This sounds to me just like all the people who have been saying “I wanted to vote for McCain, but I just couldn’t do it because Palin was on the ticket”.

If you want four more years of Obama, just go ahead and say so.  You don’t need to rationalize it by saying you’re voting for Obama because of Rice being on the other ticket.

I appreciate what you’re saying.  And I’ve made the argument many times to friends who have considered supporting pro-choice Republicans they thought were electable (I live in California).  I pray that Mr. Romney is sincere in his pro-life convictions and that he picks a strong pro-life VP, but when you say an Obama win may be unrecoverably disastrous, I think you are right.  If we don’t stick to our convictions, the Republican party will get as liberal on these issues as they can without losing our vote, but Romney proclaims to be pro-life.  Running against Obama, I think we have to take the chance.  And I think we can be confident that he will not launch a full-frontal attack on our religious liberties like the President has.  I greatly sympathize with what you’re saying, but I’ll be voting for Romney no matter who he picks for VP.  There’s just too much at stake.

John
servantofcharity.blogspot.com

I voted for Obama 4 years ago and now stand aghast at the way he pushed for abortion, even federally funded abortion, and the way he is forcing the whole contraception thing down our throats. OUT with Obama! We have to select the lesser of 2 evils here.

Secondly, over and over again we must realize that these morally tepid politicians are just a symptom of the culture we live in. You want better leaders to vote for? Make the people better.

Even if we worked somebody like Santorum in there, he may stave off the inevitable left turn we are taking culturally for a while, but realistically the cultural left is dominating in the media, and in the schools, and they will prevail unless we can win in those places. We simply need to inform and educate our citizens, and witness to the truth shamelessly. It’s hard to do, but it’s the only real solution. We can’t fix these problems just by voting.

Which is worse a President or Vice-President that is mildly pro-choice or a President/Vice-President that is wholly pro-choice? I understand that if they win the presidency it will possibly weaken the pro-life stance of the Republican Party if the conservatives do not wake up and get motivated during Romney’s term. If Obama is elected again doesn’t that weaken the pro-life stance of the entire nation? Could it strengthen it?
I my self am not a Republican. I am a Constitutionalist.
Nation Website Party Platform http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
Constitution Party of Oregon Platform http://www.constitutionpartyoregon.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=18
Will I vote with my party or for Romney? Should I campaign for my party’s presidential nominee? I must fast and pray! We must all engage in this process, not throw up our hands in disgust. What am I leaving for my son?

What if Romney said he’d appoint Sarah Palin as Secretary of HHS?  Or Rick Santorum?  Or one of the high-profile, definitely pro-life members of the House?  He can always ignore the VP, and the VP is the most powerless position in any level of government—county dog catchers have more.  And I don’t think Gov. Romney has much of a risk factor of sudden natural death.  I think a holistic look, plus the influence of the rising social conservatives, still make Gov. R. the least bad of the choices, so he needs every vote to counter the rabid anti-life (and most everything else American) bloc.

Condoleeza Rice made it clear in her autobiography that she supports the killing of the unborn. That said, in the President’s election, where it is reasonably clear that one candidate is far worse than the others in respect of fundamental moral truths, the moral obligation is primarily to keep that candidate out. Obviously it would be different if the voting was by proportional representation where you can number your candidates in order of preference and put the best candidate who hasn’t a chance, first, and then your vote transfers to your second preference when the first is eliminated.

I suggest a multitude of strongly-worded emails from conservatives & prolifers to all levels of the Romney campaign to request Mitt not make this mistake.  I may have to consider them the lesser of two evils in voting at the end of the day, but there’s no way you will see Romney-Rice bumper stickers on my cars or any other tangible enthusiasm for such a ticket.

I saw that Condi had made the short list and felt sick to my stomach.  Please don’t do this, Mitt!!!  You will lose the support of so many people.

Condi Rice is way too toxic for Mitt to pick as a VP.  The Obama campaign would have a field day tying Romney to Bush.  It would also be seen as pandering to the black vote, and if VP Cheney’s book is true, she was a terrible Secretary of State.

The only difference between Romney and Rice on abortion is that Rice is honest about being pro-abortion. 

I can understand voting for Romney simply to better the odds of removing Obama from office, but don’t kid yourself.

Romney is not pro-life.

Romney is a milquetoast moderate who was the absolute wrong choice for the nomination. But I wouldn’t get too upset over a selection he hasn’t and almost certainly won’t make. Condi Rice is not going to be his Vice President.

I am more and more concerned about Romney’s VP rumored picks which reveals his questionable character and judgment.  Each one is worse than the last.  An Obama re-election will result in civil unrest.  A Romney RINO presidency will destroy the country but take longer.  Unfortunately, the pane et circenses American electorate doesn’t care about much else.  Next year will see some cataclysmic financial and economic developments.  Since the U.S. is no longer a moral country, we won’t be able to weather those crises as we have in the past.  The republic is already dead, it’s just a matter of fighting over the corpse.

Maybe it’s time to stop buying what these two corrupt parties are selling and truly vote our consciences for a third party candidate who tells the truth (hint:  Ron Paul)?

Matt, the very first comment lets you know right off the bat where the GOP’s decision to nominate Romney is going to lead for pro-lifers: “Shut up and eat your peas! What do you want? Another 4 years of Obama?” Every time Romney does something pro-lifers don’t like and we speak up about it, the GOP’s RepubliCath apologists respond with the same old refrain. And should Romney win, and should he make judicial appointments we don’t like, or not press for a pro-life agenda, the RepubliCath apologists will be sounding the same old refrain, except it will be “Shut up and eat your peas! What do you want? Hillary Clinton?” And, unfortunately, pro-lifers have been all to willing to fall for this tactic. Every time we speak up, we’re cowed by the GOP’s raising the spectre of Obama or Hillary or San Fran Nan, and marching out a parade of horribles of what will happen should that crowd get back into power. If we show that we’ll vote for the milquetoast moderate pro-choice Romney and a “moderately pro-choice” Condoleeza Rice, we’ll have proven to the GOP that we’ll vote for whoever they put up, which will encourage them to completely ignore us since we’ll be voting for them anyway after they scare us with the prospect of Chelsea Clinton’s 2032 presidential run. (Full disclosure: I’m voting for Constitution Party nominee Virgil H. Goode, Jr. - the ONLY 100% pro-life (with no exceptions) candidate running for President.)

Judges? That hasn’t worked out so well lately has it? Roberts hasn’t proved all that reliable.
Also Condi is not a politician, blogger or talking head - she was a foreign diplomat - maybe because of her moral views she does not have to think about abortion as it’s morally unacceptable to her - in conversation/interview she does not make policy because she wasn’t in that role, she would not have to take a policy stand - not necessarily high treason or a proclamation of her personal beliefs - I think your prism of Rice is skewed by your background in politics - remember has never run for political office and doesn’t speak in sound bites - don’t confuse your creative minority with creative authority

Thank you.I honestly didn’t know she wasn’t pro-life.That’s very dissapointing.In other respects I really admire her.
I think she might be unlikely as a pick because of her connections to the war in Iraq.And the GOP may be floating this out just to see what type reaction they get.Hopefully pro-life folk will let them know how we feel ASAP.

Power-brokers and RINO insiders have pushed Romney on us from the beginning.  When I saw Charles Krautheimer (sp?) picking on Romney a few weeks back, I thought, “But you loved him in the primaries!”  I really am hoping for a bit of revolution at the republican convention.  We need a strong differentiation between the two candidates that Romney cannot provide.  Maybe the tea party could orchestrate a take-over and bring some real change, but RINOs are slippery.Rice is a bad V.P. choice.  Presiding over the Senate and being a tie-breaking vote is one of the primary duties of the V.P.  Santorum would be better.  Or the Governor of Arizona.

I will be casting my vote against Obama, regardless of who Romney picks. I’m not overly fond of Romney himself, but anything is better than the alternative of four more years of the culture of death.

P.S. I’m genuinely curious on one point: what’s wrong with Peggy Noonan? I don’t know a lot about her other than the fact that she wrote some famous speeches for Reagan and Bush. Is there something I don’t know?

PS-I really like Mr. Romney & would have preferred him back in 2008.
I think if he says he’s pro-life we might give him the benefit of the doubt.We’ve done that in the past for politicians who state they’ve gone from pro-segregation to pro-integration.Why not extend the same charity to someone who says they’ve also seen the light on abortion?

Ha!  Someone at National Review (which is even a bit of a mix, social-conservatively) happens to agree with you:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309342/case-against-condi-ramesh-ponnuru

and what is your stupied alternative ?Obama condi is fine by me and to hell with your abortion thoughts , your minds a dead locked in a retarded thoughts that should just lay aside

I’m with you on this one Matt.  I’m having a hard time voting for Romney as it is.  He needs to choose a running mate that shores up the conservative base.  Condi does not do that.  Like you, I don’t trust Romney.  He’s going to have to do better than this to get my vote.

I don’t trust that Romney is in any way pro-life.  Sure he says he is because it placates the pro-life conservatives, but really when we look at his behavior in the primary, he was the only one of the 4 major candidates who tended to avoid any event that was explicitly pro-life.

I will not vote for Obama, I made that mistake once.  I might vote for Romney as the lesser of two evils, but I am very willing to be persuaded by Matt’s argument about sending a message!

We cannot lose sight of what’s at stake here. Obama and his allies in the Senate are the most pro-abortion leaders we’ve ever had. They unapologetically suppress our religious freedom. They are systematically dismantling our economy. They have taken our foreign stance to a new low. THE PRESIDENT AND DEMOCRATS HAVE FAILED ON EVERY FRONT. And you would rather vote for a frankly non-viable candidate just to make a point that you don’t like the abortion views of a potential VP pick? We need to choose our battles more wisely! Like it if not, Romney is our only viable choice against Obama. We have the best chance in the fight against abortion by electing a prolife federal and state legislature. Even if Romney is elected and doesn’t live up to his prolife promises, we could count on a prolife legislature to balance him out and even override him (with the majority required). Our main focus needs to be to throw Obama and his ilk out!!!

@ Avemaria,
Can you explain how did Obama suppress religious freedom? How did Obama took American Foreign Policy to a new low? The last I could think of was Obama finding and finishing off Osama, something which the GOP has failed. And the GOP had sent young innocent Americans into two wars, and one of them is clearly unnecessary.

Was America better off during Clinton or during Bush? Well Bush and his GOP had systematically allowed the rich to get richer, cutting taxes further for the well off. Something is wrong with America when the rich does not care for the less well-off, and the politicians sent poor Americans to war, and yet at the same time how many of these war-mongering GOPs leaders have their family members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan? Non I would say.

Perhaps it’s just because I’m young and disillusioned with politics like everyone in my generation, but I’ve seriously been considering voting for the BEST candidate and not necessarily the most likely to win.

It seems like in every election we’re told “You must vote for McCain/Bush or Obama/{other Dem} will win and the damage will be irreversible!!!” The damage is already irreverible. There are people out there who think that Obama is doing a great job. Perhaps after 8 years they will finally wake up to the idiocy that they’ve supported.

In less than four years Obama has completely ripped this country apart. I’ve never seen a Republican get so much done, instead they wiffle and hem while pretending to be conservative and cowering before the immoral mobs. So what will happen if Romney wins?
[ol]
[li]He’ll talk a lot about repealing the stuff Obama did.
[li]The crowds of Democratic sex addicts will scream about it and convince more sheep that the Republicans are evil and if Obama had just another 4 years he would have saved the world.
[li]Romney will do nothing to fix the problem but cosmetic changes
[li]In four years we’ll be told the same thing (vote Rep or Dem will win). However the Dems will win because they now have more sheep turned sex addicts needing another hit.
[li]Obama will again be in power. Yay…look at what we won, more Democrats even more convinced that their party is the way to Utopia. Even harder to convince at the end of four years that the crappy state our country is in is not Romney’s fault for “had Obama had 8 years he would have succeeded! Let’s give him more time!”
[/ol]

Meh.

I really like Condi but calling yourself “mildly pro-choice” makes me sick. She needs to read Kreeft’s book, “The Unaborted Socrates.” Since she’s a foreign policy wonk what would she think of someone who was “mildly OK with Israel’s destruction?” Wouldn’t she try to convince such a person to be fully for Israel being protected? Or try some other choices on for size, like being mildly “right to own slaves?” Get off the fence Condi and think the issue through. Roe/Wade was a terrible legal decision and should be reversed. She can’t see that? Maybe she’s not as smart as I thought?

Folks - we are not electing the new Pope - we need a fallible individual to bring this country back from economic ruin and foreign dependency. Do I wish we had a practicing Roman Catholic candidate, yes, we don’t. By not voting for a lesser of two evils you do get more evil.

Remember of Obama’s first important actions as President?

“President Obama took his first step as a pro-choice president by rescinding an anti-abortion policy that in his words, “undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in developing countries.” Called the “Mexico City Policy” by some and the “Global Gag Rule” by others, the policy was first enacted by President Ronald Reagan in 1984.”

How about a war criminal? Of the many reasons the church has deteriorated to the point of non existence is the lack of social justice policy? The church has come to be seen a the cruelest tool in the republican playbook.
Caring for one and other in a non judgmental way is what I was taught in school and what has been lost and why I quit in 1966.

Seymour: stop it.  Just stop it.
I refuse to let anyone browbeat or manipulate me.  I’m following my own gut on this.  If someone is going to screw up the country, I’d rather it be obvious than subtle.  If people think this is what a conservative looks like, I shudder to imagine what we’ll get in 2016. Obama v Romney represents a choice the way Coke v Diet Coke represents a choice.  I have little if anything to feel guilty about.
-
Hint: watch what they DO, not what they say…

enness, that analogy of Coke vs Diet Coke is about right. Both will ruin your health, yet everyone think Diet is better. As if one fake-sugar water (high fructose corn syrup) is better than another fake-sugar water (whatever crap is in the diet). One will make you think you’re drinking something healthy, the other is at least honest about not being healthy.

Whoever Romney picks for his running mate will need to get fitted for their Magic Mormon Underwear soon!  These sacred undergarments harness the power of the Almighty to cinch up the Bible Belt to cough up their cash for their crusade to the White House.  See for yourself how these miracles are performed and how money plays its role in politics at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/05/mitt-romneys-magic-mormon-underwear.html

Posted by JoMo on Friday, Jul 13, 2012 1:01 PM (EST):How about a war criminal? Of the many reasons the church has deteriorated to the point of non existence is the lack of social justice policy? The church has come to be seen a the cruelest tool in the republican playbook.
Caring for one and other in a non judgmental way is what I was taught in school and what has been lost and why I quit in 1966.”
************
Quit school or the Church?

Sorry, JoMo,
My post was not very clear.
I was trying to ask: did you quit Catholic school, the Church, or both? I think a lot of folk “dropped out” back in the 60’s & 70’s.I hope in any case that you find your way back.

Lady Cygnus ,
Off topic, but “Mexican” Coke, (sold in glass bottles in Hispanic markets & elsewhere), is made with real cane sugar like back in the old times.
Maybe we need a pro-life Hispanic VP nominee to change the analogy?

Voting for anyone other then the Romney Ticket is the same as voting for Obama. With a 2nd term, Obama with Obamacare will not just kill unborn babies but euthanize seniors and anyone that is considered a “burden.”
We need to stop Obama with whatever is handed to us.

Voting for anyone other then the Romney Ticket is the same as voting for Obama.

Huh? So not voting for Obama is the same as voting for Obama?

I don’t get the whole voting “against” a candidate. The last I checked, only votes for a person count.

I know, I know, a vote for Romney gives him more votes compared to Obama. I get the math part. But what if I think Romney (esp. with Condi) is unacceptable - i.e. that it’s wrong to vote for someone who supports abortion - even “mildly”? If no one is worthy of my support, I don’t support them.

“Meet the Press” David Gregory was interviewed on our local NBC news affiliate earlier today.  If I remember correctly, he said something along the lines that Ms. Rice’s name was a distraction for the VP pick and briefly discussed why she wouldn’t be a good choice for different reasons than above.

Condaleeza Rice said today she would not accept running as a VP.  But I sure hope that Romney does pick someone acceptable as a VP.  As for voting for Obama years ago, I took him at his word—he was pro abortion then and did exactly what he said he’d do if he was elected president.

I do like Rubio but wonder if he will be picked because his family converted to LDS at one time and supposedly he returned to the Catholic Church.  If Romney is a good Mormon, his church will probably cringe at that nomination.

But I do hope that he doesn’t pick a woman.  There are plenty of smart African Americans around as well as Hispanics that would be acceptable.  Pro life is very important to me, so I sure hope that he does pick someone acceptable and truly believes it as many politicians just “mouth the words”.

I have come to accept that for some people abortion is just not the most important thing in the world to them so they really do not have a coherent and consistent view on it. The fact that Condoleeza Rice might be one of these is not enough for me to withhold my vote from Romney which is essentially a vote for Obama. As Matt correctly points out this president’s re-election would be a disaster from which we might not recover. There are many reasons not to like Romney but it will take something much more than a less than ideal VP choice to do anything that would allow the most incompetent man to ever hold the office of President of the United States back into the Oval Office. Romney is not Reagan but more importantly he is not Obama. He may not be as conservative as many of us would like but he is certainly not a socialist, anti Israel, anti Constitution, left wing ideologue and puppet of the Soros wing of the Democratic Party. What it comes down to is this: Do we still want to be living in a free country four years from now or do we want to allow our dear leader to continue his “fundamental change” of America, ignoring the Constitution with impunity while pushing us into the abyss of financial insolvency along with Greece and others in the EU?

“. . . very young babies are able to survive now—very small babies are able to survive—these are great moral issues.”  How is saving a very small baby a “great moral issue”?  That quote alone shows how morally compromised she is.

I love it…...  Go Obama!!

Let’s face it folks; we’re not going to get a pristine ticket from either party, but at lease the GOP isn’t threatening the Church with confiscatory taxation and demanding we violate our moral principles.  In a perfect world we wouldn’t have to choose between lesser evils.  Needless to say we do not live in a perfect world and it will become far less perfect if we allow this Administration four more years to trample our rights.

From Independent voter:
Matt, seriously When in doubt, ask Fr. Rutler

Obviously, as a Catholic who fully supports Church teaching, Matt doesn’t want a pro-abortion admin. for 4 more years…but there has got to be a protest vote for a third-party or write-in candidate against the Romney campaign, considering that he seems lukewarm on abortion and does not seem favorable to Catholic Social Teaching (Rerum Novarum and the other encyclicals).
I want the GOP to splinter, frankly. Libertarians need to go one way, neo-cons another, Evangelical/Fundamentalists who ally with neo-cons a third way, leaving the Catholics by themselves…I can’t imagine the first 3 groups would support any implementation of Catholic Social Teaching, even in the form I prefer which is Chestertonian-Bellocian Distributism.

It doesn’t matter who Romney selects as his running mate, and it won’t be Condy Rice anyway.  The right-wing libertarians, and those who are politically tone deaf (I repeat myself), have already helped to ensure that Romney cannot win in November.

Romney is FAR from the perfect candidate, but the infighting among right-wing libertarians and conservatives has taken a flawed candidate and made him virtually unelectable.  The Obama campaign doesn’t have to do any opposition research, all they need to do is read these blogs and tailor their message from them.  Conservatives and right-wing libertarians have this uncanny ability to eat their own, something that liberals and Democrats don’t do.

Begin to prepare yourself for four more years of President Obama.

Mitt Romney is a devout Mormon and a Mormon bishop. I was born and raised in Utah so I’m quite familiar with Mormon beliefs.  As Catholics we believe that life begins at conception and abortion at any stage of pregnancy is wrong even if the pregnancy was a result of rape, incest or the baby has severe anomalies.  Mormons also believe that abortion is evil but is warranted in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother is at risk.  That to me means that Mitt Romney is pro-choice.  If you don’t believe me you can Google the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ website.

Ceci, The US Bishops endorsed Romney knowing what you know. It is troubling that they did knowing that a devout candidate had strong support.  So Romney is who opposes Obama in this election and if the question is who is more pro-life, it is clearly Romney.
Matt, Jesus told the women of Jerusalem, “Do not weep for me. Weep for yourselves and for your children because if this is what men are like when the wood is green, what will they be like when it is dry?”  You are presented with a thoughtful non-Catholic woman who sees how young a fetus can be and still be viable. A woman who is concerned about that life and says she needs to give the issue more thought and you cast it as a negative.  To me that sounds like a man who would find something wrong with any female presidential candidate. There are several candidates being considered.  Why did you single her out? What are the other candidates views?  Perhaps in this election Romney would betray all conservatives by choosing a female running mate.  The climate is so virulently opposed to female leadership right now in this country that we wouldn’t vote for what’s best for us.  We’d choose an incompetent man over a highly qualified woman just because he’s a man.  Don’t think you are following Christ doing that because you’re not.  “It shall not be like that among you.  No more male or female, slave or free, but one in the body of Christ.”

Matt - That makes two of us…thank you for writing the blog. When Rice said this last week, it made me shudder, but it also made me honest. Prior to her statement, I was voting Romney even though I know his pro-life record is shaky and it being the political season I know how these promises have a short life. When Rice stated she was mildly pro-choice, I said to myself whoa, how are we going to vote now? Flaky pro-life + mildy pro-choice = status quo on what Obama started. I really hate the term lesser than two evils, and not going to the polls is one more vote for Obama, but this election is really going to be tough to pull the lever if Romney picks Rice, or any VP that is pro-choice. Prayer is the only solution.

So if given a choice between a candidate who supports tax-payer funded infanticide (Obama) or a VP nominee who is against federal funding of abortions, against late-term abortions and for parental notification (Rice) you’d stay home? That’s absurd. Guess what? In a multi-cultural, religiously free democracy we ALL have to make compromises and puck the lesser of two evils. I don’t know of any politician I agree with 100% on everything, but there are better and worse choices, and the worst choice is to not pick the better one.

Tom - I respect what you say but I dont agree 100% with you. I have never felt this way about voting for a president. It has always been during the last months prior to the election, there was patriotism and the bright light of hope that my guy is better than yours and when we win, things will be better. There was pride in standing behind your pick. Now, I find myself gritting my teeth at the only choice in getting rid of Obama. And when it is put intp terms of “the lesser of two evils” I grit harder. Evil = evil on the scale of justice. When I want to get rid of America’s first “evil” president I should vote him out by casting my ballot for our number 2 “most evil” president? No. We should have a VP pick that is pro-life, not Mr. or Mrs. Half Measure. Rice is against partial birth abortions? Pfflt!! Is that the line in the sand for being “mildy pro-choice”? Dont tell me I have to compromise, because as a Christian in this country in the last 4 years I dont see what I have gained (you know…the definition of compromise is giving away something to get somethingy). In fact, all I see is giving (or taking), and not the Christmas kind of giving. Don’t worry, I wont stay home in Nov, but I will not vote for any known evil. In 4 years another name will be on the mailbox at the White House but my conscience will be with me eternally. God Bless

Jeff, since you acknowledge that President Obama is the greater “evil”, and, assuming that you acknowledge that only Romney or Obama have a realistic chance of winning at least the 270 electoral votes needed to be elected (Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote in 1992 but not a single electoral vote), how does your conscience deal with the fact that, if you do not vote for Romney, you may contribute to the re-election of the greater “evil?”

Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  And yes, a lesser “evil” is a good compared to a greater “evil.”  For all those who agree with Jeff, if you do not vote for Mitt Romney in November, and especially if you live in one of the key battleground states, you many contribute to the re-election of President Obama and the continuation, or even the acceleration of, his public policies.

The latest opinions I’ve heard are that Mr. Romney is NOT picking Condoleeza Rice.
Guess we’ll have to wait & see.

Picking the lesser of two evils is still picking evil

I’m lucky.  I’m in one of the deepest blue states, so my vote for the president is meaningless.  I can feel free to vote for the most quixotic third party candidate.

quixotic: foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals; especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas.

That pretty much sums up any vote for a third party candidate, especially given what is at stake in this election.

Thankfully, we have the freedom to vote for any candidate we wish, but the outcome of voting for a third party candidate is that of throwing away your vote & possibly aiding a candidate you agree with the least.
(That said, if Democrats decided to take that route I would in no way dissuade them.)
:)

Reason #1) Because Mitt Romney is on top of the ticket, and so I will vote 3rd-Party again this year.

Reasons #2 thru 6) Moot. (See #1 above.)

Ms. Rice is a highly competent and exceptionally brilliant woman.  However, I have a problem with anyone who calls themself Catholic or Christian while supporting any pro-choice candidate.  As flawed and as poor a choice John McCain was, at least he was pro-life.  I heared nothing in my diocese nor from my parish priests in 2008 concerning how serious voting a pro-life candidate contrasts with that of one which supports abortion.  A candidate’s view on life issues is typically indicative of where they stand on other issues as well.  I have also grown tired of candidates (and the media) who wish to promote “fiscally” conservatives who are socially moderate.  This means they are for abortion rights.  Let’s cut the nonsense.  Obama gathered 54% of the the largest voting block—Roman Catholics.  Why is that?  He even supports partial birth abortion.  Obama is more radical on abortion than Sen Barbara Boxer (if that was even possible).  What kind of judges do you expect from him?  Now you know:  Kagan and Sotomayor, abortion rights.  And Sotomayor is “allegedly” RC.  Will there ever be a time when priests and the USCCB will actually *lead* and speak for righteousness instead of cowering behind the Eucharist?