“catholic Dupes for Obama” claim their guy is really “pro-life”.

Some deeply confused catholics are supporting Pres. Obama.  They are calling him “pro-life”.

This is from CNA.  Read and laugh… or weep.

Obama’s Catholic supporters drop pro-life argument in 2012 appeal
By Benjamin Mann

Washington D.C., Aug 17, 2012 / 11:24 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Catholics for Obama has launched its 2012 initiative with a focus on economic issues, in an apparent shift from its 2008 presentation of the presidential candidate as “pro-life.”  [What a farce.]

“We endorse the President because of his tireless focus on economic security for middle-class families,” the national co-chairs of Catholics for Obama wrote in an Aug. 13 letter, kicking off their effort to target a key voting bloc in the closely contested election.

Proclaiming their commitment “to our faith and our country,” the 21 signers devoted much of their letter to jobs and the economy, along with a variety of foreign policy items which have been seldom-mentioned in the presidential campaign. [Pres. Obama would force Catholics to violate a properly formed conscience.]

A brief mention was made of the president’s health care law, which has created a major controversy with the nation’s Catholic bishops after it led to the formulation of a rule requiring insurance coverage of contraception, sterilization, and abortion-causing drugs.

The letter cited the Catholic teaching “that every human being is made in the image of God,” as a warning against Republican policies that the signers said “would shred our nation’s compassionate safety net” by “gutting” social assistance programs.

A nuclear arms reduction treaty signed by the president was described as a “a priority for Catholic bishops around the world,” said to be “moving us closer to a world with no nuclear weapons.” [Pres. Obama supported infanticide when he was in Illinois.]

President Obama was also praised for concluding the Iraq war, and “working to bring our troops home from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.” [Pres. Obama lied to Card. Dolan.]

The focus on economic issues and foreign policy items contrasts with Catholics for Obama’s 2008 effort, during which time its website declared: “Is Barack Obama Really Pro-Life? The answer is ‘yes.’” [I am surprised that we haven’t read stories of lightening bolts striking down the signers.]

During that campaign, Catholics for Obama reached out to Church members with the slogan: “The most positive pro-life stance we can take may be pro-Obama.” [I may vomit.] The campaign material argued that Obama would reduce abortions though“anti-poverty programs,” “day care” and “job training.”

In contrast, Monday’s letter from the national co-chairs did not directly mention abortion, though the president’s “support for pregnant women and the Adoption Tax Credit” were briefly cited alongside his “pursuit of immigration reform.”  [Obama is the most aggressive promoter of abortion we have ever seen in the White House.]

Although his administration’s contraception mandate has been criticized as a threat to religious charities, the co-chairs of Catholics for Obama asserted that the president “understands Catholics and our values, because he understands the importance of an active faith in pursuit of the common good.” [Is it possible that they really believe that?]

Catholic voters, they suggested, should regard the election as “a make-or-break moment for the middle-class” and for the country.

According to the co-chairs, the president’s “record, his character, and his values make the choice in this election clear.”  [That’s for damn sure.]

Thanks to guys like JFK, Fr. Drinan, Card. Bernardin, Mario Cuomo, Doug Kmiec, etc., catholics use the argument that when placed in the balance, all these other social issues outweigh the right to be born.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Dogs and Fleas, Liberals, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. mamajen says:

    I remember hearing these dubious arguments last election cycle. They were trying to claim that, due to his stance on social issues (other than abortion, of course), he was MORE pro-life than McCain. It’s just disgusting. I don’t think these people are confused, they’re simply twisting things so they get to do the fun things they enjoy while ignoring the hard facts…just like they do with the mass.

  2. contrarian says:

    President Obama is pro-life. Um….Do you think this ‘catholic’ group says these things because they really think they are true, in their heart of hearts? I think they are just trying to get a rise out of people. Me thinks that the most charitable response is to shrug and say, ‘You’re bluffing.’ That should be enough to make them blush, me thinks.

  3. Facta Non Verba says:

    This is the person who said he would not want his daughters “punished with a baby” if they made a mistake. Definitely not pro-life.

  4. Cathy says:

    I’m beginning to think these folks are atheists.

  5. Southern Catholic says:

    The letter cited the Catholic teaching “that every human being is made in the image of God,” as a warning against Republican policies that the signers said “would shred our nation’s compassionate safety net” by “gutting” social assistance programs.

    How can one cite that Catholic teaching when it come to cutting government spending, but at the same time ignore it to support a pro-abortion president ? It boggles the mind.

  6. nykash says:

    I read the ‘Catholics for Obama’ site on Friday and immediately sent out an email pointing this out the blatant lies contained therein. What concerns me are those misinformed Catholics that would read this dribble and think “hmm, maybe those people are right.” In the absence of the USCCB publishing something that is VERY clear, it’s up to others to point out what should be obvious.

  7. Thursday says:

    @Southern Catholic.

    The same people who blatantly ignore that their candidate gutted hundreds of billions from medicare for the sake of an accounting trick he could pull in Obamacare. In other words, the willfully ignorant.

  8. e.e. says:

    Interesting that the group mentions the Adoption Tax Credit. Obviously they didn’t talk to any actual adoptive parents to find out how the Adoption Tax Credit is working, or not working, for the past few years. Every single adoptive family in the adoption group I belong to (about 350-400 members, I think) who has tried to claim the adoption tax credit in the past 2 years has gone through a full correspondence audit as a result, in most cases spending months sending and re-sending the very same documents to the IRS only to have the documents repeatedly go missing. One of my friends had to file a petition with the Tax Court after being denied the credit and penalized.

    Now, I understand that the IRS wants to be careful with this credit since there are large amounts of money involved, but most adoptive families would tell you that the process for the Adoption Tax Credit has become far more complicated in the past 2-3 years.

    Just my $0.01 (not even worth a full $0.02, ha).

  9. Legisperitus says:

    It’s almost as if they were trying to provoke the bishops to come out with an explicit statement saying it is indefensible to vote for Obama, so the IRS could turn around and start taxing the Catholic Church into oblivion.

  10. aviva meriam says:

    I feel like I’m trapped in George Orwell’s fictional universe…..

  11. Joe in Canada says:

    I wonder which bishop gave them permission to use the word “Catholic”.

  12. Jackie L says:

    “Thanks to guys like JFK, Fr. Drinan, Card. Bernardin, Mario Cuomo, Doug Kmiec, etc., catholics use the argument that when placed in the balance, all these other social issues outweigh the right to be born.” – Why include JFK?

  13. CatholicMD says:

    Cardinal Bernardin’s influence can not be underestimated. George Weigel had an article last year describing the amazing (negative) impact he had on the Church in the U.S. No attack by Obama or anyone else from without can be as damaging as the attack that has occurred from within, the results of which we are still suffering.

  14. Cathy says:

    The “seamless garment” teaching seems more like a bunch of dangling threads.

  15. EXCHIEF says:

    I baffles me how any intelligent person who pays any attention at all, who listens to and watches what Obama says and does, can come to the conclusion these apologists do. It is so patently obvious that Obama’s positions on anything related to morality are 100% opposed to real Catholic teaching. It is pretty obvious to me that his supporters catholic and otherwise completely disregard facts and let their myopic and idealistic view of the world drive their politics. One of these days, when their eternal fate is sealed, they will come to realize just how mistaken and wrong they were.

  16. Supertradmum says:

    Fr. Z, thank you for posting this announcement from the Father of Lies, Satan. Also, thank you for the list of notoriously anti-life politicians at the end of your post. Catholics who vote for any of these men need to consider the state of their immortal souls.

    Talk about the smoke of Satan…

  17. MKR says:

    Maybe we should start going around saying that Mitt Romney is “more pro-choice” than Obama, because Romney supports school choice and economic freedom and Obama doesn’t. When our opponents start saying, “You’re using that word incorrectly,” we can say, “We sure are. So stop using ‘pro-life’ incorrectly.”

  18. MKR says:

    Nah, that wouldn’t work. They’d just say, “Darn right–school choice and economic freedom are bad!”

    No, we need to just stop these conversations from the get-go. “No, you’re definitionally wrong. ‘Pro-life,’ in this context, means ‘anti-abortion.’ Our guy opposes abortion; your guy supports it (and infanticide). Our guy is pro-life; your guy isn’t. Case closed.” From there, we can force our opponents to admit that they think being pro-life isn’t that important. Then we can tell them that the Catechism, and common sense, would like to have a word with them.

  19. Cavaliere says:

    For the sake of clarity in defense of Cardinal Bernardin and despite the confusion sown by his “seamless garment” theory he was on record several times rejecting the use of his theory to support the idea that the weight of “other social issues” balanced out ones support of abortion. Since many liberals/progressives choose to hold Cardinal Bernardin up as the champion of their position I think it is only right that we can counter them with the facts that even their hero rejects their idea that all social issues are equal.

    To ignore the priority attention that the problems of abortion and euthanasia demand is to misunderstand both the consistent ethic and the nature of the threats that these evils pose. On Respect Life Sunday, 1 October 1989, Cardinal Bernardin issued a statement entitled “Deciding for Life,” in which he said,

    “Not all values, however, are of equal weight. Some are more fundamental than others. On this Respect Life Sunday, I wish to emphasize that no earthly value is more fundamental than human life itself. Human life is the condition for enjoying freedom and all other values. Consequently, if one must choose between protecting or serving lesser human values that depend upon life for their existence and life itself, human life must take precedence.”

    and this “The fundamental human right is to life—from the moment of conception until death. It is the source of all other rights, including the right to health care”
    (The Consistent Ethic of Life and Health Care Systems, Foster McGaw Triennial
    Conference, Loyola University of Chicago, May 8, 1985).
    He said, for example, in 1988, “I don’t see how you can subscribe to the consistent ethic and then vote for someone who feels that abortion is a ‘basic right’ of the individual.”

    And, in the same interview, he noted that “some people on the left, if I may use that label, have used the consistent ethic to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don’t hold anybody’s feet to the fire just on abortion. That’s a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it.”

  20. acardnal says:

    I wonder if any bishop will excommunicate or impose sanctions against its members?

  21. jeffreyquick says:

    The only seamless garment I know is the Emperor’s New Clothes.
    I visited a nearby parish yesterday, which had some real issues and had gotten a new pastor a year ago. I was VERY impressed. My summary of part of his homily: “During the Mass not only is the bread and wine consecrated (and he hit the True Presence hard) but also the congregation is consecrated as the Body of Christ. The bread can’t choose not to be consecrated, but we can. So why is it that Catholics don’t stick out like a sore thumb? How come there are just as many Catholic divorces and as many Catholic crimes as in the general population , and how come (Hats in the air!) Catholics vote for pro-abortion politicians in number similar to the general population?”
    If we heard preaching like that in every parish, the Catholics for Obama codswallop would never sell.

  22. Massachusetts Catholic says:

    Thomas Groome, one of the national co-chairs of Catholics for Obama, is part of an adult education program at Holy Family Parish in the very liberal town of Concord, MA. The parish is co-sponsoring the event with a town authors festival. Groome is a hard-left professor at Boston College.
    Ironically, Groome’s talk is titled, “Will There Be Faith?” http://concord.patch.com/events/concord-festival-of-authors

    He may or may not be available for questions.

  23. wmeyer says:

    Massachusetts Catholic, my reading on Groome and his history makes Fr. McBrien seem mild. One can only wonder when a laicized priest is allowed to teach all these years at a Catholic university.

  24. Bender says:

    Maybe we should start going around saying that Mitt Romney is “more pro-choice” than Obama

    In fact, Romney supports a “woman’s right to choose” in cases of rape-caused conception. Apparently, Romney thinks that abortion in cases of rape do not involve the intentional killing of an innocent human being. And Catholic Paul Ryan is willing to go along with this.

    A spokeswoman for Mitt Romney wrote late Sunday that the presumptive GOP presidential nominee and his running mate, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, did not share Rep. Todd Akin’s sentiments on rape.
    “Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape,” Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg wrote. (from CNN)

    Mitt Romney might be conveniently anti-abortion in many cases for reasons of political expediency, but he is not pro-life.

  25. Charivari Rob says:

    One tiny modicum of progress: Even the people who touted Obama as pro-life four years ago realize how ridiculous that sounds and now mention it only as little or obliquely as possible.

  26. Supertradmum says:

    wmeyer, I am wondering that as well, as many laicized priests are not allowed to act in any way as teachers or even as lectors or EMCs in some cases. I find it odd and disturbing, but hardly surprising. I also find it interesting that Michael Voris was scraped over the coals for using the word Catholic and these people are not….Hmmmm

  27. Johnno says:

    Everyone should stop assuming these are merely misguided Catholics and start assuming they are double agents for the enemy intentionally trying to mislead. Treat them as such.

    The whole paradigm shift where pro-life means helping the poor by ethnically cleansing them such that preventing poor people from breeding more means no more poor people, and when poor people are dead dead people can’t have abortions killing more people. Their means ‘kill off the poor’ through sterilization and contraception and abortion achieves their end ‘no more abortions’ therefore this mathematically = pro-life. They ‘save lives’ by ending lives that could potentially be used to end other lives. They are stark. raving. mad.

    And Obama has done nothing to halt war. He’s only expedited them and is even above the law where he can kill American citizens whenever he feels like it.

  28. Joseph-Mary says:

    Hey, wait a minute I am one of those so called “middle class families” and we are being taxed terribly. The burden is high. And we have no security. I have no idea how retirement will go other than we will not be able to afford to live in our home even as it is being paid off.

    There is NO, none, economic security and the government is poised to take over our bank accounts and IRAs and so forth. Then we will be at the mercy of the pro-death regime.

  29. wmeyer says:

    Supertradmum, I have read (but do not know if it is factual) that Groome married before being laicized, effectlively excommunicating himself. As I understand it, even being laicized, by itself, does not free a priest to marry; that can come only as a dispensation from the Pope. Also, from what I have read, he cannot teach in a seminary, but I do not know about teaching in a university, Catholic or secular, though I have also read that he is not to teach theology.

    I am not a Canon lawyer, so I cannot confirm any of these matters.

  30. Supertradmum says:

    wmeyer, it depends on the laicization. I have looked into this and have received some input. It is really up to the Vatican, and not merely the local ordinary. Louis Evely was a famous laicized priest who kept on writing religious stuff. If you remember Peter Hebblethwaite, who was laicized and went on to write for the Fishwrap and the Pill . You are right about not teaching theology. The world expert on Gramsci is an ex-Jesuit. Ivan Illich was another one popular in the 60s and 70s.

    It is a complicated subject, but the man in question should not be a scandal to the Church, which he is…

  31. Mike Morrow says:

    And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. (Matthew 10:36)

  32. BaedaBenedictus says:

    Massachusetts Catholic, my reading on Groome and his history makes Fr. McBrien seem mild. One can only wonder when a laicized priest is allowed to teach all these years at a Catholic university.

    My RCIA textbook at a parish in Florida was a book by Thomas Groome called “What Makes Us Catholic”. My RCIA teacher believed that catechisms were too “preconciliar” to be useful.

    Sadly that Groome book and others equally bad are still common in RE and RCIA programs.

    And you wonder why Obama may win the Catholic vote again this year?

  33. Lori Pieper says:

    Cavaliere, thank you for posting that about Cardinal Bernardin; I was going to do the same thing, but you saved me the trouble of looking up the quotes. He is so unfairly criticized.

    And here is an example of the Cardinal using this consistent ethic of life or seamless garment the way it should be used. In testifying before Congress in 1976 together with Cardinal Cooke of New York on behalf of the Human Life Amendment, Bernardin (then president of the USCCB) addressed the widespread criticism of the Church and of religious people in general for speaking out on abortion and trying to “impose their religion”: He pointed out that respect for human life and dignity is a “universal moral imperative” known to all (i.e. natural law), whether religious or not. He added:

    “It is certainly true that the Catholic Church and many other Churches teach that abortion is wrong–just as they teach that racial discrimination is wrong, that exploitation of the poor
    is wrong, that all injustice and injury to others are wrong. So in my case and that of many other religious persons, religious doctrine powerfully reinforces our commitment to human rights. We are publicly committed on a broad range of domestic and international issues. Within the past week alone, Catholic bishops, continuing a practice of many years’ standing, have testified before committees of Congress on full employment and on food stamps. No objections are raised when we give voice to our moral convictions on such matters as these–and that is as it should be. For it is not religious doctrine which we wish to see enacted into law; it is respect for human dignity and
    human rights–specifically, in this case, the right to life itself.”


    Being committed to human rights across the board does help make our pro-life witness credible. But Bernardin, to his credit, always stressed the paramount importance of the right to life.

  34. Indulgentiam says:

    “Although his administration’s contraception mandate has been criticized as a threat to religious charities, the co-chairs of Catholics for Obama asserted that the president “understands Catholics and our values, because he understands the importance of an active faith in pursuit of the common good.” [Is it possible that they really believe that?]”

    i asked myself the same question every time i had the misfortune to go mano a mano with one of these citizens of the Twilight Zone. But i came to the conclusion that as i could not read there hearts and therefore know there intention i had better stick to what i did know, namely; countering their delusions with the facts. very often, who am i kidding, usually i got NO where with them. but i remember something i heard a Priest say once “maybe the one your talking too won’t hear you but it will help someone your not even aware is listening…”

    as for obama “…understands Catholics and our values,…” absolutely. he knows his adversary pretty well and has been hammering away at our weak links since day one. just look at how many catholics in name only he put in prominent positions. Every communist knows their strongest opposition is the Catholic Church. any one who plots obama’s movements will clearly see his strategy. So why don’t these people see it? perhaps it serves their purpose. After all living up to obama’s standards is a lot easier than living up the the Catholic Church’s standards. someone once told me “ya know if the Catholic church would just relax its standards a little they’d be so much more popular” i remember thinking “wow! i really need another drink”

  35. Frances M says:

    Jackie L, you asked “Why JFK?” Archbishop Chaput gives the reason:


  36. pj_houston says:

    Don’t forget the USCCB’s own “Faithful Citizenship” document they issued back in 2007. This document all but justified a vote for Obama because of the seamless garment argument. Anyone think this had something to do with a majority of Catholics voting for Obama in 2008? It has since been revised for 2012, but I don’t think it’s been improved all that much.

  37. wmeyer says:

    My priest has hammered home in his homilies that you cannot be Catholic and be pro-choice. Not possible. No fit. No wiggle room.

  38. “Mitt Romney might be conveniently anti-abortion in many cases for reasons of political expediency, but he is not pro-life.”

    Alternatively, he may believe that a position opposing abortion in the case of rape and incest might negate any chance of furthering pro-life after election by appointing justices who will overturn Roe vs. Wade. So, for all one can read on the face of it, the ticket might be totally pro-life. In any case, the difference on abortion between the two tickets is (in virtually all cases) that between (pro-) life and (pro-) death. To the extent that any other opinion on this is effectively pro-abortion–in the end we either vote pro-life or we vote pro-abortion, no in between.

  39. wmeyer says:

    Whatever else may be true, Obama is vigorously, adamantly pro-abortion. So we must wither vote Romney, or irresponsibly vote a 3rd party, which effectively is a vote for Obama.

    This is not rocket science, and not something in need of debate.

  40. Midwest St. Michael says:


    Does Groome have *the* faith? Could we not ask if Groome has the faith of our Blessed Lord?

    From much of what I have read of the man the answer is a resounding “no.”


  41. mysticalrose says:

    @wmeyer: “So we must wither vote Romney, or irresponsibly vote a 3rd party, which effectively is a vote for Obama.”

    Or, you could quite responsibly and in good conscience vote a 3rd party, regardless of who ultimately wins the presidency (Santorum anyone?!). Perhaps the principle of double effect obtains here.

  42. wmeyer says:

    mysticalrose, if you vote a third party “in good conscience”, you effectively reduce the votes against Obama. That’s not wild opinion, but an observation based on history. That is why I called it irresponsible.

  43. mysticalrose says:

    wmeyer, call it what you like, but there is no moral culpability in voting a 3rd party.

  44. wmeyer says:

    mysticalrose, when Obama wins a second term because too few voted for Romney, try that theory again. Or look up the 1992 effect of Perot.

  45. Charivari Rob says:

    I agree with you, mysticalrose. There can indeed be circumstances (particularly under the electoral college format for the Presidential election) when a vote in good conscience for a third candidate does no good for the first candidate and no harm to the second.

  46. billt says:

    I did a cursory search on the “1992 effect of Perot” and I asked myself what kind of voter would have Perot attracted with soup to nuts pro-abort platform? (*http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Ross_Perot_Abortion.htm)

    I don’t see the analogy working here.

    Agreeing with mysticalrose.

  47. AnAmericanMother says:

    Problem with voting 3rd party, even if you think you’re “safe” in doing so, is that it’s not always easy to predict what’s going to happen.
    Fortunately when I was young and stupid and voted for John Anderson, it made no difference at all. Reagan beat Carter like a rented mule, and Anderson probably diverted as many or more Democrat votes as Republican (I was a southern Democrat then, but I just couldn’t stomach 4 more years of Jimmuh). But nobody knew that ahead of time, that became apparent only in hindsight.
    It was not “safe” to vote for Perot in Georgia, even though GA is quite conservative. His platform was absurd, but he presented himself as a ‘true’ conservative ‘take charge guy’ to Southerners. His votes would have put G.H.W. Bush over the top easily, and that was over 10 electoral votes at the time. And the same went for California of all places – where you would have thought the Dem would have been a shoo-in. So those of you who think you’re in a state where it won’t make any difference — it just might. Especially when the media is running interference for Obama rather than telling the truth.
    Romney was by no means my first choice, he was way down my list. I don’t like some of his positions, although it appears that he has changed and that change may be sincere. But the alternative is four more years of an unchanging, unapologetic Constitution-violating, infanticide-promoting, anti-business and indeed anti-American crypto-Marxist who is going to take the gloves off in a second term.
    If a ‘protest’ third-party vote throws your state, or if your state apportions electoral votes, then you may have one doozy of a remorse hangover on Wednesday morning. Don’t take the chance!

  48. Random Friar says:

    In other news, New York City sports fans found to be remarkably “pro-Red Sox.”

  49. MKR says:

    This third-party nonsense is precisely that–nonsense. Right now, abortion is illegal in very few cases. If Obama gets reelected, it’ll stay that way. If Mitt gets elected, abortion might become illegal in more cases, and federal funding for Planned Parenthood will likely be eliminated completely. That’s a pure improvement over the current state of affairs. Since it’s the greatest improvement over the current state of affairs that will be available to us in November, it would be *irrational* not to do one’s best to make it happen.

  50. MKR says:

    Think about it this way. Suppose a law is proposed that would ban abortions after 10 weeks of pregnancy. Should you vote for the law, even though it doesn’t ban abortion completely? *Of course* you should! That’s more or less the situation in November.

  51. bookworm says:

    “So those of you who think you’re in a state where it won’t make any difference — it just might.”

    At least one recent poll in Illinois shows Obama with a lead of only 10-12 percent in Cook County, of all places. Bear in mind, it’s only one poll, there are three months left until the election, and I wouldn’t put Illinois into the “too close to call” column yet by any means. Still, that is a significantly narrower margin than expected. The numbers are even closer in the Chicago suburban areas, and Romney has a significant lead downstate.

    I suppose it is possible that enough Democratic voters, even in Cook County, will stay home out of disillusionment on Election Day (they also have reasons for being greatly disillusioned with Democrats on the state and local level, which I won’t get into here) that any notions I had of casting a protest vote because Romney would never win Illinois anyway, may have to be scrapped.

  52. Phil_NL says:


    If Chicago itself is even remotely competitive, it’s not even needed; if that would be true (I doubt it, sadly), the election would be over before the Chicago polls even close, as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Florida and Virginia would go R then as well, leaving no path to victory for Obama whatsoever.
    The reason to vote in solidly blue states would be the races further down the ticket.

  53. wmeyer says:

    The reason to vote, in every state, is to fulfill your responsibility as a citizen, and to make it as hard as possible for anyone to fiddle with the count. And moreover, we must remember the old saw about assume.

  54. Sissy says:

    Even in states that are firmly in the blue camp (California, for example), votes for Governor Romney instead of for a third party candidate would help him make the case for a dramatic shift in policies. It’s important for Governor Romney to not only win, but to be able to credibly claim a mandate. The more votes he receives in deep blue states, the more clear it will be that President Obama’s policies have been decisively repudiated nationally.

  55. AnAmericanMother says:

    Very good point.
    As my dear old dad (veteran of many campaigns as a manager, not a candidate) says:
    “They can’t cheat if it ain’t close!”

  56. Cathy says:

    Were it not for third-party nonsense, the election would be between the Democrats and the Whigs. If a law restricted abortion to 10 weeks of pregnancy but required all hospitals to perform them, including Catholic hospitals, could a pro-life candidate vote for it? Can a good Catholic support abortion exceptions for rape, it’s just a little abortion? Do I put his soul in jeopardy, and my own if I hear him campaign with this, support him, and buy into it myself? Why is intrinsic evil always evil and maybe just not a little good?

Comments are closed.