proposed was an amendment to the Constitution. This amendment would change the different times in just 22 Meligibility requirements of the U.S. Constitution. This would allow Barack Hussein Obama to run for the office of president. They tried 8 ONTHS to change the U.S. Constitution!!! I am grateful that the legislation was rejected all 8 times, but this didn’t stop them. The extreme left has always believed that the American people are stupid. There’s even a clip of Obama saying it when he thought his microphone wasn’t on! These people – Obama, George Soros, and many others decided they would scam the American people. That is why they have been so vocal in calling the people who know he’s not eligible such derogatory names. Their campaign against those people has been massive and includes some liberal judges too. As I said, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Don’t allow them to continue to mock our CONSTITUTION!!!

    • I thought for a minute that Romney or Gingrich would do anything different from Obama, I would consider voting for them. But their records (and I’m only interested in their actual voting records, not in the lies they speak), show that they have a history of big government socialism/crony capitalism which is identical to Obama’s) That is why I will not be voting for them. I would much rather vote 3rd party with a clear conscience.

      • We can also NOT vote for any Republican candidate and ensure four more years of one of the worse Presidents of the United States!

        • If there is reason to believe that Republican candidate will do equally bad to Obama, than it really doesn’t matter which way one votes. Too many people want to see Obama lose, as if it’s some football game and he’s on the opposing team. My goal, is to vote for someone who will do a better job than Obama…..the fact that he must lose for someone better to win, is ancilliary…my main goal is to support a better candidate, not to make Obama lose the election. If the Republican party puts up candidates as bad as the current president, than they deserve to lose, and it may be better for the country if they lose (because it may shake up the Republican party that they need to start listening to their members.) I think the Republican party has continued its downward slide because too many of its members will vote Republican, no matter what, thereby rewarding the bad behavior of its candidates. When the Republican party puts up worthy candidates, I will vote for them. When they do not, I will vote 3rd party (or write-in).

          • Well, this is a free country and you can vote for a third party candidate and simply waste your vote for it will count for nothing. You can vote for the Republican candidate the party will choose with all of his imperfections that look like virtues compared with Obama, or you can vote for Obama and in four years he will complete the disaster he is now fostering and we will look at the end of his 8 years like Greece. It’s all up to us voters.
            If we expect Republican candidates to be perfect, flawless, never contradicting anything they have said in the past, and a perfect Catholic Church, well, we might as well sit and wait for death!

            • Voting for truth is never a wasted vote…it sends a message for righteousness, whether or not the candidate I vote for wins. I don’t expect perfection from Republican candidates (I have yet to vote for a perfect candidate…..they don’t exist.) But I disagree with you that that Romney or Gingrich offers *anything* different than what Obama offers. I believe they will continue the exact same detrimental policies of Obama. Obviously you differ in your opinion of them–but please don’t say I am holding out for perfection, I am holding out for a candidate who will offer something better than Obama (not just in words which Gingrich & Romney are good at, but in an actual conservative voting record.) I will not waste my vote (or my time voting), voting for a candidate whose voting record is a series of flip-flops and often against everything I believe in, just because they say I should believe that they are a real conservative now.

  81. Please excuse the mistakes in the above comment. The sentence that starts out, This amendment would change should be – This amendment would change the eligibility requirements of the U.S. Constitution. Also the sentence that begins with – They tried should be – They tried 8 times in 22 months to change the Constitution.

    • First, Simcha is a lady. Second, I hope your medical insurance pays for the tinfoil you wrap around your head at night to keep the Trilateral Commission’s radio waves from permeating your thoughts.

  82. Whores like you prop up rouge politicians to warmonger the world with your self-righteous crusades. You’re just going with the hype (by voting Romney) since, like many, you can’t make an informed decision anyway. While you are sitting here comfortably writing this ill-informed junk, people are dying around the world. Thanks to the United States corporate war machines, who fires at anyone who dares go against the system of economic exploitation. Why don’t you get enlisted and eat some AK bullets in Afghanistan? Watch some of your buddy dies for nothing, then come back and tell us what you think about pointless perpetual war again.

    When United States go bankrupt, you really shouldn’t claim any sumaritian help, because you choose this path — for yourself and for everyone you dragged along with.

    • “Whores like you…” After reading these words, you lost ANY credibility you might have. What you stated is a personal attack, it’s ugly, has no redeeming value and it kills any dialogue from the start. Shame on you!

      • Only want to hear nice stuff? Tune in to your favourite foxy news, they dress things up rather pretty.

        The truth is everywhere on the Internet. Enough has been said already, if you didn’t read that’s your problem. The day you need to start queuing for your food and medical coupons, those are the days thing will become worse — far more worse than receiving little ugly attacks on your intelligence.

        • It’s not a matter of wanting to read or hear “nice stuff,” it’s a matter of propriety. I bet you would not, in person, tell the blogger what you think using those words because she may re-arrange your face and rightly so. One does not need to engage in personal attacks to win or make an argument. Attacking positions, stating that she is wrong about that Republican candidate is one thing, attacking her “personally,” her integrity, when you and I know nothing about her personal life, is beyond the pale and not worthy of any individual with an ounce of decency.
          Far too many people like you hide under the anonimity of blogs to insult, ridiculed, put down people, yet, in person, I don’t think you would call a woman to her face what you called Simcha. That was absolutely wrong and any decent person would simply apologize and go on with life!
          To belittle people in a forum is wrong, but to do so in a Catholic forum where one expects the minimun of courtesy and Christian charity is simply beyond the pale!

  83. Am really surprised by these comments. I am a fellow Catholic and will be voting for Ron Paul. Romney is completely dishonest and that automatically disqualifies him for me. He is incredibly wealthy (estimated net worth > $250 million) and is out of touch with the American person. There is also no clear plan to improve the plight of the U.S and the economy. He says whatever he thinks he needs to say to get votes and has changed his position on substantive points many times. Having watched a number of debates, he just regurgitates talking points while Ron Paul and Huntsman (no longer in the race) give reasonable and well thought out responses.

    Ron Paul is an honest candidate, publicly announced that he will take a salary of $39,000 as President, and has never voted for a tax increase in history (unlike Romney). About not helping others, he is a doctor and has given free care to others, which I think qualifies. Plus he served his country in war despite the fact that he had a wife and children while Gingrich did not. I don’t know about his World War II beliefs but it’s not like he could unilaterally prevent a war since it is the Congress that makes the decision. He is also the only candidate who has a realistic plan for the economy. The U.S. is in much worse shape than 6-8 years ago and for the first time we have been surpassed by other countries as the greatest country in the world. Things will only get worse with a Romney presidency.

    I would vote for Santorum over Romney as well, but Dr. Paul’s positions are much better thought out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s