Replies

George W. Bush was the most pro-life president in our nation’s history, approving more executive orders, signing more laws, and using the bully pulpit more effectively than any other to send us down the road to end abortion someday. However, President Bush believed that abortion laws should have an exception for rape and incest, something with which I wholeheartedly disagree, given that the unborn child who is a product of rape or incest is no less human and no less deserving of the right to life.

I agree. I voted for President Bush as well. But, I wasn't voting for a "lesser of two evils" in my opinion. I believe George Bush was following his heart and trying to follow the Word of God; I don't feel lead that way about Mitt Romney. Also, President Bush is pro-RKBA; Mitt Romney is not. George Bush is pro-1man+1woman=marriage; Mitt Romney is not. George Bush was not afraid or ashamed to say the most influential person in his life was Jesus Christ; I haven't heard that from Mitt. George Bush is a big spender; so is Mitt Romney.

George Bush was not as pro-life as I would have liked; however, Mitt Romney ran in previous elections as pro-baby murder. His record is in support of baby murder. In this election Mitt has stated that he supports abortion in the cases where a woman's health is at risk. Does that mean to prevent morning sickness? What about headaches, back aches, or joint pain? It was intentionally ambiguous.

George Bush was not the most conservative President we've ever had, but he would be the 75-80% candidate. Comparing him to Mitt is an insult against the good causes President Bush championed.

If you think that I “chose evil” by supporting President Bush for the presidency (whom I hadn’t supported in the primaries, BTW; I voted for 100% pro-lifer Alan Keyes), then your mind is pretty messed up.

I don't think you chose evil by your vote. But I also take your vote in the context it is due (I laid out my viewpoint earlier). Mitt is not a 100% pro-lifer, an 80% pro-lifer, or even a 30% pro-lifer - he is not not pro-life at all....that is evil.

We should not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

I agree, but we should not call bad, good either. Mitt is not a good candidate. He is a snake in the grass that will say/do anything to get elected because it is "his turn." Or, to fill some Mormon "prophesey."

And, BTW, if you think that I support less-than-perfect candidates in the general election because a priest said that it was acceptable, you obviously don’t know squat about me, or about Roman Catholics in general.

Well, you got me there. You have an anonymous username, as do I, so I really don't know squat about you. But I do know that you posted a dissertation by a Catholic clergy member attempting to justify the acceptance of the lesser of two evils.....to me, that says you are justifying (at least in part) your vote for Mitt based on (some of) these principles. So far as Roman Catholics go, no I don't believe that they lock stock follow what a priest would say.

I am a Baptist, but would be deeply disgusted if people thought that meant I, or any others followed lock-stock (or hecll even at all) with the loons from Westboro Baptist (not saying the parish of the priest you posted is comparable to the idiots at WB).

My point is and has been, Mitt is not a pro-lifer; I cannot in good conscience support him or vote for him.

Mitt is pro-homo agenda; I cannot in good conscience support him or vote for him.

Mitt is pro-socialized medicine; I cannot in good conscience support him or vote for him.

Mitt is anti-RKBA; I cannot in good conscience support him or vote for him.

The GOP has sold out and chosen to spite and smite the base in order to make for a big tent. Say anything do anything and screw anything for a vote. They (I am categorically speaking of the GOPE Rovian types) no longer have any actual principles. They expect that the rest of us will compromise our values and principles; the things we hold most near and dear, and we will continue to vote for them. I cannot and will not support this.