Mitt Romney Presidential Campaign

[pnewton]

And what about the moral fitness of a president who sends troops to war in Iraq or Vietnam when that war is not a just one? Or the moral fitness of a president who is involved in a political scandal such as Watergate or the Iran-Contra affair? Or that of a president who bombs innocent civilian populations in Japan? Or a president who has an affair in the Oval Office? When we begin to judge the moral fitness of presidents, I think we will find ourselves often pointing to something we consider immoral according to our own values. It might be better not to become the arbiter of another person’s moral values in the first place.

Do you really not understand the moral difference between judgment, poor or good, and objective moral evil?

Your compaisons are faulty because of all that it mentioned abortion is the one grave moral evil that was any part of a politicians position. It is like you are comparing Manson with Tony Romo.

 

[_Abyssinia]

And the judges Reagan appointed could and the judges both Bushes appointed could…but they haven’t have they?

First presidential debate in 2000 Bush declared that he would not try to overturn roe v Wade

Before Bush was elected as president, he said that he would support Supreme Court judges who would strictly interpret the Constitution. A strict stance on abortion, he indicated, would not rest at the top of his list of requirements for an appointee, though he had voiced strong personal opposition to most forms of the procedure. He said, “I will not have a litmus test for my judges, except for: Will the judge strictly interpret the Constitution, and not use the bench to write social policy?”

Reagan campaigned promising to elect a woman to the supreme court, he chose Sandra Day O’Connor but wrote of his concerns about her and roe v wade in his diary but then ignored them. Robert Bork, who is on Romney’s judiciary, was rejected by the supreme court and was opposed by pro abortion groups. Kennedy was influenced by the anti life culture of Washington. Definite mistakes were made but they have no bearing on this election. Romney had repeatedly said he supports reversing roe v wade

 

[_Abyssinia]

And the judges Reagan appointed could and the judges both Bushes appointed could…but they haven’t have they?

Reagan campaigned promising to elect a woman to the supreme court, he chose Sandra Day O’Connor

White House officials asserted that Judge O’Connor had assured President Reagan in an Oval Office interview last Wednesday that she was personally opposed to abortions. They quoted her as saying that she opposed the anti-abortion measure only because it was not germane to the legislation to which it was attached and the Arizona Constitution forbids nongermane amendments. But those officials also said that she felt the legality of abortions was a legitimate matter for the legislative branch to decide.

Abortion foes, however, also cited votes in which, they said, Mrs. O’Connor supported a 1970 bill to legalize abortion and a 1973 bill permitting Arizona state agencies to participate in family planning.

In response, the White House said that there was no record of the 1970 vote and that, contrary to what the anti-abortion groups say, the 1973 bill was not pro-abortion and made no mention of abortion. The White House also noted that Mrs. O’Connor had sponsored a 1973 bill, which passed, giving hospitals, physicians and other medical personnel the right not to participate in abortion procedures.

nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0707.html

Reagon wrote of his concern about her in his diary

Robert Bork, who is on Romney’s judiciary, was rejected by the supreme court and was opposed by pro abortion groups. Kennedy was influenced by the anti life culture of Washington

Do not think Reagan ever set out as president to elect judges who would not reverse roe v wade

1st presidential debate in 2000 Bush declared that he would not try to overturn roe v Wade

Before Bush was elected as president, he said that he would support Supreme Court judges who would strictly interpret the Constitution. A strict stance on abortion, he indicated, would not rest at the top of his list of requirements for an appointee, though he had voiced strong personal opposition to most forms of the procedure. He said, “I will not have a litmus test for my judges, except for: Will the judge strictly interpret the Constitution, and not use the bench to write social policy?”

Romney had repeatedly said he supports reversing roe v wade. Do not think any other presidential nominee has made such a pledge

 

[Seeker1961]

Reagan campaigned promising to elect a woman to the supreme court, he chose Sandra Day O’Connor but wrote of his concerns about her and roe v wade in his diary but then ignored them. Robert Bork, who is on Romney’s judiciary, was rejected by the supreme court and was opposed by pro abortion groups. Kennedy was influenced by the anti life culture of Washington

1st presidential debate in 2000 Bush declared that he would not try to overturn roe v Wade

Before Bush was elected as president, he said that he would support Supreme Court judges who would strictly interpret the Constitution. A strict stance on abortion, he indicated, would not rest at the top of his list of requirements for an appointee, though he had voiced strong personal opposition to most forms of the procedure. He said, “I will not have a litmus test for my judges, except for: Will the judge strictly interpret the Constitution, and not use the bench to write social policy?”

Romney had repeatedly said he supports reversing roe v wade. Do not think any other presidential nominee has made such a pledge

And in 2002 he told the voters of Massacusetts that he was pro-choice and a progressive. He told them what they wanted to hear and he won. Why wouldn’t he do that again?

 

[qui_est_ce]

And in 2002 he told the voters of Massacusetts that he was pro-choice and a progressive. He told them what they wanted to hear and he won. Why wouldn’t he do that again?

And in 2008 Obama was against gay marriage.

Give me a break.

 

[_Abyssinia]

And in 2002 he told the voters of Massacusetts that he was pro-choice and a progressive. He told them what they wanted to hear and he won. Why wouldn’t he do that again?

That was before he had a pro life conversion. His pro life record after his conversion is evidence that he takes abortion seriously

 

[_Abyssinia]

And in 2002 he told the voters of Massacusetts that he was pro-choice and a progressive. He told them what they wanted to hear and he won. Why wouldn’t he do that again?

That was before he had a pro life conversion. Romney’s pro life record after his conversion is evidence that he takes abortion seriously

 

[qui_est_ce]

That was before he had a pro life conversion. Romney’s pro life record after his conversion is evidence that he takes abortion seriously

I think Seeker is being disingenuous. Many here have told of their conversions to the pro life side (LisaA). Yet he continues his attack.

Seeker do you believe people have conversions? Should we not welcome Romney’s change of heart rather than use it against him?

He did choose Ryan, who he called “Catholic” when he introduced him.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

And in 2002 he told the voters of Massacusetts that he was pro-choice and a progressive. He told them what they wanted to hear and he won. Why wouldn’t he do that again?

You really need to stop.

On one side we have a candidate who says he is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage.

On the other side we have a candidate whose actions while president prove him to be pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage.

1. You simply can not get around that.
2. The Church has spoken time and again about the primacy of the life issues. You can choose to ignore this, of course, however it will continue to undermine the credibility of your posts here.

 

[qui_est_ce]

You really need to stop.

On one side we have a candidate who says he is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage.

On the other side we have a candidate whose actions while president prove him to be pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage.

1. You simply can not get around that.
2. The Church has spoken time and again about the primacy of the life issues. You can choose to ignore this, of course, however it will continue to undermine the credibility of your posts here.

Keepin’ it simple.

 

[Seeker1961]

I think Seeker is being disingenuous. Many here have told of their conversions to the pro life side (LisaA). Yet he continues his attack.

Seeker do you believe people have conversions? Should we not welcome Romney’s change of heart rather than use it against him?

He did choose Ryan, who he called “Catholic” when he introduced him.

Of course they do, however in the cases of Romney and Obama the timing of said conversions is just a little to convenient for my taste.

As always, your mileage may vary.

 

[Seeker1961]

You really need to stop.

On one side we have a candidate who says he is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage.

On the other side we have a candidate whose actions while president prove him to be pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage.

1. You simply can not get around that.
2. The Church has spoken time and again about the primacy of the life issues. You can choose to ignore this, of course, however it will continue to undermine the credibility of your posts here.

So why have these threads at all? Shouldn’t we just stop all political conversation because the Church has spoken and we all must vote Romney/Ryan?

Actually, that might not be a bad idea, I’d get more done.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

So why have these threads at all? Shouldn’t we just stop all political conversation because the Church has spoken and we all must vote Romney/Ryan?

Actually, that might not be a bad idea, I’d get more done.

I didn’t say that the Church has spoken and said that we must vote for Romney. It has spoken clearly that we can not vote for a pro-abortion and/or pro-gay so called marriage candidate-and that candidate in this election cycle is President Obama.

 

[Seeker1961]

I didn’t say that the Church has spoken and said that we must vote for Romney. It has spoken clearly that we can not vote for a pro-abortion and/or pro-gay so called marriage candidate-and that candidate in this election cycle is President Obama.

Which leaves us all with??

Sure, I can vote 3rd party or not vote on the President line at all but is that really what most people are going to do? Not to mention that anyone who says they are going to do that is told that is essentially the same as voting for Obama.

For most of America, even Carholic America, there are 2 choices-Romney/Ryan and Obama/Biden. If no Catholic can vote for Obama/Biden, then is it not a de facto order to vote for Romney/Ryan?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Which leaves us all with??

Sure, I can vote 3rd party or not vote on the President line at all but is that really what most people are going to do? Not to mention that anyone who says they are going to do that is told that is essentially the same as voting for Obama.

For most of America, even Carholic America, there are 2 choices-Romney/Ryan and Obama/Biden. If no Catholic can vote for Obama/Biden, then is it not a de facto order to vote for Romney/Ryan?

I reject your premise, so: nope.

 

[Seeker1961]

I reject your premise, so: nope.

Ok…so you reject my premise. Care to offer an alternative?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Romney acceptance speech most tweeted news event of 2012

news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-acceptance-speech-most-tweeted-news-event-2012-181548108–election.html

 

[estesbob]

Which leaves us all with??

Sure, I can vote 3rd party or not vote on the President line at all but is that really what most people are going to do? Not to mention that anyone who says they are going to do that is told that is essentially the same as voting for Obama.

For most of America, even Carholic America, there are 2 choices-Romney/Ryan and Obama/Biden. If no Catholic can vote for Obama/Biden, then is it not a de facto order to vote for Romney/Ryan?

Too bad that the Democrat Party has so embraced the culture of death that an observant Catholic has few choices when it comes to voting.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Too bad that the Democrat Party has so embraced the culture of death that an observant Catholic has few choices when it comes to voting.

Great point.

This is the problem, not the Church’s Teaching.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Ok…so you reject my premise. Care to offer an alternative?

Vote 3rd party, if you must. Although, it is entirely a possibility that such a vote, or sitting out the election will result in an Obama re-election.