Comments on: Doubts About Mitt

By: Bret Lythgoe

Bret Lythgoe — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:47:49 +0000

I think that Romney was correct to point out that he has no plans to attempt to ban contraception. This was important. Clearly I think that the Obama campaign wants to give the impression that Romney, and his fellow republicans,want to take away access to contraception. Romney needed to point out, in unambiguous terms, that this is not the case. He needed, politically, to do this. This in no way implies that he has flipped on his support for thwe Catholic Church’s objection to the Obama administration wanting to ensure that the Catholic Church provide contraception to its employees.

Once he’s convinced the public that contraception is not going to be banned, or even restricted, (as opposed to abortion), the public will be more open to his argument that the Obama Admin. is infringing on the Catholic Church’s freedom of religion, vis a vis contraception.

By: humblewriter

humblewriter — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:39:47 +0000

For whatever it is worth, I must honestly report that although under no circumstances will I vote for Obama, I will reluctantely vote for Romney. I could cite many facts to support my reluctance; however, the greatest reason behind my aversion to Romney is just that: I feel a profound aversion to him. I look at him and listen to him and I just know– I just feel that something isn’t right. I suppose I will hold my nose when I vote for him.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:54:59 +0000

I have never voted for a Republican for President and will certainly not do so this year.

Catholics deserve to have a candidate who will protect the unborn, and who will not desert them seconds after birth. I believe all citizens have a duty to assist their less fortunate neighbors and I gladly pay taxes to do so.

I will write in my vote for Joe Schriner, who is the only candidate I am aware of who has a platform that consistently reflects Catholic principles. In my lifetime I hope to see a political party that will run candidates Catholics can vote for without compromising any Catholic values.

By: Starzec

Starzec — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:23:39 +0000

Judge Carol Jackson ruled in September against the plaintiff arguing the ACA forced him to pay for insurance that covers something he did not want to cover. In her ruling, she said: [the freedom of religion clause] It protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one’s religion forbids, or forbids action one’s religion requires; it is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others. What does this mean? Well, in short it means that either you hire someone who agrees with you and your religious convictions or you don’t. More importantly, it means that no company has the right to force their convictions on their employees. Let me ask this: if your employer demanded that you vote for the communist party candidate, what would your reaction be? Would you accept it? After all how does your employer know how you voted? Isn’t that the same with contraception? Does a Catholic boss have the right to tell a non-catholic employee to not use contraception? The courts with the above mentioned ruling and others have said NO an employer cannot do that. In fact there specific federal employment guidelines that prohibit such acts. Ironically, in the apparently very limited American Catholic memory it was only 100 short years ago Catholics were told NOT to apply for jobs because they were not wanted. Catholics and Blacks are the reason the laws preventing discrimination based on color or creed have been enacted.
Wake up! Your faith is not being attacked because your tax dollars pay for contraception. I suspect many of you are like me and get most of your federal income tax back when you file your returns so it is not like you contribute a whole lot anyway. I would prefer my tax dollars not be spent on a super inflated military. I would prefer my tax dollars go toward educating the young. I would prefer my tax dollars go providing for the sick and elderly and the treatment of veterans of the current, recent and past wars.
So I would like to see a check box when I file my taxes. Do you want a portion to go to the military? NO. Do you want a portion to go to building roads and bridges? YES. Do you want a portion to go to Planned Parenthood? YES (some of you will say NO) and etc..
That would be true democracy. then you could move to defund whatever you did not like.

By: Joanne S.

Joanne S. — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:34:17 +0000

The Obama campaign is lying to women that Romney will take away their access to contraception. He needed to counter that lie. Like it or not, contraception is common and this election is not about denying access to it–only in refusing to force those with objections from paying for it.

Why is anyone alarmed by that? Would you prefer Romney lose the election over an issue not in dispute so Obama can force even more intrinsic evils on everyone?

By: Dr Woof

Dr Woof — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:06:00 +0000

By “attempting to lay a trap,” do you mean Obama was trying to trick Romney into saying what he actually believes?

David: Not exactly. What I meant is that Obama may have had a carefully pre-planned attack to anything that Romney might have said at this point. Given that the debate direction at that point was not about abortion or Planned Parenthood, that could have worked to Obama’s advantage. Especially given the attitude of the moderator (or, at times, the co-debater).

Like others here, Romney was not my first pick for the candidacy, but given the choice now between him and Obama (and Obama’s totally despicable record as president) I think the best decision should be pretty obvious.

By: Why Is It So Hard to Debate Religious Freedom? » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:18:15 +0000

[...] disappointment at Tuesday’s spectacle: On the First Things website, Anna Williams echoed the disappointment of many critics of the mandate in her critique of Romney’s performance during [...]

By: Arnobius of Sicca

Arnobius of Sicca — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:27:24 +0000

Romney was certainly not my choice during the primaries. I’d say I’m voting for him now because Obama is clearly a greater evil that must be opposed.

I suspect we will still have to challenge Romney if he is elected, but his ideas seem like they will be less harmful than four more years of Obama.

I do agree with Anna Williams that the recent behavior makes me feel less happy about what he stands for.

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:21:40 +0000

Methinks perhaps Obama was attempting to lay a trap for Romney.

Dr Woof,

By “attempting to lay a trap,” do you mean Obama was trying to trick Romney into saying what he actually believes?

By: poetcomic1

poetcomic1 — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:51:40 +0000

So the great surge of ‘Tea Party’ anger culminates in – this Mormon Don Draper. It would be sad if it weren’t so funny.