Obama and Romney Hit Final Stretch Part 3

[Pork_Roll]

Goode is no good, per a respected Catholic theolgian friend of mine…he’s pro-torture. If you are going to go with ideal, you have to shoot a little higher.

Goode isn’t prefect, nobody is, BUT he doesn’t support intrinsically evil policies. Torture, like capital punishment, isn’t intrinsically evil. Abortion and gay adoption are intrinsically evil.

 

[He_Man]

Goode isn’t prefect, nobody is, BUT he doesn’t support intrinsically evil policies. Torture, like capital punishment, isn’t intrinsically evil. Abortion and gay adoption are intrinsically evil.

What if you torture gay adoption agencies?

 

[Tampa_Dave]

The Mormon Issue in Ohio
By John Fund
November 4, 2012 5:58 P.M.

Polls show the presidential race tied in Michigan and Pennsylvania. In Ohio, the polls show President Obama tied with Mitt Romney or with a statistically insignificant lead. What all three states have in common is a large Catholic population. While there is no distinctive Catholic vote (observant Catholics and white Catholics lean Republican while Latino Catholics and nominal Catholics lean Democratic), the key to victory this year may be which group of Catholics shows up in bigger numbers on Election Day.

**The latest Columbus Dispatch poll gives Romney a 55 percent to 44 percent lead with Catholics in Ohio. **
…

nationalreview.com/corner/332459/mormon-issue-ohio-john-fund#

 

[rlg94086]

Goode isn’t prefect, nobody is, BUT he doesn’t support intrinsically evil policies. Torture, like capital punishment, isn’t intrinsically evil. Abortion and gay adoption are intrinsically evil.

Some Catholics would disagree with you on torture. Capital punishment is a different matter. Bottom line, Goode isn’t good enough. And, based on your interpretation of Church teaching that you can only vote to lessen evil if there are no other options, then he isn’t the option…there is always another option. My theologian buddy wrote in Ron Paul, according to responses to me on his blog.

 

[rlg94086]

What if you torture gay adoption agencies?

We will have to submit that to the Ask an Apologist and see what Fr Serpa says…

 

[_Abyssinia]

Yes, you asked that.

Pew

The survey finds that Obama maintains his modest lead when the probable decisions of undecided voters are taken into account. Our final estimate of the national popular vote is Obama 50% and Romney 47%, when the undecided vote is allocated between the two candidates based on several indicators and opinions

Breitbart

Oddly, Pew takes the 4% undecideds and splits them evenly between the two candidates. This allows the to broadcast a 50-47 Obama lead, hitting the critical 50% threshold that has eluded Obama in most polling this year. It is highly unlikely, though, that undecideds break evenly.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Torture, like capital punishment, isn’t intrinsically evil. Abortion and gay adoption are intrinsically evil.

So we ought to embrace torture and the death penalty??

I think that those two, along with abortion, have no place in America.

 

[Cliff_Jumper]

Obviously it couldn’t because there are too few choices. But using what guidelines the church has given us, it’s clear you can’t vote for anyone who supports intrinsically evil policies with the exception of when there are no other choices. If we could only vote for either Romney or Obama, one could legitimately vote for Romney. But the fact that the Constitution Party offers at least one pro-life option, you shouldn’t vote for either Romney or Obama. At least that’s how I understand it.

Please don’t provide any unofficial voter guides or opinions by some ex-bishop of Galveston in 2004. They have as much standing as my opinion.

I am struggling with this a little. Obama is for every non-negotiable so he is out way out of the possibility of voting for.
However Romney stood for several non-negotiables when he served in public office and now is conveniently pro-life though not in cases of rape/incest/mother’s health (which call me jaded I frankly think is code for unlimited abortions given previous candidates records with this line) and pro traditional marriage. However, there is no real proof to back his claims up.

It would seem to me that without any real proof to trust Romney’s claims (i.e. sponsored bills, activities taken against Planned Parenthood, protesting abortion, actively pointing out the neglected enforcement of DOMA) that casting a vote for him is a big gamble.

This is why I decided to write in Rick Santorum/Alan Keyes this election. Of course now with so much at stake I feel that not voting for Romney will be sinful even if I write in Santorum/Keyes.

Is it okay to write in Santorum/Keyes? I understand Catholic teaching on voting and the non-negotiables.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think that those two, along with abortion, have no place in America.

It’s hard for me to imagine being pro life and denying a dignity of life from conception to natural death, or a loss of that dignity at the hands of torturers… Seems the world would really take us as seriously pro life if we stood for a dignity of all life from conception until natural death, including a respect of those in between.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

George Will predicts 321-217 Romney landslide
11:21 AM 11/04/2012

Add Washington Post George Will to the landslide column, along with Fox News Channel’s Dick Morris and the Washington Examiner’s Michael Barone. On this weekend’s broadcast of “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” on ABC, Will revealed his prediction and added a bonus surprise by saying traditional Democratic state Minnesota would go for Romney, as well. “I’m projecting Minnesota to go for Romney,” Will said. “It’s the only state that’s voted Democratic in nine consecutive elections, but this year, there’s the marriage amendment on the ballot that will bring out the evangelicals, and I think could make the difference.”

dailycaller.com/2012/11/04/george-will-predicts-321-217-romney-landslide/#ixzz2BJ4V4FgY

 

[Jeanne_S]

I am struggling with this a little. Obama is for every non-negotiable so he is out way out of the possibility of voting for.
However Romney stood for several non-negotiables when he served in public office and now is conveniently pro-life though not in cases of rape/incest/mother’s health (which call me jaded I frankly think is code for unlimited abortions given previous candidates records with this line) and pro traditional marriage. However, there is no real proof to back his claims up.

It would seem to me that without any real proof to trust Romney’s claims (i.e. sponsored bills, activities taken against Planned Parenthood, protesting abortion, actively pointing out the neglected enforcement of DOMA) that casting a vote for him is a big gamble.

This is why I decided to write in Rick Santorum/Alan Keyes this election. Of course now with so much at stake I feel that not voting for Romney will be sinful even if I write in Santorum/Keyes.

Is it okay to write in Santorum/Keyes? I understand Catholic teaching on voting and the non-negotiables.

You are called to vote your conscience.Yet,voting for anyone other than Romney,would essentially be a vote for Obama and you have stated that he is clearly not an option.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I am struggling with this a little. Obama is for every non-negotiable so he is out way out of the possibility of voting for.
However Romney stood for several non-negotiables when he served in public office and now is conveniently pro-life though not in cases of rape/incest/mother’s health (which call me jaded I frankly think is code for unlimited abortions given previous candidates records with this line) and pro traditional marriage. However, there is no real proof to back his claims up.

It would seem to me that without any real proof to trust Romney’s claims (i.e. sponsored bills, activities taken against Planned Parenthood, protesting abortion, actively pointing out the neglected enforcement of DOMA) that casting a vote for him is a big gamble.

This is why I decided to write in Rick Santorum/Alan Keyes this election. Of course now with so much at stake I feel that not voting for Romney will be sinful even if I write in Santorum/Keyes.

Is it okay to write in Santorum/Keyes? I understand Catholic teaching on voting and the non-negotiables.

Romney’s abortion conversion. Romney did not become pro life before he ran for president. He had a pro life record as governor. Romney vetoed a bill requiring Catholic hospitals to provide the morning after pill; Romney took actions to preserve traditional marriage and he has a pro life record

From the official Archdiocese of Boston official newspaper, the pilot

“In an apparent response” to "an open letter to Cardinal O’Malley and the Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts, accusing them of “promoting prejudice,” " sent by a group for gay marriage, “Gov. Mitt Romney held a press conference with traditional marriage supporters including Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley at the Statehouse on June 28”. In the press release, “Cardinal O’Malley said that society has a duty to pass on a strong institution of marriage for the good of future generations. The optimal place for children is a family of a father and mother in a permanent, loving, committed relationship which deserves to be protected by the state, he said. " “To redefine marriage as merely an arrangement among adults undermines the family and will have serious consequences in our future,” he added.”

Romney filed a bill that would exempt Boston’s Catholic Charities that they must provide adoption to lesbian and gay couples

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Hey! Did we forget the Bradley Effect?
1:52 AM 11/04/2012

Barack Obama clings to a narrow poll lead in the swing states. What might happen in the final days to change that result? Well, there’s the Incumbent Rule, which says that late-undecideds break overwhelmingly for challengers. Mark Blumenthal discusses and dismisses it here–though I’m sure Republicans would be happy to take Erikson and Wlezien’s alternative “frontrunner” rule, which says undecides break against whoever is in the lead. But OK, we’ll leave the Incumbent Rule to Dick Morris.

Has everyone suddenly forgotten about the equally potent Bradley Effect? The Bradley Effect was such a hot topic in 2008 that I dressed as it for Halloween (it was a fairly abstract costume). This year hardly anyone mentions it (with a few exceptions). Why? The Bradley Rule holds that voters will be reluctant to tell pollsters they are voting against an African-American for fear of being labelled racist. It allegedly hurt Tom Bradley in 1982 and Douglas Wilder in 1989. It didn’t seem to hurt Obama in 2008. But does that mean it won’t appear in 2012? Voters who were genuinely enthusiastic about Obama in 2008–and therefore told pollsters they were voting for him and voted for him–might have second thoughts in 2012, but be reluctant to express them for fear of either seeming cruel (to a pol they tend to like personally) or racist (last hired, first fired!). Forbes Rich Karlgaard notes that the more MSNBC hosts and other Dems label Obama opponents racists, the more they discourage disaffected, former Obama supporters from telling the truth to pollsters–i.e. the more they resurrect a Bradley Effect.

You’d think this would be a possibility pundits would take seriously right around … now. At the least it will give them something to talk about.

dailycaller.com/2012/11/04/hey-did-we-forget-the-bradley-effect/#ixzz2BJ7LwNq1

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

You are called to vote your conscience.Yet,voting for anyone other than Romney,would essentially be a vote for Obama and you have stated that he is clearly not an option.

Okay, but liberals tend to see a vote for a 3rd party candidateas a vote for Romney.

Besides, there are enough predictions of a Romney landslide that it won’t matter if one votes for Obama. He’ll be swept away no matter what. Right?

 

[rlg94086]

It’s hard for me to imagine being pro life and denying a dignity of life from conception to natural death, or a loss of that dignity at the hands of torturers… Seems the world would really take us as seriously pro life if we stood for a dignity of all life from conception until natural death, including a respect of those in between.

The argument can be made for capital punishment, though I’m mostly against it (still struggle in extreme cases, but, at a minimum, I’m for severely curtailing it), but I don’t see a good argument for torture.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Romney’s Pennsylvania volunteers: It’s for real

The Catholic vote in Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan

politico.com/news/stories/1112/83288_Page3.html#ixzz2BJ3HP9Sw

Romney’s pollster Neil Newhouse

Ohio, a state critical to both campaigns right now, according to sources familiar with the discussions. His internals had Romney slightly ahead toward the end of last week, multiple sources said

Morning Jay: Mitt’s Pennsylvania Push: Real or Fake?

Polls: This Mitt fellow is becoming more likeable by the day

twitter.com/philipaklein/status/265257272291254272

twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/265260252709142529

CNN national poll tied at 49%. Romney up 22 with independents. Sample is D+11 (was D+7 in 08, even in 2004/2010). Taken 11/2-4

Obama was up 3 in last poll

RT @SamFeistCNN: breaking: Final CNN-ORC National poll just released. Obama 49, Romney 49. Sampling error ± 3.5%

Mich. poll has Romney up 1 point

A new poll in Michigan has Mitt Romney leading by 1 point in a state that’s considered leaning toward President Obama.

The poll, conducted by Democratic polling firm Baydoun-Foster for Fox 2 News Detroit, has Romney up 47-46 on Obama. The same polling firm pegged the race in Michigan a tie in a survey late October.

The poll is the first in Michigan since August to give Romney a lead, however, while Obama holds a 3.8 percent lead in the Real Clear Politics polling average.

Baydoun-Foster’s Michigan polling has leaned more toward Romney than other Michigan surveys by several points throughout the final months of the campaign, a review of RCP’s Michigan polling shows.

people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/11-4-12%20Election%20Weekend%20Release.pdf

Pew

Voter turnout, which may be lower than in 2008 and 2004, remains one of Romney’s
strengths. Romney’s supporters continue to be more engaged in the election and interested in election news than Obama supporters, and are more committed to voting

 

[meltzerboy]

I’ll tell you who the Evangelical voter is going for. Likely more the 80 percent Romney- maybe higher.

Since the 80’s they are the solid base of the GOP.

I think the fact Romney is Mormon has not driven most Evangelicals away from voting for him, as was feared by many other conservatives. And that’s a good thing since I don’t believe religion should be a factor in any election.

 

[Pork_Roll]

So we ought to embrace torture and the death penalty??

I think that those two, along with abortion, have no place in America.

Not saying that. They are both wrong, more so with the death penalty I guess. Both are unnecessary in our modern times but both are not intrinsically evil. You could imagine a scenario where they could be used legitimately–like with gay-adoption agencies.

I think the fact Romney is Mormon has not driven most Evangelicals away from voting for him, as was feared by many other conservatives. And that’s a good thing since I don’t believe religion should be a factor in any election.

I don’t know about that. There are limits. Mormonism is at the cusp of being too weird for me. What about Scientology or Raëlism?

 

[meltzerboy]

George Will predicts 321-217 Romney landslide
11:21 AM 11/04/2012

Add Washington Post George Will to the landslide column, along with Fox News Channel’s Dick Morris and the Washington Examiner’s Michael Barone. On this weekend’s broadcast of “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” on ABC, Will revealed his prediction and added a bonus surprise by saying traditional Democratic state Minnesota would go for Romney, as well. “I’m projecting Minnesota to go for Romney,” Will said. “It’s the only state that’s voted Democratic in nine consecutive elections, but this year, there’s the marriage amendment on the ballot that will bring out the evangelicals, and I think could make the difference.”

dailycaller.com/2012/11/04/george-will-predicts-321-217-romney-landslide/#ixzz2BJ4V4FgY

I think I’ve changed my mind about the legalization of marijuana since it has evidently affected George Will’s judgment.

 

[Cliff_Jumper]

Thank you for the links _Abyssinia. Very interesting. It is good to know that his change was not just during an election. Although it still bothers me that he is for abortion in cases of rape/incest/ mother’s health. Seeing as how the mother’s health has been used as a wide catch-all for many reasons for abortion I wonder how lenient Romney will be with this.

Also Romney was pro-homosexual marriage. In '94 he presented himself as more effective for the homosexual population then Ted Kennedy and of course legalized homosexual marriage when he was governor. I am aware the state supreme court made the final ruling, but he refused to fight the ruling and simply accepted it.

Please do not mistake my comments as an attack. I am just trying to get some evidence that Romney is pro-life and pro-traditional marriage for real and not just on the surface. I am very scientific and like to have supporting evidence to claims. I can find clear evidence on these issues for Santorum and Keyes. The articles you attached helped me a lot. Thank you.