A presidential candidate attends a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser at the home of a pharmaceutical executive whose company produces an emergency contraceptive commonly known as the "morning-after pill.”
In normal circumstances, one might expect strong statements of disapproval from the pro-life community.
But in an election year, when the opposing candidate's record is unequivocally pro-abortion, politics can have an effect on how some pro-life organizations respond to the situation described above, which is no hypothetical.
On May 16, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, visited the Miami home of Dr. Philip Frost, the chairman of the board of Teva Pharmaceuticals, an Israel-based company that produces many different medicines, including regular contraceptives. Teva is also one of the country's largest producers of generic drugs.
Teva also produces Plan B One Step, an emergency contraceptive designed to prevent pregnancy within 72 hours of intercourse by preventing fertilization and ovulation, but also by thinning the uterine wall to prevent implantation, thus making it an abortifacient, according to many in the pro-life community.
However, the reaction to the Romney fundraiser in pro-life sectors has been muted, with several pro-life officials seeking to keep the spotlight on President Obama's abortion record and his close ties to Planned Parenthood.
“At this point, the sentiment of most pro-life leaders and activists I am in contact with is that this election is about avoiding the unmitigated disaster of a second Obama term," said Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life.
"This is not the first nor the last objection that will be raised against Governor Romney, and I don’t dispute the seriousness of it. But what is often called the choice of the lesser of two evils is not a choice for evil; it is a choice to reduce evil. And to reduce evil is a good," Father Pavone told the Register.
"The biggest concern is we have two choices for president, and Mitt Romney is going to be much better from our point of view," said Anne Fox, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life.
Fox told the Register that she "did not have a lot to say" about the Romney fundraiser, which she suggested is being reported in the media to benefit Obama.
"They (the media) don't care if Romney is pro-life or not. They care about getting us upset, splitting us and having us not vote," Fox said.
Kristi Hamrick, a spokeswoman for Americans United for Life, told the Register that AUL has not commented on the fundraiser, and "really cannot easily weigh in on an issue of direct partisan politics."
Paul Rondeau, executive director of American Life League, told the Register that nobody knows if Romney's staff investigated all the products that Teva manufactures before the fundraiser was held. Rondeau added that it is also unknown whether the actual donors present at the fundraiser were pro-life. Rondeau also said it was his understanding that the fundraiser did not involve any money from Teva.
"We do know that Romney is an imperfect man like the rest of us and therefore an imperfect candidate. But if politics is the art of compromise, the current president has long since moved way beyond that. It is no longer about truth; it is about raw power," Rondeau said.
To some, however, the pro-life organizations' responses are disingenuous.
"For pro-life groups to give the Plan B manufacturer a pass because it supports Romney is hypocrisy," said Stephen Schneck, director of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at The Catholic University of America.
"What's needed now is for pro-life groups to step up and insist that Romney promise to end all federal health-care support for Plan B," Schneck said.
If President Obama had held a similar fundraiser, it is likely that more traditional pro-life forces would have expressed outrage, said Charles Camosy, an assistant professor of Christian ethics at Fordham University.
"When they do not direct this outrage at Romney, it becomes fair to ask whether such forces are more interested in playing politics as usual rather than actually working in defense of our prenatal children," said Camosy, who added that the fundraiser plays into the narrative for many conservatives and serious pro-lifers that Romney's pro-life conversion (he ran as a pro-choice candidate for Massachusetts governor in 2002) is not genuine.
"And for many pro-lifers who are not conservatives, this fundraiser is yet more evidence that the pro-life movement makes a big mistake when it trusts Republicans to make nonviolence towards our vulnerable prenatal children a true priority," Camosy said.
The Romney campaign did not return messages seeking comment for this story. Efforts to contact Dr. Frost at Teva were also unsuccessful.
At least one high-profile pro-life figure, Penny Nance, chairwoman of Concerned Women for America, spoke out on the issue, telling The Daily Caller that she would have urged Romney to cancel the fundraiser "because it is dirty money."
While the pro-life and conservative blogospheres stayed quiet, many mainstream and liberal-leaning websites were all too eager to highlight the seeming inconsistency. Planned Parenthood Action Fund's president, Cecile Richards, also chided Romney, telling reporters that he "can't have it both ways."
The website ThinkProgress.org, a liberal blog published by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, noted that Romney, during a February press conference in Colorado, referred to morning-after pills like Plan B as "abortive pills." At the time, Romney was criticizing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services mandate that all employers cover such prescriptions in their employee health-insurance plans.
Romney's record on abortion was an issue during the recent primary campaign. He promised to support Roe v. Wade when he challenged the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy for his seat in 1994. During a gubernatorial debate in 2002, Romney responded to an opponent's attacks that he could not be trusted on the abortion issue by saying: "Let me make this very clear: I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose."
By 2007, Romney said he was pro-life after his views on abortion had changed, but detractors were unconvinced. During the recent primaries, an old photograph surfaced that seemed to show Romney at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser. The Boston Globe also reported that Romney's wife, Ann, donated to Planned Parenthood in 1994.
Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, who ran against Romney during this year's primaries, challenged Romney's abortion record. In one campaign ad, the Santorum camp said the former senator from Pennsylvania was writing the law that ended partial-birth abortions while Romney "was writing a personal check to Planned Parenthood."
However, Rondeau of the American Life League noted that, in 2005, then-Gov. Romney vetoed a bill that would have required hospitals in Massachusetts to offer the morning-after pill to rape victims, as well as requiring pharmacies to sell them without a prescription. The Massachusetts Legislature later overrode Romney's veto.
While it is right to question the wisdom of Romney's fundraiser, Rondeau said there was still "no question" that Obama is the "abortion president" for his administration's efforts to prevent state legislatures from defunding Planned Parenthood and for spending millions of dollars pushing coerceive family-planning initiatives in foreign countries. Rondeau also assailed Obama for calling for more civil discourse while attending $40,000-a-plate fundraisers and railing against the rich.
"So while Obama looks to raise $1 billion, is the only pro-life option to insist that Romney forgo all donations from all organizations that pro-lifers may find troubling in some way and all people who work there or know people who work there?" Rondeau asked.
Fox, from Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said it "would be nice if everyone could deal with only perfect people," and added that Teva probably makes "thousands of other products." She said the fundraiser flap is a distraction from the real issues.
"What we're doing is playing into the hands of the media and the Obama campaign to be jumping on every little thing we can find," Fox said.
Register correspondent Brian Fraga writes from El Paso, Texas.
Jimmy Akin: Pope Francis and lying to save life
Tom Hoopes: Why Catholics Are Grateful to George W. Bush
Comments
Post a Comment
Only a moron would be a Mormon.
Hypocrites. I thought LIFE was nonnegotiable.
Nothing like selling out—again—for a canidate’s promise to do something for us. I swear, we’re the Charlie Brown and the Republican Party is Lucy. Remember, in the Bible, when Jesus tells us how we should accept evil for the sake of expediency? Oh, wait…
“This is not the first nor the last objection that will be raised against Governor Romney, and I don’t dispute the seriousness of it. But what is often called the choice of the lesser of two evils is not a choice for evil; it is a choice to reduce evil. And to reduce evil is a good,” Father Pavone told the Register.
Perhaps Father Pavone needs to orient himself a bit and stop obfuscating. We are not to choose less evil. We are to choose no evil. I don’t know what semantic world Father lives in, but in the world of English speaking I live in, to choose a lesser evil IS a choice for evil. I, for one, will have no part in it.
George Bush represented the lesser of two evils or so we thought. How did that lesser of two evils thing work out for us? “Preemptive” War, extraordinary rendition, torture, etc. Shall we have a repeat of the Bush and Obama administrations where votes excuse everything their President does because he is of their party? Don’t people understand that this is why our country is in the shape it is in today?
If you think Romney isn’t flexible, ask him to justify this. He will say anything to any group to be liked. He was pro abortion then switched, he was for Romneycare before he was against Obamacare, he is the ultimate political weathervane. At least Obama stands for something and you know what it is. You might not like it, but he is solid.
I think it interesting that Mormonism will become a mainstream religion when the president is leader of it. It will no longer be a cult and, contrary to Catholic teaching, will be considered Christian.
Dr. Ron Paul is the best GOP Option, if people do not wake up and see that, then they should not be allowed to vote. Not only is Dr. Ron Paul hold a staunch Pro-Life Position, he was a Gynecologist who delivered over 4000 Babies during his medical career when outside of politics. Ron Paul is the only honest statesman that is left in this country all the others are wolves in sheep’s clothing whose agenda is not your will, and if you fall for their tricks not only do hurt the country, but you hurt your perception of religious peoples in this country as well, since Ron Paul’s Paleoconservative Strict Constitutional perspective has influenced Americas youth greatly over the years since he first came to the stage in 2008. If you believe in voting for the lesser of two evils, then I ask you why bother voting for evil in the first place?
Dear headline writer: Please look up the difference between faze and phase. They have two different meanings. You meant FAZE. Not trying to be a smarty. Thanks!
Simply put, Romney is the best of two choices from a Catholic and prolife standpoint. Your article is very interesting and solidifies the point that Romney is not ideal however, if we divide ourselves (Catholics) in this election, Romney will lose. I am a prolife obstetrician/gynecologist. The subtle ways Obama has assaulted life beginning with his offices in Illinois are alarming. Evil is almost always subtle. No one is claiming Romney to be like Santorum but he is what we have got and we best support him to the fullest or we become in the words of Lenin “useful idiots” for Obama.
Uhm, I think the word should be ‘faze’ and not ‘phase’ in the article’s title.
As to Romney, sadly he doesn’t offer a real alternative to the current administration.
That headline would make more sense if you were to use the homonym of phase.
Expecting Romney or any other conservative candidate to reverse a century of eugenics is more disingenuous than accepting funds from a diversified drug manufacturer. As a Catholic, I want freedom of religion and remain convinced that the Republican Party will correct present transgressions. As a Catholic, I also manage expectations with regard to the choices of other citizens. If they go the way of abortion so be it and so it is written, “Wide is the road but narrow the gate.”
Many will believe what they are told by people they like without examination. Many will reject what they are told by people they dislike without examination.
Well, I would say that most prolifers ate not phased by the Romney news because many were not going to vote for him because we already know he’s a dirty scoundral. It’s just like 2008, we tried warning about Obama and no one listened, now we warn about Romney and no one listens. We need to stop settling for crumbs, men with absolutely ni character or ethics .
This pro-lifer has noticed and cares. I have seen the media endorsement of Romney as a huge red flag. I have seen supposed Catholic support of Romeny in preferance of and against actual Catholic candidates….the dreaded “electablity doctine.” The differences between Obama and Romney continues to dissipate. We are once again faced with the choice feared of evil or lesser evil and not sure which label even now applies to either. The known evil or the unknown and yet to be revealed/exposed. Lord have mercy.
Hypocrites!!! LIFE is a non-negotiable issue, at least that’s what we’ve been told.
Interesting article. Many pharmaceutical companies make contraceptives. At the same time they produce multiple Life-Saving medications. How does the average person know? We do know the Evil wrought by Barak Obama. He must be defeated this November.
It does bother me, but am not going to switch sides when the other candidate is 1000X worse.
It is a fine point that one drug in an inventory has one attribute that might be abortafacient. In the scheme of things this is not an issue where you have a stridently pro abortion president vs. A pro life platform. If the Democrat party ever amended its platform it might be a different story.
I think it’s important to find all sorts of rationale as to why these things are justifiable. It completely doesn’t open the door to other misgivings or watering down other unethical actions. Sins. Maybe we give a little here and there until we just think its all relative to some bigger picture. Like tolerating someone who makes a drug we oppose to get a questionable epolitician elected against a very questionable epolitician. No one gets my sarcasm so I’ll just y it. It’s moral relativism projected onto politics. Lose. Lose.
I am very disappointed by this association. Romney was never my pick
for a presidential candidate. I wanted Rick S.
So many people don’t understand that birth control and abortion are the great evils that are the cause of our other problems, social, economical, etc.
so in order to win with Obama we are to go against our conscience and support killing babies…?
Truth and Love or being right and being sentimental, hmmmm. I choose the first one. The second one looks like an easy way towards crooked cross of satan…
I have seen some people object. I don’t plan on voting for him anyway and have made no attempt to hide it.
And yeah, although as usual Cecile Richards is annoying whenever she opens her mouth, I must say I find the rationalizing a bit disgusting. If we were correct to expect Planned Parenthood to turn down a large donation from Tucker Max, then we are correct to expect Romney not to get cozy with the maker of Plan B.
-
“So while Obama looks to raise $1 billion, is the only pro-life option to insist that Romney forgo all donations from all organizations that pro-lifers may find troubling”
-
Yes. (Crickets?)
I don’t see your wallet rustling, Mr. Rondeau, or do I?
Dear Brian, I am so glad you wrote and publisherd this article. I was actually just looking at UM’s Frost School of Music this week as one of the top schools for my child to attend for college. When I read your article, I noticed the name of the host for this fundraiser - Dr. Phiip Frost - and took note that he lives in Miami and I guessed he was the one who gave the money to name the Frost School of Music and it is! I think I have to take this school off my child’s list of considerations. My child can not attend a college that is being funded and thrives by profits from abortion drugs such as the morning after pill. Thank you, thank you, thank you, National Catholic Register, for publishing this good information. It was the Holy Spirit that had me read this article not only for the value of it’s main point, but also this led me to the TRUTH about UM’s Frost School of Music. PRAISE GOD!
Compromise of any sort is compromise. The Bible says if we are neither hot or cold I will spew you from my mouth.
How many times- are we going to try and justify compromise.
Either we believe in the truth and that any interference with life is
not correct or we do not.
Picking the lesser of two wrong ways is not a choice for a true Christian or truth Catholic.
This exemplifies the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement.
Despite all the reporting in this article, the lack of response from Pro-Life advocates is just one more example of the racial bias of white America toward Obama. He has met so much opposition in all he has done, or attempted to do, because he is a bi-racial—not Black, but bi-racial—man in a position of power and auhority in a white America that actively discriminates against non-White Americans. And this is coming from a middle-aged White American male ashamed that he lives in a ‘Christian’ America that is as non-Christian a country as there is.
This is why we need Santorum back! Romney again is flip flopping over issues. I won’t vote for Obama, but am having my doubts about Romney. Another thing that disturbs me is that he is “okay” with same sex couples adopting children. This to me is even worse than same sex marriage as it effects the children.
I live in Utah where the Mormon Church’s views are predominant and our state will not let same sex couples adopt, nor couples who are not married. So it looks to me, that Romney is trying to appeal to more liberals instead of standing his ground like Santorum.
I think we will need a lot of prayers before this election, and although I don’t want Obama in for a second term, unless we see a difference in attitudes, I can see him squeaking in for a second term.
It is stated in the article “Teva also produces Plan B One Step, an emergency contraceptive designed to prevent pregnancy within 72 hours of intercourse by preventing fertilization and ovulation, but also by thinning the uterine wall to prevent implantation, thus making it an abortifacient, according to many in the pro-life community.” The action and effect of Plan B or “the morning after pill” is a fact. Why the qualifier “according to many in the pro-life community?”
When are pro-lifers going to wake up to the fact that the corporations bankrolling politicians on the national stage don’t give a flying fig about abortion? If the anti-abortion message seems to work, they’re happy to support that message. If the pro-choice message seems to work, they’re happy to support that message. The only goal they really care about is achieving a world where the rich and powerful can do anything they want to workers, the environment and the government, for the purpose of getting richer. They can hire any doctor to do anything they want. They can fly anywhere in the world to get any treatment they want and any substance they want. They don’t care about abortion laws. They are pleased that we are squabbling over abortion while they corral more and more of the nation’s wealth.
The answer to my question: When are pro-lifers going to wake up to the fact that the corporations bankrolling politicians on the national stage don’t give a flying fig about abortion?
Apparently never.
If the pro-life community seriously means to tell us that you can never vote for the pro-choice, Democratic candidate because abortion is the great moral issue of our time and outweighs almost all other issues of grave concern, then I would think that this would raise some serious questions about the Governor’s commitment to the pro-life cause. If we are serious about opposing the HHS mandate, especially because it would mandate the provision of abortifacient drugs such as Plan B, it would seem like this should raise a chorus of opposition from the pro-life community. If Father Frank Pavone is kept awake at night by the thought of children being killed, then I would expect a stronger response from him to this news, rather than an attempt to soft pedal it. Oppose Obama all you want, all you feel compelled to do, but also hold the Republican candidate accountable. Don’t just gloss over things like this. Tell Romney this could jeopardize support for him.
So, let me see if I have this straight: For close to 40 years now, women have the right to choose both sex AND abortion, and the man involved can rot for all they care, an obvious double standard—read hypocrisy—but Mitt Romney can’t denounce a company that makes a possible contraceptive/abortion inducer without being branded a hypocrite?
I understand the need to fight the encroaching abortion lobby, but..
GIVE ME A BREAK!!
No body is perfect. Even the saints have sinned, many of them have sinned grievously. However Romney is a thousand times better than Obama and they are the choices that we will probably have on election day.
There is still time for pro-lifers to support Ron Paul. In 1983, Congressman Ron Paul wrote an outstanding 40 page book titled, “Abortion & Liberty”. Dr. Paul dismantles the “abortion choice” argument then and remains consistent on his pro-life position today. Dr, Paul is a man of integrity and will not flip-flop. Catholics need to also consider a candidate’s position on the Just War Doctrine and the implications of pre-emptive strikes on foreign countries. God bless!
clearly it is forgotten that one more candidate, Ron Paul, the people’s candidate, who is , never has been , or will be a flip flopper, is still IN THE RUNNING. HE IS PRO LIFE.
@Dr Rachel Cady and John
I think you two had the best comments on this article. And this is coming from a guy who scored in the 8% of people who got all the questions correct in the PEW Research 13 question polling of people on how well informed they were on politics. I was shocked to learn only 8% of the people who took the test got all the questions correct; the questions were so simple.
@Dr. Rachel Cady - I’m not convinced that we prolifers are not useful idiots for the Republican party. I’m not certain yet, but I just don’t see myself voting for Romney this Fall. My husband likely will. I’m leaning towards third party. We’re never going to get a prolife candidate if we support the not quite as evil junk the Republican party gives us.
IMO, that Roney is “the best of two choices” presupposes 2 things:
- That there ARE only two choices, which is patently false, and
- That “Not-Obama” is better than Obama. If the Not-Obama is no different than Obama, then there is no such thing as a “lesser evil”. Romney is somewhat better on abortion, but he’s the same or worse in other areas.
Do what you will, but accepting garbage because it smells less than other garbage, only means you’ll never get anything better.
This is China’s new Golden Age! The USA is about to slide into mediocrity! Look at the state of our Government! It can’t accomplish anything! Our two party system no longer works. The Republican Party has placed it’s loyalty with the Party-not the Country! Obama has shined in some areas-and made very foolish choices in other areas! Perhaps he could have done a better job, if the republicans had been willing to compromise? The first year of his term, he tried much too hard to please the Republicans, who were happy to stab him in the back as often as possible! Why this extreme HATE? Probably because they cannot believe we chose to elect a Black Man as President! Racism is alive and well in this Country! Rather than work with the Democrats, the Republicans are happy to take bribes from the super rich and even sign a pact for one of them that they will never cooperate with the Democrats!
The way I see it, our only choice is to vote the Republican Party out of existence and support Obama! He is the last hope of saving this Country.
The question is, once elected again, and the Democrats have total power in Congress-will they agree on anything and accomplish anything? You recall that during Obama’s first year, the Democrats had total power in Congress, and could not agree on anything! Our Government is flawed and unable to work because of the lobbiests and their bribes to Congress on behalf of all their special interests! The Supreme Courts decision that Corporations are people only intensified the corruption! Billionaires are hard at work trying to preserve their wealth-even if is only of their benefit, and not the Country’s! Who will REVERSE all these disasterous decisions?
Hmm. So, we’re having the option arise of voting for someone besides Romney, huh? Well, for all that I admit that Romney isn’t the one I would’ve liked, I think we need to admit to a few things:
- I will not vote for Ron Paul. Period. He makes some outstanding points. He does NOT persuade me to elect him to office. A President can’t implement this or that policy for the nation by fiat. Much as Pres Obama seems unable to admit that, I expect a President to accomplish most of his intent by means of the Congress, as required by the Constitution. I have little confidence that Ron Paul can accomplish much. He’s too far at odds with too many people for a likely success.
- Arguably, we technically have more than two choices for President. In five Presidential contests, I’ve never seen fewer than five candidates. Of those, I USUALLY only know two of the names. I cannot vote in good conscience for someone I’ve never heard from before.
- I generally cannot vote for Democrats on grounds that they frequently promote views that I consider baldly immoral. I cannot readily vote in favor of someone—or a party—who has routinely promoted abortion, “safe” sex, homosexual “marriage”, and effective socialism. I value my country too highly for that.
- If we’re not happy with Republican alternatives, perhaps we ought to become involved in Republican politics and run for office ourselves. I can’t imagine how we can expect to have determined, pro-life candidates if we never step up. Politicians don’t grow on trees.
- If we’re not happy with typical Republican or Democrat values, perhaps we’d be wise to seek opportunities to better educate either party regarding what we believe and why. If we can’t make our case outside the election, I can’t imagine why we expect candidates to care.
In summary:
If you don’t like Romney, it’s about six months, maybe eight, to be complaining. Romney is the presumptive nominee precisely because nobody insisted otherwise in large enough numbers.
Mr. Dykstra, I cannot even remotely agree with you. I do not believe President Obama has shone in any capacity, except perhaps for pushing us farther from the Constitution.
As far as hate and racism go, yes, there’s an ample helping of both. ..And at LEAST half of it comes from “African-Americans”. I’m saddened to see that you believe white people to be so evil, but black people have demonstrated equal malice.
Then again, corporations ARE people, precisely because a human being must own stock in a company for a corporation to exist. I must warn you, your views don’t strike me as being any less greedy than theirs.
I won’t vote for Ron Paul either. But comments about ourselves running for office is good, except now you need so much money to back you. And you’d better not have anything in your background from high school college or even elementary school or the liberals will make a mole hill into a mountain. We’ve seen what’s happened to the other candidates who were running. And sadly Santorum didn’t have the money or the “right backing” (whatever that is) to be a nominee. Right now I don’t see a third party candidate. We must vote for good, not for even a little bit evil, so now I see myself wondering if I should ‘write in” a candidate and therefore have one more vote for Obama or vote for a candidate I don’t believe in. Romney is having trouble even sticking to what the LDS teach, let alone what pro-lifers or Catholics want.
Folks, this election is not about who to replace Obama with - it is about US and I don’t mean the U.S.A. If you think Obama is done messing with our Church, you haven’t seen anything, yet. We don’t have to grab our muskets and slug through the forest or man our machine guns to stop our opponents. We only have to vote and get as many other patriots to vote with us. A third party candidate will only ensure Obama a second term to finish what he started - that is, to destroy the Church and our economy making us subjects to his governance. We won’t be the first country who wound up that way. But we will the best country ever who wound up that way, and I don’t want that for my remaining years or my kids and grand kids.
@John - the problem with getting involved and running ourselves is that there already were too many pro-lifers splitting the vote. We need less prolifers running not more. I may not have been crazy about Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, or even Ron Paul, but I’d have taken any one of them over Mitt Romney. If I thought Romney would be decidedly better than Obama, I would go ahead and hold my nose and pull the lever for him. But I’m just not convinced. I was prepared to vote for the front running pro-life non Romney candidate by the time my state’s primary rolled around. If more states could’ve rallied their prolife vote that way, we would not be looking at Romney as the nominee.
All: An overlooked mechanism for selecting a party to represent your views is generally encapsulated in the party’s “platform”. A quick visit to the Republican Platform will comfort Catholics since there is substantial agreement between Church teachings and the Republican positions (Democrat not so much and certainly many key Democrat positions go undefined by their platform). So, for Romney to run as a Republican he must adopt and practice the Republican PLatform, hence, there is a mechanism to keep politicians somewhat honest (the Tea Party is another example). God-fearing Catholics can influence the Republican candidate through its party. Give this some consideration before rejecting a nominee. One example from the platform is this: “Protecting Rights of Conscience
The health care profession can be both a profession and a calling. No health care professional doctor, nurse, or pharmacist or organization should ever be required to perform, provide for, or refer for a health care service against their conscience for any reason. This is especially true of the religious organizations which deliver a major portion of America’s health care, a service rooted in the charity of faith communities.”
We live in a government in which we are to vote for representatives, those who represent us, not a party or a faction. Neither Obama or Romney represents me in what I believe or what I believe our constitution was crafted to promote, the blessings of liberties as established by our Creator for the individual with boundaries founded, not in the imposition of those who are to govern, but in the natural law. I have to ask, since Romney enacted the forward at the state level, what Obama promotes at the national level, do I actually get a “lesser of evils” or just the same evil with a better disguise? If we are a good country, just how is it that we do not have good representatives, but simply end up with bad “leaders”. I told my mom, at the beginning of the primary process that not only would Romney be the Republican candidate, but that the other candidate she hoped would defeat him would turn in an endorsement for him as soon as he bowed out. In as much as the media and family and friends see a third party as inconsequential and a possible vote for the great evil, Obama, I see it as recommitting myself to the foundations of our republic, our government where I vote for one who represents me. Kudos to Dr. Alan Keyes for bringing back this most imperative concept of representational government.
@ John (I have little confidence that Ron Paul can accomplish much.)
A presidential veto on the unconstitutional bills being passed (most of them) can accomplish more to protect the little freedom we have left than “getting along” with the DEM/REP socialists/collectivists in congress. Romney becomes another John Boehner negotiating our country into bankruptcy.
Gary, I have little interest in electing a man whose primary goal will be to tell us he wants to veto everything. I don’t want Congress to act without careful thought or compromise something that shouldn’t be compromised. I ALSO don’t wish to see a President effectively becoming obstructive to everything. When someone rules by saying “No”, he’s going to be over-ridden sometime, possibly many times. We accomplish little by electing a man who won’t get along at all with anyone, even from his own party.
If we must see a third party candidate run, I’d vote for Alan Keyes before I’d vote for Ron Paul. Sadly, I suspect Mr. Keyes will not be persuaded. Too bad. He’d be good, I think.
Hmm. Here’s a thought: How about a third party Santorum-Keyes ticket? *sigh* Not likely to work, but we can dream, can’t we?
John, presidents don’t create bills, they sign/veto them. I certainly want someone that will veto unconstitutional bills before they become law - no room for compromise in that area. I’m sure Alan Keyes would agree on that, but based on his voting record, sadly, I don’t think I can say the same for Rick Santorum.Do you want someone that will compromise away your freedom or attempt to restore it?
Gary, a President DOES propose ideas for legislation. As for the Constitutional nature of an Act or lack of same, we can argue all day about that. Ultimately, the Supreme Court makes that call. We, the People, can argue about the moral nature too. I don’t believe Ron Paul can accomplish very much.
John, I guess we’ll have to disagree on what Ron Paul can accomplish. I’m curious, if elected, what are you hoping for Mitt Romney to accomplish? Based upon the fundraiser mentioned in this article, I expect Romney will propose the idea of supporting this pharmacutical company. At 50k a plate, I’m guessing they’ll have plenty of other REPs and DEMs willing to compromise their integrity and support whatever Romney’s carefully thought proposal is. Lesser of two evils is still evil.
“Lesser of two evils is still evil.”
Agreed.
I’ve never declared that Romney would be stellar. Nor have most credible talk show hosts. But neither have I (or they) heard why Ron Paul would be a twitch better. I’ve heard that Ron Paul would demand an audit of the fed. That’d be good.
I’ve also heard that he’d legalize marijuana. That would not be good.
Most concerns favoring Ron Paul tell me about other candidates’ faults. Either people think I can’t discern those myself or they have too little positive to say about their own candidate. I’ve heard enough negative campaigning from all sides to decide that anyone we might elect will pose some problem or other with their ideas.
I see nothing to suggest that Ron Paul will be much more than a loud crank in the White House.
John, I’m not sure who you consider credible hosts but the neocon/warfare types don’t like Dr. Paul because he favors the Just War Theory (Augustine / Aquinas) over bankrupting the country as World Police (pre-emptive strikes, etc.). As well, Ron Paul wants to restore the (9th and) 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Yes, restoring the 10th Amendment could allow states to legalize marijuana.
Gary,
All right, if you want to go this route, here we go.
- Just War Theory:
—If we in the Church wish for this to have an influence, we’ll need to persuade the general populace of the nation AND politicians that we ALL should take this seriously. Right now, I think most efforts make us look like a mob of crazed yahoos in this regard. If “Catholic” politicians don’t even take abortion seriously, we can’t expect anyone to be serious about warfare concerns.
—I have yet to see any competent explanation for why Iraq wasn’t a virtuous thing. Yes, things didn’t go the way we wanted. Wow. Tell me something else that’s new.
—Thus far, every effort at blasting our pre-emptive war have demonstrated a genuine lack of comprehension of the state of affairs in the Mid-East, or else a genuine, determined denial of the possibility that some parts of the world..don’t act nice all the time. For the record, if I’m pretty sure that I’ll need to fight SOMEONE at SOME time, SOMEWHERE, I’d rather do it at a time and place of MY choosing, the better to win decisively and keep casualties (on both sides actually) to a minimum.
—Invading Iraq DID put other nations on notice that we would only tolerate so much BS for so long. Notice that, though Iran and North Korea like to make us take notice now and then, both have been fairly quiet publicly about what they think of us. We know they don’t like us, but they’re not dumb enough to try getting in a shoot-out. They know their chances winning..aren’t good.
9th and 10th Amendment: Explain to me why a person needs to be President to raise these issues? If you’ve noticed, several organizations have challenged PPACA, aka ObamaCare, with the Supreme Court, regarding Constitutionality. Other concerns can follow the same route, or can be altered by demand of the people. Holding the bully pulpit won’t make this any easier if the populace has not been convinced to take these problems seriously.
Drug War: I’m not happy about lots of things, but I’d comment that we didn’t make drugs illegal for kicks. They DO pose either a legitimate health concern OR a behavioral concern.
In general, what I REALLY see from Ron Paul supporters is..let’s elect Ron Paul, and he’ll accomplish a lot. People seem incapable of realizing that..if they want something to change, THEY will need to step up and cause the change to happen.
No President elected per the Constitution can effect even one of the changes you might seek. THAT requires at least a thin majority of the nation to be persuaded to change it’s approach.
In THAT department, I keep hearing the crickets chirping.
“Thy means is not justified by the end.”
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.